Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TelinArtho 06-20-07, 10:45 AM	Fights of the Week: June 20th 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 The Iron Man tournament is complete. Congratulations to the finalists: 1st Place: SauroGrenom, Raskos the Jade Father (Phrenic Gray Elf Wizard 3/Kineticist 3/Cerebremancer 2) 2nd Place: MindWandererB, Besthirah Lafali (Wood Elf Werebat (Natural) Monk 3) 3rd Place: Erithmu and MindWandererB, The Arcane Hand - Owen Ir'Tolden (Human Abjurer 5/Red Wizard 3) and Silis Lueria (Gray Elf Rogue 3/Diviner 5) 4th Place: MindWandererB, Aerryl Nalladar (Sylvan Elf Druid 10) 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. Anyone who has a handle animal/purchased ally that doesn't conform to these rules will be soon eligible to be put in prison. Change them now to avoid such an ugly fate. 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!
Zevox 06-20-07, 10:57 AM	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/pruchased ally that doesn't conform to these rules is now eligible to be put in prison. Now now, don't get ahead of yourself there. Thats not quite true yet Telin - the ally rules in the rules thread are still the same. Once MWB changes them and announces such is when you can start imprisoning people for being in violation of the new rules. Zevox
TelinArtho 06-20-07, 11:02 AM	Better?
Rauul 06-20-07, 11:12 AM	Now now, don't get ahead of yourself there. Thats not quite true yet Telin - the ally rules in the rules thread are still the same. Once MWB changes them and announces such is when you can start imprisoning people for being in violation of the new rules. Zevox one little question on the HA rules... is there going to be a limit on animals or are we still going to have people bringing in 6 mules at ECL 3?
Zevox 06-20-07, 11:16 AM	one little question on the HA rules... is there going to be a limit on animals or are we still going to have people bringing in 6 mules at ECL 3? In the general sense, the answer is no, there is no new limit on how many you can bring in. The old rule is the only limit on that. In the specific sense, to my annoyance, Mules are actually not even allowed until ECL 4 anymore (don't ask me why), so that specific scenario has to wait a level to occur now. And to be nitpicky, that question has nothing to do with the handle animal rules, since Mules are purchased allies. Zevox
templer10 06-20-07, 11:17 AM	If i remmber correctly the Elite array discussion got resoved with No cahnge from current rules - if so what is written in the top post is wrong (it say +2 Minimum ECL).
Rauul 06-20-07, 11:23 AM	Graashnak pulls up a chair and drinks an Ale... so what elf will i get put against this week... I suspect one of Niqil's peons.. take a month off and come back to all elves in ECL 5 league.. Graashnak rubs his hands together.. let the elf slaughter begin
Zevox 06-20-07, 11:25 AM	Graashnak pulls up a chair and drinks an Ale... so what elf will i get put against this week... I suspect one of Niqil's peons.. take a month off and come back to all elves in ECL 5 league.. Graashnak rubs his hands together.. let the elf slaughter begin I thought he was going on Mitza's campaign? Isn't that starting today? Zevox
Rauul 06-20-07, 11:28 AM	I thought he was going on Mitza's campaign? Isn't that starting today? Zevox I thought it started on the 27th... next week.. figured i would get in 1 last elf whooping before he had to play nice...
SauroGrenom 06-20-07, 11:54 AM	Now now, don't get ahead of yourself there. Thats not quite true yet Telin - the ally rules in the rules thread are still the same. Once MWB changes them and announces such is when you can start imprisoning people for being in violation of the new rules. Zevox Yea Kracknol's going to need some major revisions when that goes through. I assume that since we've just voted, and the rules haven't been edited, those changes go into effect next week. All this week there will be time to request changes in the character changes thread, and then characters will be expected to follow the new rules for pairings on 27th.
templer10 06-20-07, 01:00 PM	Yea Kracknol's going to need some major revisions when that goes through. I assume that since we've just voted, and the rules haven't been edited, those changes go into effect next week. All this week there will be time to request changes in the character changes thread, and then characters will be expected to follow the new rules for pairings on 27th. Bump on my question about Elite array - from teh council discussion it's left as it is now - so +1 CR (so +1 ECL) - the list telin put up shows it as +2 ECL. Also - what do we do with existing chars? refund credits/gold?
Zevox 06-20-07, 01:06 PM	Bump on my question about Elite array - from teh council discussion it's left as it is now - so +1 CR (so +1 ECL) - the list telin put up shows it as +2 ECL. Also - what do we do with existing chars? refund credits/gold? The last situation in the council put it at 3 Elders for keeping it as-is, only 1 for increasing it to +2 CR, and 1 for removing it, so the result is that is kept as-is. For existing characters, yes, post in the training hall requestin refunds. Credits will not get refunded unless you haven't used the ally/item in question, though. Zevox
templer10 06-20-07, 01:08 PM	The last situation in the council put it at 3 Elders for keeping it as-is, only 1 for increasing it to +2 CR, and 1 for removing it, so the result is that is kept as-is. For existing characters, yes, post in the training hall requestin refunds. Credits will not get refunded unless you haven't used the ally/item in question, though. Zevox Telin should correct that post in the beginning of this thread to reflect upgrading to elite array is only +1 ECL.
TelinArtho 06-20-07, 01:15 PM	Except it is not my post to correct... that's Sauro's post.
TelinArtho 06-20-07, 01:23 PM	Although MWB hasn't mentioned anything yet - it is probably a good idea to bring it up now - it looks like we are short on pitlords again.
templer10 06-20-07, 01:29 PM	Although MWB hasn't mentioned anything yet - it is probably a good idea to bring it up now - it looks like we are short on pitlords again. i cant really volunteer for more - my work is murder - But ill gladly do inter leage fights with my Higher ECL chars - saves a pitlord or 2 this way.
Sjiggie 06-20-07, 01:33 PM	Although MWB hasn't mentioned anything yet - it is probably a good idea to bring it up now - it looks like we are short on pitlords again. Already sent a PM to pitlords to add me to the pitlord roster once more.
Rauul 06-20-07, 01:37 PM	Although MWB hasn't mentioned anything yet - it is probably a good idea to bring it up now - it looks like we are short on pitlords again. wish i could.. but till further notice i can't pitlord.. as i stated last week.. also finally was able to PM pitlords... Sorry guys..
MindWandererB 06-20-07, 02:06 PM	Now now, don't get ahead of yourself there. Thats not quite true yet Telin - the ally rules in the rules thread are still the same. Once MWB changes them and announces such is when you can start imprisoning people for being in violation of the new rules. Zevox I've changed the rules now. Since the deadline is in 1 hour, I don't expect anyone to have made the corrections yet for this week. They go into effect next Wednesday. HD advancement and feat customization were removed as well, per Council discussion. Skill customization was left in (not that almost anyone ever does it anyway), and I clarified Elite stats to add +1 CR and +1 minimal ECL. I probably missed a few things, especially if there are erroneous references elsewhere in the rules. You can point them out in the Updates thread.
MindWandererB 06-20-07, 03:48 PM	Current pairings status: Pitlords needed: 22. Fights covered: 15, plus Zevox at <max>. Since seven fights is probably a tad much for poor Zeev, I could use a few more volunteers.
templer10 06-20-07, 03:50 PM	Current pairings status: Pitlords needed: 22. Fights covered: 15, plus Zevox at <max>. Since seven fights is probably a tad much for poor Zeev, I could use a few more volunteers. how many you got me down so far? 2 or 3? if you switch some around so i dont get something 2 complicated i can take 1 more.
Sjiggie 06-20-07, 03:51 PM	Current pairings status: Pitlords needed: 22. Fights covered: 15, plus Zevox at <max>. Since seven fights is probably a tad much for poor Zeev, I could use a few more volunteers. Give me an extra fight I have the time for it this week.
MindWandererB 06-20-07, 04:01 PM	how many you got me down so far? 2 or 3? if you switch some around so i dont get something 2 complicated i can take 1 more. I have you down as 2 with an offer of +1. Do you really want to take 4? Consider also that we have several inexperienced pitlords, so get first "dibs" on easy fights.
SauroGrenom 06-20-07, 04:01 PM	Current pairings status: Pitlords needed: 22. Fights covered: 15, plus Zevox at <max>. Since seven fights is probably a tad much for poor Zeev, I could use a few more volunteers. I'll take one this week. It can be complicated if you need it to be. Don't put me on for a fight every week though. I've got surgery on my hand for the 28th. I'm not sure of my typing ability after that for a few days. Then there's the rapid fire weeks of moving to a new city before July 20th and all the confusions associated with that.
MitzaVolchenko 06-20-07, 04:04 PM	I can take max 3, No MQ's, Missions, or Q's. Edit: And I am stoned out of my mind on drugs at the moment (chemo day), so please be kind with what you decide to hand me...no I don't want a rematch of Liara vs. Mohmat :P
Hirumajoe 06-20-07, 04:04 PM	I can take a single 1 on 1 fight if that helps.
templer10 06-20-07, 04:06 PM	I have you down as 2 with an offer of +1. Do you really want to take 4? Consider also that we have several inexperienced pitlords, so get first "dibs" on easy fights. "Want" no - But if you have no other option... What about just reducing number of fights by making more team ups? if you got some monster fights feel free to send them my way - i can get that done in a hurry.
templer10 06-20-07, 04:08 PM	I can take max 3, No MQ's, Missions, or Q's. Edit: And I am stoned out of my mind on drugs at the moment (chemo day), so please be kind with what you decide to hand me...no I don't want a rematch of Liara vs. Mohmat :P pff - you should have seen the Maya Vs elrick fight from couple of weeks back - poor telin almost killed himself back then - 20 or charges of vigor dorja, need i say more?
Usurpator 06-20-07, 04:09 PM	I'll take one fight.
Korone 06-20-07, 04:12 PM	I'll volunteer again to pitlord an ECL 3 fight this week.
MitzaVolchenko 06-20-07, 04:23 PM	pff - you should have seen the Maya Vs elrick fight from couple of weeks back - poor telin almost killed himself back then - 20 or charges of vigor dorja, need i say more? Kracknol's 13th fight. Sauro trying to make me cry. NBG laughing at me being close to tears. Macbrea patiently listening to me scream in frustration. The drama don't get no better than that. These days I'd be ready for it...then I was a virgin pitlord scared to death of messing up. @Sauro I just deleted the 6 text doc files of that fight and the 2 text doc files of copied arguments from you about it a few weeks ago :)
MindWandererB 06-20-07, 04:24 PM	Thanks to all who volunteered. I'm always impressed at how you can all put a little bit more in when it's crunch time. @Usurpator and Korone: Your offers went up after I had enough, but thanks anyway. You can take pickups or exchanges. ...so if I need to spell it out, pairings are done. It's a slightly unusual week....
TelinArtho 06-20-07, 04:24 PM	pff - you should have seen the Maya Vs elrick fight from couple of weeks back - poor telin almost killed himself back then - 20 or charges of vigor dorja, need i say more? That one wasn't too bad actually. The kicker one that always stands in my mind was a very long time ago... Anya Starfire vs Perius Only 71 rounds, but it was a Wilder vs Wilder fight with crossbows... It was also one of my earlier fights (okay - my 44th...), so I wasn't as good about taking shortcuts. This was also before the online roller and mapper were available...
waywreth 06-20-07, 04:26 PM	So my first 10th level fight for Gaston, and he gets to fight a druid in a forest? I can't see that going all to well.
TelinArtho 06-20-07, 04:27 PM	Ialgo vs Psyker Elfbane - those two just met up last week - any chance to change that pairing?
MindWandererB 06-20-07, 04:34 PM	Ialgo vs Psyker Elfbane - those two just met up last week - any chance to change that pairing? Sure. Tatsuo (Adolfo_Mondschein) vs. Ialgo (TelinArtho) : Khaim [Arena] Gradak Tumblebelly (Sjiggie) vs. Psyker Elfbane (Khaim) : UserNamer [Arena] Credits: Abyssal Stalker: F1 Erithmu: F1 Khaim: F1 Macbrea: F1 MitzaVolchenko: F2 Sjiggie: F2 TelinArtho: F4 G1 A-4 templer10: F3 A-1 UserNamer: F3 Zevox: F4 G1 A-3 Hirumajoe: F1 Malither76: Q2 A-1 MindWandererB: A1 G1 Q2 Q-1 A-2 NiQil: A1 A-2 SauroGrenom: F1 A1 C3 G1 SoulLord: Q-1 TheMagister: G1 Usurpator: A-1 Vathelokai: A1 G1 Q2 A-1
hogarth 06-20-07, 04:35 PM	That one wasn't too bad actually. The kicker one that always stands in my mind was a very long time ago... Anya Starfire vs Perius Only 71 rounds, but it was a Wilder vs Wilder fight with crossbows... It was also one of my earlier fights (okay - my 44th...), so I wasn't as good about taking shortcuts. This was also before the online roller and mapper were available... How about Noko vs. Sunstroke (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10661573#post10661573)? The sniping, low-damage pixie vs. the monk with Deflect Arrows, a wand of Cure Light Wounds and a dorje of Vigor. 175 rounds of spine-tingling entertainment! That basically turned me off of pitlording on a regular basis. :weep:
templer10 06-20-07, 04:45 PM	so me + mitza Vs a full fledged Evoker - err - that should be.... fun....
MindWandererB 06-20-07, 04:49 PM	so me + mitza Vs a full fledged Evoker - err - that should be.... fun.... I was more focused on the fact that it's your undefeated character and Mitza's Failure against her average-rated boyfriend... (not that these assignments are anything but random... but I laughed when that one came up. As I laughed when I saw the ECL 10 team fight).
templer10 06-20-07, 04:52 PM	I was more focused on the fact that it's your undefeated character and Mitza's Failure against her average-rated boyfriend... (not that these assignments are anything but random... but I laughed when that one came up. As I laughed when I saw the ECL 10 team fight). well i do have a gazzilon PPS for this fight.... ECL 10 team fight - thank god iam not zevox...
Macbrea 06-20-07, 04:59 PM	@Telin: Relanex's tactics have been sent. And he has some pretty easy tactics.. DPS for the win!
MitzaVolchenko 06-20-07, 05:12 PM	@Telin: Relanex's tactics have been sent. And he has some pretty easy tactics.. DPS for the win! Relanex ThinesECL 9 (Macbrea) vs. Longshot (templer10) and Sybil ap Kalten (MitzaVolchenko) : TelinArtho [Temple] [Inter-League] I'd rather have Zwei as Sybil's partner, but we'll see what we can do :)
Zevox 06-20-07, 05:12 PM	Kathren Durrol (Zevox) vs. Borodin Brightaxe (Usurpator) : UserNamer [Arena] Another full plate wearing Dwarf Cleric? Well, at least this one has a way to catch Kathren I suppose. Might be more interesting than the last. Torel Silvanus (Erithmu) vs. Arden Tarmik (Zevox) : TelinArtho [Temple] Hm, temple eh? I was hoping for the sewer, but at least its not the plains or forest I suppose. Time for a real test of Arden's power - can he overcome a spell-lobber with summons and a pet, all while worrying about having his buffs dispelled? That'll be a fun one to write tactics for, I think. Zevox
Zevox 06-20-07, 05:14 PM	ECL 10 team fight - thank god iam not zevox... Eh, I rarely find team fights to be a problem, unless they're in huge maps like the city or forest. This one is in the smallest of all maps, the cavern, so it should actually be fun. Zevox
Erithmu 06-20-07, 05:14 PM	Another full plate wearing Dwarf Cleric? Well, at least this one has a way to catch Kathren I suppose. Might be more interesting than the last. Hm, temple eh? I was hoping for the sewer, but at least its not the plains or forest I suppose. Time for a real test of Arden's power - can he overcome a spell-lobber with summons and a pet, all while worrying about having his buffs dispelled? That'll be a fun one to write tactics for, I think. ZevoxAgreed ... I think Temple is probably the best set up for you ... Sewer only slightly less due to the cramped spaces. Might get tactics out today, but probably tonight.
Zevox 06-20-07, 05:16 PM	Agreed ... I think Temple is probably the best set up for you ... Sewer only slightly less due to the cramped spaces. Might get tactics out today, but probably tonight. Oh no, the sewer would be better. No Bat for you down there. Zevox
Erithmu 06-20-07, 05:18 PM	Oh no, the sewer would be better. No Bat for you down there. Zevox yea .. but I can still out maneuver your armored 30ft speed in the sewers ... the temple is a little more tricky.
TelinArtho 06-20-07, 05:19 PM	@'Rith - Tactics for Sir Valkin sent. @Mitza - tactics for Darrgon sent.
SauroGrenom 06-20-07, 05:21 PM	WMB, Raskos is crafting this week... His Title Line reads: ECL10: Ready for June 20 Full Activity Crafting He's crafting 1 week of 1.
Zevox 06-20-07, 05:29 PM	yea .. but I can still out maneuver your armored 30ft speed in the sewers ... the temple is a little more tricky. Um, you have a speed of only 40ft. Since you can't double move and attack without your mount, it wouldn't be hard for a double-moving Arden to catch you. Plus, he has powerstones of skate hes never had the opportunity to use. Zevox
Erithmu 06-20-07, 05:33 PM	Um, you have a speed of only 40ft. Since you can't double move and attack without your mount, it wouldn't be hard for a double-moving Arden to catch you. Plus, he has powerstones of skate hes never had the opportunity to use. Zevox Summer classes are killing my ability to talk trash ... it's very sad ... Either way ... should be a good fight ... much like Ceilia's but hopefully with a better result for me.
Zevox 06-20-07, 05:36 PM	Summer classes are killing my ability to talk trash ... it's very sad ... Either way ... should be a good fight ... much like Ceilia's but hopefully with a better result for me. Oh, I sure hope not - if Arden manages to win this one, he'll have enough money to buy his Winged Boots at last, and I'm really looking forward to that. Zevox
Usurpator 06-20-07, 05:51 PM	- Should I be held, Starlight should, according to this article, run away from Denthik until I can resume control of her. Should you be held and your horse runs away, you will drop from the horse like the dead weight you are. Ever tried to ride a horse without being able to hold on or shift your weight? It can't be done, even the slightest shift in balance would cause you to drop from the saddle.
MitzaVolchenko 06-20-07, 05:53 PM	Hmmm no fight for Zwei?
Sjiggie 06-20-07, 06:08 PM	@ UserNamer Tactics for Gradak (vs Psyker) have been sent. 2 snipe builds facing of against eachother not a fight I want to run
Zevox 06-20-07, 06:52 PM	Should you be held and your horse runs away, you will drop from the horse like the dead weight you are. Ever tried to ride a horse without being able to hold on or shift your weight? It can't be done, even the slightest shift in balance would cause you to drop from the saddle. Perhaps in reality, but theres rules for such in the game. You'd get a ride check to stay on, which is a measely DC 5 and gets +2 from a military saddle, or a chance to fall off as if you had fallen unconscious, which a military saddle reduces to a meager 25%. Not exactly an automatic no matter how you look at it. Edit: Either way, I think we may no longer be using Rules of the Game, so the horse running thing may no longer happen. Zevox
amalcon 06-20-07, 07:36 PM	@Sjiggie: Tactics sent for Saldor Amalcon vs. Inzin Dar'Ath
Zevox 06-20-07, 07:43 PM	@ Telin - Tactics for Arden Tarmik (vs Torel Silvanus) have been PMed. First time in a while I've had to send 2 PMs for one fight, but thats what happens with a Druid that forces so many contingencies on ya. Man, if that fight goes like I expect to and Arden wins, he should get officially declared a one-man army. Edit: And the great thing is, I think theres fair odds he can do that, too. Zevox
Malither76 06-20-07, 08:03 PM	well since Raskos is crafting looks like Gareth will get a monster, but thats ok I like monster fights and in the cavern we can beat the crap out of each other. Maybe another time for Raskos and Gareth, Actually Sauro I don't know if your interested but I plan on questing next week with Gareth would you want to tag along with Raskos, it could be fun let me know
MitzaVolchenko 06-20-07, 08:45 PM	well since Raskos is crafting looks like Gareth will get a monster, but thats ok I like monster fights and in the cavern we can beat the crap out of each other. Maybe another time for Raskos and Gareth, Actually Sauro I don't know if your interested but I plan on questing next week with Gareth would you want to tag along with Raskos, it could be fun let me know Hmmm...wanna fight Zwei? 90hp's is a lot for her to mow through, but she would still have a chance, and I want to finish out her 3FC.
Malither76 06-20-07, 09:02 PM	I would rather fight a monster I can kill Zwei with one charge attack and the rewards are not worth it, And I don't want to be shot at 70 or 80 times. Sorry
Erithmu 06-20-07, 09:15 PM	@Telin: Tactics for Torel sent.
NiQil 06-20-07, 09:19 PM	@ MWB: Apocalypse (NiQil) vs. Yakov (Korone) : TelinArtho [Arena] Apocalypse was not set to ready this week. He must have an old subject line. You may want to reassign Korone's player into the slot of the ECL monster fight. Edit: Also, that means ya owe me a credit back.
MitzaVolchenko 06-20-07, 09:21 PM	I would rather fight a monster I can kill Zwei with one charge attack and the rewards are not worth it, And I don't want to be shot at 70 or 80 times. Sorry She outmoves ya, hon. And she outhides your spot. And she out stealths your listen...ya can only dimension slide so many times. You are right however that your rewards wouldn't be worth it...a shame, I would kinda like to see that fight. As it is folks that weren't supposed to get fights have them and poor Zwei doesn't even get a mention :(
MindWandererB 06-20-07, 09:22 PM	WMB, Raskos is crafting this week... His Title Line reads: ECL10: Ready for June 20 Full Activity Crafting He's crafting 1 week of 1.That's why I ask for you to mention FULL ACTIVITY so I don't miss it.Hmmm no fight for Zwei?Huh... I have no idea how that happened. All right: Unknown Monster vs. Yakov (Korone) : TelinArtho [Arena] Zwei und'Vierzig (MitzaVolchenko) vs. Unknown Monster : Usurpator[Sewer] Gareth Irontower (Malither76) vs. Unknown Monster : Macbrea [Cavern]
Korone 06-20-07, 09:52 PM	A monster fight ? Right on !
Macbrea 06-20-07, 09:59 PM	@Malither76: Gareth monster description is up.... Large Monster
SauroGrenom 06-20-07, 11:38 PM	That's why I ask for you to mention FULL ACTIVITY so I don't miss it. But I did say "Full Activity"... I suppose I should make it in all CAPITAL LETTERS next time.
hogarth 06-20-07, 11:42 PM	But I did say "Full Activity"... I suppose I should make it in all CAPITAL LETTERS next time. That's exactly what MWB told me to do last time he missed one of mine -- he hasn't missed one since I started doing it!
NiQil 06-21-07, 12:17 AM	@ SauroGrenom: Tactics for Taren Rune sent via PM @ Zevox: Tactics for Truls Rohk sent via PM @ templer10: Tactics for Tyden Rayn sent via PM @ Vath: Tired of facing my creations yet? 5 of your 6 fights are against me so far with Ninja. Also, your record on the Roster is incorrect...it shows you with two losses, not one. @ Usurpator: Congratulations on your victory for Flamehair. It will take a minor miracle for Truls to pull that battle out... @ Sjiggie: 23 x 15 = 345 + 25 = 370. Step away from the bow.
stimpydoda 06-21-07, 12:35 AM	@Sjiggie - Tactics for Sarai sent. @Templer10 - Tactics for Lycidas sent.
Abyssal Stalker 06-21-07, 12:41 AM	So I suppose Kracknol is still allowed to bring in his "CR6" griffon to the team fight?
Zevox 06-21-07, 12:55 AM	So I suppose Kracknol is still allowed to bring in his "CR6" griffon to the team fight? This week, yep. Next week, it becomes illegal. Zevox
Zevox 06-21-07, 12:56 AM	That's exactly what MWB told me to do last time he missed one of mine -- he hasn't missed one since I started doing it! I've always done that for full activities, and never had one missed either, so its certainly a method that works. Zevox
Vathelokai 06-21-07, 01:11 AM	@Sauro: tactics for Unholy Ninja are out. @ Vath: Tired of facing my creations yet? 5 of your 6 fights are against me so far with Ninja. Also, your record on the Roster is incorrect...it shows you with two losses, not one. Thanks for pointing out the record error. Nah; not tired of it yet. I think you have me at a slight advantage; I fight a different one of yours each week, but you know Ninja's abilities inside and out, not to mention my usual tactics. I'm even thinking of writing it into her backstory; chasing all your characters down vigalante style!
MindWandererB 06-21-07, 02:31 AM	@ Vath: Tired of facing my creations yet? 5 of your 6 fights are against me so far with Ninja. Also, your record on the Roster is incorrect...it shows you with two losses, not one.Fixed.
Usurpator 06-21-07, 03:46 AM	Perhaps in reality, but theres rules for such in the game. You'd get a ride check to stay on, which is a measely DC 5 and gets +2 from a military saddle, or a chance to fall off as if you had fallen unconscious, which a military saddle reduces to a meager 25%. Not exactly an automatic no matter how you look at it. Edit: Either way, I think we may no longer be using Rules of the Game, so the horse running thing may no longer happen. Zevox True, but personally I don't think you can make Ride checks when held anymore than you can make, say, Swim, Climb or Balance checks, since you have to actively do something to make Ride checks. Anyway, if they are allowed, a held character will surely count as having 0 Dex, and thus being at -5 to the check.
Usurpator 06-21-07, 03:57 AM	@ Usurpator: Congratulations on your victory for Flamehair. It will take a minor miracle for Truls to pull that battle out.... It's just better odds, not a garantueed victory. One critical can swing it. Truls has slightly better AC, a higher attack bonus, Flamehair has slightly damage (adding in Truls psychic strike). Tripping is probable but not garantueed. Truls will get in at least one ranged attack extra.
Rauul 06-21-07, 04:51 AM	@UserNamer Tactics for Shadow sent!!
Sjiggie 06-21-07, 06:22 AM	@ Sjiggie: 23 x 15 = 345 + 25 = 370. Step away from the bow. I'm sorry NiQil but I don't understand what you are trying to say :confused:
Salrantol 06-21-07, 07:47 AM	@UserNamer: Tactics for Felice tu`Ria vs. the Shadow sent via PM. @Zevox: Tactics for Enoch the Prophet vs. Lord Lorian sent via PM.
SauroGrenom 06-21-07, 08:24 AM	well since Raskos is crafting looks like Gareth will get a monster, but thats ok I like monster fights and in the cavern we can beat the crap out of each other. Maybe another time for Raskos and Gareth, Actually Sauro I don't know if your interested but I plan on questing next week with Gareth would you want to tag along with Raskos, it could be fun let me know I've already been talking with Erithmu, and I've announced in the guild CAP this week that Raskos is questing next week. In fact, if Zevox is lenient, it may be not too late to ask for an edit to the last weeks CAP and invite Gareth to accompany Raskos. That's just more guild points processing for PSI. We'd have to run that buy Erithmu as well. In the future, let me know if you plan on questing with a character. The guild can take advantage of that, and we can organize our participants into teams.
Erithmu 06-21-07, 08:43 AM	I've already been talking with Erithmu, and I've announced in the guild CAP this week that Raskos is questing next week. In fact, if Zevox is lenient, it may be not too late to ask for an edit to the last weeks CAP and invite Gareth to accompany Raskos. That's just more guild points processing for PSI. We'd have to run that buy Erithmu as well. In the future, let me know if you plan on questing with a character. The guild can take advantage of that, and we can organize our participants into teams.It is fine by me ... I had the encounters sketched out, so I would need to rewrite them, but I have enough lead time.
NiQil 06-21-07, 09:42 AM	I'm sorry NiQil but I don't understand what you are trying to say :confused: That was my attempt at veiled humor by trying to coerce you into not using your speed advantage to make our match a bow vs bow affair. Since I would have nothing else to do with my pp in that scenerio, I would be able to manifest 23 1 pp Wild Surged Vigors, giving a total of 345 hp + my 25 normal hp...meaning in that scenerio you would have to chew through 370 hp to win that type of match. I wouldn't want to put templer through that LOL.
Sjiggie 06-21-07, 09:45 AM	Well to let you know my bow isn't even mentioned in my tactics because I thought of that situation. I don't think I can win this fight but let's hope for some help from the dice gods *Prays to the dice gods to only rolls 20's for Valanthe* ;)
templer10 06-21-07, 09:47 AM	That was my attempt at veiled humor by trying to coerce you into not using your speed advantage to make our match a bow vs bow affair. Since I would have nothing else to do with my pp in that scenerio, I would be able to manifest 23 1 pp Wild Surged Vigors, giving a total of 345 hp + my 25 normal hp...meaning in that scenerio you would have to chew through 370 hp to win that type of match. I wouldn't want to put templer through that LOL. he didnt lol (niqil already sent tactics) - i'll run it later today i hope since it's the first full set i recieved i think and it realyl shouldnt take that long. well - after i write my own tactics anyway - which consists this week of blasting a lot really... (evoker, hundead horde guy with no undead horde due to me killing it all last week, and someone else i forgot).
UserNamer 06-21-07, 10:14 AM	Felice vs. Shadow done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12804408&postcount=993)
UserNamer 06-21-07, 10:15 AM	@Sjiggie: tactics for gradak recevied
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 10:16 AM	@Korone - monster info is up. You are fighting 1 medium sized centaur-like creature.
Macbrea 06-21-07, 10:21 AM	Gareth Irontower vs 1 Noble Fire Salamander in the Cavern is up.
Salrantol 06-21-07, 10:57 AM	Felice vs. Shadow done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12804408&postcount=993)You seemed to have Felice's powers confused. You had her making touch attacks to land Energy Missile, which has no touch attack involved, but a save instead. And, as far as choosing the energy type for the Energy Missile from the stone, the only Energy Missile type mentioned in the tactics is cold. Fire was the type for the Energy Ray.
Zevox 06-21-07, 11:19 AM	True, but personally I don't think you can make Ride checks when held anymore than you can make, say, Swim, Climb or Balance checks, since you have to actively do something to make Ride checks. Anyway, if they are allowed, a held character will surely count as having 0 Dex, and thus being at -5 to the check. That last is certainly true. But its not as bad as you may think - even Kathren, who is a bit light on ride ranks at this level, would then have a ride mod of 3 ranks -5 dex +2 saddle = +0 to stay in the saddle, which gives her an 80% chance of making a DC 5 check. So, either a ride check she has an 80% chance to make or a flat 75% chance to stay on as though she were unconscious - take your pick. Zevox
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 11:34 AM	Ialgo's and Berri's tactics have been sent. I think that's the last of them.
waywreth 06-21-07, 11:36 AM	Tactics for Gaston and Inzin sent to the respective pitlords via PM.
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 11:59 AM	@'Rith - clarification request sent. I will try to proceed without it - but I can wait for a bit.
Korone 06-21-07, 12:09 PM	@TelinArtho : Tactics for Yakov has been sent. @ Sjiggie : Tactics for Atemu has been sent.
Erithmu 06-21-07, 12:12 PM	@'Rith - clarification request sent. I will try to proceed without it - but I can wait for a bit. Reply sent ... class is a little slow today ...
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 12:41 PM	@'Rith and Zevox - I know your fight is in the temple - I just screwed up when I created the session on the roller. So when you see that it says "In the cavern" - just pretend that when I said "the cavern" I was templating the temple map as a natural cavern with an outlet of lava and the statues are really impressive stalagmites...
NiQil 06-21-07, 12:51 PM	@'Rith and Zevox - I know your fight is in the temple - I just screwed up when I created the session on the roller. So when you see that it says "In the cavern" - just pretend that when I said "the cavern" I was templating the temple map as a natural cavern with an outlet of lava and the statues are really impressive stalagmites... Talk about spinning something...:P
UserNamer 06-21-07, 01:17 PM	You seemed to have Felice's powers confused. You had her making touch attacks to land Energy Missile, which has no touch attack involved, but a save instead. And, as far as choosing the energy type for the Energy Missile from the stone, the only Energy Missile type mentioned in the tactics is cold. Fire was the type for the Energy Ray. My mistake, but u still miss, because your tactics say to attack with a energy ray(fire) if he's within 20ft, witch he is. Your focus would only give a +1, so the first attack is still a miss, the second however should be an energy missile, witch hits, so lemme roll the damage for that. Will be done in about 10 mins.
UserNamer 06-21-07, 01:23 PM	You seemed to have Felice's powers confused. You had her making touch attacks to land Energy Missile, which has no touch attack involved, but a save instead. And, as far as choosing the energy type for the Energy Missile from the stone, the only Energy Missile type mentioned in the tactics is cold. Fire was the type for the Energy Ray. Done, check it out.
Salrantol 06-21-07, 01:35 PM	My only other comment would be that I think Shadow should get a chance to see Felice one square earlier in round 3. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=temple;a=Name,M,15,2,8, 2;b=Name,M,7,4;los=8,2,7,4,3 I think she's still got cover, so he'll have to make a spot check, but if he does, he'll get to shoot from that square, and thus, to snipe and see if he can avoid detection.
UserNamer 06-21-07, 02:06 PM	That would change the fight completely, so I'll finish it some other day. Edit: No it wouldn't he's spotted, just rolled it.
Usurpator 06-21-07, 02:14 PM	Size and rough description (like 'huge monster') About monster fights: I noticed that basic Monster Knowledge doesn't normally give the number of opponents, is that right? And what is a 'rough description'. I mean, the example given, calling it a *monster* is not a rough description. Everything on the list is a monster. If you omit it, no information is actually lost.
Rauul 06-21-07, 02:15 PM	My only real problem with the fight... is the fact that you moved a fast and mobile archer to close range.. when He knew where she was when taking the original shot with the Bow.. Needing a 20 to hit means nothing when she can't touch him with her powers.. and forces her into the open.. and or uses up all her pp's.. If he needs a 20 at 110 ft he needs the same 20 at 170ft.. why have a 60 move archer move into where she can use all her short range powers... when in my tactics I specificly said NOT to do that.. If i wanted to move in close... I could of just sent surrender tactics.. and saved everyone alot of time... I don't see how much simpler my tactics could of been... stay at distance, heal to full after eating an energy attack, wash rinse and repeat.. and never close in so she can use her short range powers.. make her use that level 2 power that eats 3pps a blast....
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 02:23 PM	About monster fights: I noticed that basic Monster Knowledge doesn't normally give the number of opponents, is that right? And what is a 'rough description'. I mean, the example given, calling it a *monster* is not a rough description. Everything on the list is a monster. If you omit it, no information is actually lost. Well, that's probably just an ommision that everyone ignores. I think everyone who runs monster fights generally includes the number of opponents.
UserNamer 06-21-07, 02:23 PM	My only real problem with the fight... is the fact that you moved a fast and mobile archer to close range.. when He knew where she was when taking the original shot with the Bow.. Needing a 20 to hit means nothing when she can't touch him with her powers.. and forces her into the open.. and or uses up all her pp's.. If he needs a 20 at 110 ft he needs the same 20 at 170ft.. why have a 60 move archer move into where she can use all her short range powers... when in my tactics I specificly said NOT to do that.. If i wanted to move in close... I could of just sent surrender tactics.. and saved everyone alot of time... I don't see how much simpler my tactics could of been... stay at distance, heal to full after eating an energy attack, wash rinse and repeat.. and never close in so she can use her short range powers.. make her use that level 2 power that eats 3pps a blast.... Sorry, but I had to move to some direction, you wrote in your tactics to single move, but not in witch direction, so I just took clock-wise and you had 60ft movement. There's is no problem with a rerun if you both accept, though I don't know what to do even if I rerun it. What else could I do? I just moved your character clock-wise, he met her, he shot, then he tried to run away after taking damage from the missile.
Salrantol 06-21-07, 02:24 PM	My only real problem with the fight... is the fact that you moved a fast and mobile archer to close range.. when He knew where she was when taking the original shot with the Bow.The only time he was in close range was right when he spotted her. As soon as he'd fired his shot, he moved away again and kept moving away.
Rauul 06-21-07, 02:59 PM	The only time he was in close range was right when he spotted her. As soon as he'd fired his shot, he moved away again and kept moving away. acually he spotted her in rd 2 when he took a shot at her with the drow poison arrow... so shouldn't of moved in that direction...
Rauul 06-21-07, 03:10 PM	@Hirumajoe tactics for Graashnak sent... have fun
Khaim 06-21-07, 03:11 PM	templer10: Tactics for M'rusha are in. If I'm lucky the fight won't last long.
UserNamer 06-21-07, 03:19 PM	acually he spotted her in rd 2 when he took a shot at her with the drow poison arrow... so shouldn't of moved in that direction... he didn't doo that yet in round 2. That was in round 3
Erithmu 06-21-07, 03:21 PM	Ever have one of those pit of your stomach hunches that your not going to be happy with some of the minor details of your fight?
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 03:25 PM	Ever have one of those pit of your stomach hunches that you're not going to be happy with some of the major details of the fight you are running? (I presume you are looking at the rolls... the both of you SUCK... Your tactics both counter each others' very well so it has been one thing or another for quite a while... Oh - and I definitely screwed up on some of the round numbers...) [And I'm just joking - I'm just amazed at how much the two of you are going at it in this match...]
Erithmu 06-21-07, 03:27 PM	Well we are both 3rd fight monsters ... so we have nothing to lose except our pride and ego I was more looking at the location of my dispel checks ... being so ... 'close' together. As for the dice ... well you are known for making really bad rolls for PCs ... why should this be any different?
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 03:30 PM	Well - take a look at the rolls for those dispel checks and note which one is the roll for Protection from Evil... but in any case - the fight should be done relatively soon. At least Torel has no tactics for being in a grapple. I get to make that one up...
Malither76 06-21-07, 03:33 PM	Crap, stupid blinking salamander. I will add the required skills to Gareth's sheet. You had me attacking with the spear instead of the sword that would have made about a 10point difference in damage but ohter than that everything looks ok, too bad my first attack missed I think I would have had him if it hit. Thanks for the run. Sauro yeah that would be great to quest together, If Zevox can make the change. I wasn't aware of the questing thing for the guilds but I will keep that in mind for future reference. At MWB, I have 5 hours tonight were I'm on call at a reception desk, If you have IM, I am Malither76, on both that and Yahoo so if you are available we can get you caught up, if not I will be posting much more often for the quest now.
Zevox 06-21-07, 03:37 PM	Well - take a look at the rolls for those dispel checks and note which one is the roll for Protection from Evil... but in any case - the fight should be done relatively soon. At least Torel has no tactics for being in a grapple. I get to make that one up... Oh yeah, if things have gotten far enough that Torel is in a grapple, then I think I have a good idea of who the winner is. I'll keep my fingers crossed just in case though... Zevox
Macbrea 06-21-07, 03:49 PM	Yeah, the ring of blinking technically hurt him worse then it hurt you. Your attack would have probably brought him down to about about 20 hps. His three misses at 2d8 + 19 + 1d8 fire. Would have ended it. Edit: Ooops, I just realized I did his damage wrong. Two handed longspear (power attack for 10) isn't 2d8 + 38 +1d8 it's 2d8 + 58 +1d8 on a set. .
templer10 06-21-07, 03:55 PM	zevox - tactics for lord lorian Sent - energy missile ftw. telin- tactics for longshot should be out as soon as mitza look them over.
Macbrea 06-21-07, 03:57 PM	Edited: Sorry.. you technically died before you got a chance to move the second turn.
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 04:01 PM	Arden Tarmik (Zevox) vs Torel Silvanus (Erithmu) is up. Be gentle.
templer10 06-21-07, 04:02 PM	telin- longshot tactics in the death by Massive dmg team up is sent.
Malither76 06-21-07, 04:16 PM	Thats ok, anything that can set to receive a charge will hurt Gareth, he just relies on his two attacks finishing off the monster while taking its first attack. Average damage on first two swings with swords would be 117points but that doesn't take DR into play. If only I could get a third focus :)
Erithmu 06-21-07, 04:19 PM	Arden Tarmik (Zevox) vs Torel Silvanus (Erithmu) is up. Be gentle. This will be a little gentle that will be a bit rough ... Tactics state that dispel should only have been used if I could not injure Arden with any of my elemental attacks, The first dispel I'm ... so-so on casting, but the second one I'm very much not ok with its use there, Granted none of my int checks make anything to give me the impression that I'm doing much. although looking at the end of the fight, the expansion doesn't come till much later ... ... (after about 10 min of looking at the fight) ... Fight is good as is, I'm not going to contest it. The killer really was the first miss on Pro Evil.
Khaim 06-21-07, 04:39 PM	Usernamer: Tactics for Psyker sent.
templer10 06-21-07, 05:23 PM	Valanthe Valassar (Sjiggie) vs. Tyden Rayn: Arena is done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12809569&postcount=996) - this was niqil's battle to lose with 23 PPS at ECL 5 and capable of doing 23 wild surges and he almost managed to do so ending the fight with 0 pps and a longbow...
NiQil 06-21-07, 05:25 PM	@ templer: based on what I am seeing in the roller, I am guessing you are going to have to severely redo a bunch of the Tyden/Valanthe fight. As an example, going by the roller, in round 4 you have Tyden manifesting defensively and then attacking, which appears to miss. Then in round 5 you have him manifesting defensively again and attacking again. Assuming this was a Dissipating Touch that was used, there is no need to manifest again....the touch power is still there. It doesn't go away until a successful hit occurs. The roller is littered with instances just like this one. I will wait until you post the fight, but assuming what I am interpreting here is correct, some work will need to be redone. Edit: Yep...just as I suspected. You are going to have to fix that, and bump all of those rolls downward in rounds. Tyden should not be out of all of those pp.
templer10 06-21-07, 05:32 PM	@ templer: based on what I am seeing in the roller, I am guessing you are going to have to severely redo a bunch of the Tyden/Valanthe fight. As an example, going by the roller, in round 4 you have Tyden manifesting defensively and then attacking, which appears to miss. Then in round 5 you have him manifesting defensively again and attacking again. Assuming this was a Dissipating Touch that was used, there is no need to manifest again....the touch power is still there. It doesn't go away until either a successful hit occurs or a minute goes by. The roller is littered with instances just like this one. I will wait until you post the fight, but assuming what I am interpreting here is correct, some work will need to be redone. Edit: Yep...just as I suspected. You are going to have to fix that, and bump all of those rolls downward in rounds. Tyden should not be out of all of those pp. i went over this - you are right about round 4 - but in all other instances you did disipitating touch - then either missed or were enervated - and by the time you could act again you had to redo vigor so you lost the charge. ill not move the rolls - 2 much work - ill refund you a that 1 PPS and do the last round over moving just the longbow shot down if the disipitating touch there wont hit. EDIT - and done - no chance in pps spend used the 1 regaind to kill valanthe, you got back the arrow...
NiQil 06-21-07, 05:42 PM	Ummm...there are more than once instance of this. Anytime Dissipating Touch misses, the power does not go away. It is still there. There are many many pp there that Tyden should have back, and possibly some of the pp from the later enervations, because the rolls need to be moved downward. I find it extremely unsavory that you are unwilling to correct these mistakes, when you are required to do so by our pitlording rules. The reason the rolls need to be moved is a combination of factors. For instance, if no pp are needed in round 5, then the enervation roll in that round moves down a round to round 6, which means that the failed enervation roll in that round does not occur until round 7. So there should be an extra attack roll in round 6. Then the enervation occurs in round 7, and Tyden is dazed in round 8. In the current round 8, you have Tyden dropping a charged attack to manifest vigor, but given the sequence I have just described, that may not be necessary, due to the extra roll in round 6 that is needed. This is just one of a daisy chain of effects that moving the rolls around would have. If you are unwilling to do it, then I ask that you turn it over to someone who will. Edit: Another thing I have somewhat of an issue with is the constant dropping of powers. There must be 3-4 circumstances there where I lose a DT to manifest Vigor. I realize that I stated in my tactics to reapply Vigor anytime it went away, but I sorta feel like it should be common sense to not waste those charges if I can avoid it. But I am not going to argue over that one. Edit 2: Also, in round 15, failing to manifest defensively does not mean you do not get to manifest, it just means you incur an AoO. Valanthe and Tyden are both owed an attack roll in that round.
templer10 06-21-07, 05:47 PM	Ummm...there are more than once instance of this. Anytime Dissipating Touch misses, the power does not go away. It is still there. There are many many pp there that Tyden should have back, and possibly some of the pp from the later enervations, because the rolls need to be moved downward. I find it extremely unsavory that you are unwilling to correct these mistakes, when you are required to do so by our pitlording rules. The reason the rolls need to be moved is a combination of factors. For instance, if no pp are needed in round 5, then the enervation roll in that round moves down a round to round 6, which means that the failed enervation roll in that round does not occur until round 7. So there should be an extra attack roll in round 6. Then the enervation occurs in round 7, and Tyden is dazed in round 8. In the current round 8, you have Tyden dropping a charged attack to manifest vigor, but given the sequence I have just described, that may not be necessary, due to the extra roll in round 6 that is needed. This is just one of a daisy chain of effects that moving the rolls around would have. If you are unwilling to do it, then I ask that you turn it over to someone who will. sigh - if it's that importent to you ill put it in it's place- But i really dont deserve this kind of tone...
NiQil 06-21-07, 05:49 PM	sigh - if it's that importent to you ill put it in it's place- But i really dont deserve this kind of tone... I apologize for my tone. Comments in another thread made me cranky. I'll leave it to you to determine which ones I mean. And yes, with this character it is important, since pp are his lifeblood. Without them he is a bad archer and nothing more.
templer10 06-21-07, 05:55 PM	I apologize for my tone. Comments in another thread made me cranky. I'll leave it to you to determine which ones I mean. And yes, with this character it is important, since pp are his lifeblood. Without them he is a bad archer and nothing more. NP - but just so you know iam keeping all current rolls as is in thematic order and if new actions that didnt need to happen in first version need to be made ill make new rolls.
NiQil 06-21-07, 05:57 PM	NP - but just so you know iam keeping all current rolls as is in thematic order and if new actions that didnt need to happen in first version need to be made ill make new rolls. That's exactly what I expected.
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 05:58 PM	Yakov (Korone) vs Formian Warrior (Unknown Monster) is up.
TelinArtho 06-21-07, 05:59 PM	Edit 2: Also, in round 15, failing to manifest defensively does not mean you do not get to manifest, it just means you incur an AoO. Valanthe and Tyden are both owed an attack roll in that round. Actually - if you fail to cast/manifest defensively you do lose the ability to cast the spell/manifest the power: Casting Defensively: If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the level of the spell you’re casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail. Manifesting Powers on the Defensive: If you want to manifest a power without provoking attacks of opportunity, you need to dodge and weave. You must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the level of the power you’re manifesting) to succeed. You lose the power points without successful manifestation if you fail.
NiQil 06-21-07, 06:05 PM	Actually - if you fail to cast/manifest defensively you do lose the ability to cast the spell/manifest the power: I stand corrected. Apparantly I am not all-knowing after all, dammit.
NiQil 06-21-07, 06:11 PM	Yanno...I have a funny feeling with the way the dice went in that fight that I may have just bitten myself in the ass. I would laugh myself to tears if one of the inserted rolls changes the outcome.
MitzaVolchenko 06-21-07, 06:17 PM	Yanno...I have a funny feeling with the way the dice went in that fight that I may have just bitten myself in the ass. I would laugh myself to tears if one of the inserted rolls changes the outcome. Been there, done that...got the failure tag to prove it :)
templer10 06-21-07, 06:28 PM	err - what happens if u end a fight at 0 hp? you still a winner as is or do u need to do last vigor to finish at positive hp?
Khaim 06-21-07, 06:31 PM	I would think 0 hp would be fine. You can still move, after all. I assume the opponent is at negative hp?
templer10 06-21-07, 06:31 PM	the NEW and improved tyden Vs Valanthe is up (http://www.hwx.it/wizards.com/dice.php?sid=1604) - this time Niqil manage to win by being on 0 HP at the end... third edit at minus? :D p.s. - tyden couldnt hit this side of a barn - so many misses with touch attacks...
NiQil 06-21-07, 06:37 PM	the NEW and improved tyden Vs Valanthe is up (http://www.hwx.it/wizards.com/dice.php?sid=1604) - this time Niqil manage to win by being on 0 HP at the end... third edit at minus? :D p.s. - tyden couldnt hit this side of a barn - so many misses with touch attacks... I thank you for the edit. And yeah...the dice were brutal to me that fight.
Korone 06-21-07, 06:40 PM	@TelinArtho : Thanks for running the fight. And that crit.. outch !
NiQil 06-21-07, 06:41 PM	@ templer: Did that one arrow get used in the edit? I don't see it. If it didn't, can you remove it from the fight summary?
templer10 06-21-07, 06:41 PM	I thank you for the edit. And yeah...the dice were brutal to me that fight. could have been funny as hell to end it with a bleed out... (if you are me anyway). will remove arrow- later - going to sleep.
Zevox 06-21-07, 10:28 PM	Arden Tarmik (Zevox) vs Torel Silvanus (Erithmu) is up. Be gentle. Looks fine to me. I'm not sure how Torel spotted me in round 1, but that doesn't matter much. What matters is my tactics worked out. And to be honest, even if the Pro-Evil potions had both been dispelled (speaking of which, you forgot them in the wrap-up), I doubt those weak summons could've pierced Arden's AC reliably enough to make a difference for Torel so long as he kept putting his force screen up. Thanks for running the fight. Good match 'Rith. Though I am slightly disappointed you didn't try anything less predictable - these tactics were little different from those you used against Ceilia. err - what happens if u end a fight at 0 hp? you still a winner as is or do u need to do last vigor to finish at positive hp? Theres nothing preventing you from winning a fight with 0 hp. Hells, you can win a fight with negative hp, if your opponent dies before you do. I once ran a fight where a Hail Mary attack from a character with 0 hp knocked his opponent into negative hps, and the winner was decided by who bled to death first (and its a hell of a good thing only one of them stabilized before bleeding out). Zevox
UserNamer 06-22-07, 04:25 AM	Usernamer: Tactics for Psyker sent. got em
Salrantol 06-22-07, 07:40 AM	@UserNamer: I spotted another mistake in the Felice vs. Shadow fight. In Round 4, you didn't give Shadow a save vs. Energy Missile.
UserNamer 06-22-07, 08:59 AM	@UserNamer: I spotted another mistake in the Felice vs. Shadow fight. In Round 4, you didn't give Shadow a save vs. Energy Missile. yes I did, check the rolls "shadow fort save" .
UserNamer 06-22-07, 09:00 AM	Gradak vs. Psyker done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12817104&postcount=997)
Salrantol 06-22-07, 09:14 AM	yes I did, check the rolls "shadow fort save" .Sorry, was only reading post of fight....
UserNamer 06-22-07, 09:17 AM	Sorry, was only reading post of fight.... no problem, just tell me if you see something else. I haven't received tactics for my last fight and I completed two fights of witch I have received tactics for, so if there is something, I can edit it now.
Khaim 06-22-07, 09:44 AM	Theres nothing preventing you from winning a fight with 0 hp. Hells, you can win a fight with negative hp, if your opponent dies before you do. I once ran a fight where a Hail Mary attack from a character with 0 hp knocked his opponent into negative hps, and the winner was decided by who bled to death first (and its a hell of a good thing only one of them stabilized before bleeding out). So what would happen if two characters both stabalized at negative HP? Does the fight last the weeks it would take for one of them to heal to 0, drag themselves over to the other and kill them? Do we start rolling for hunger effects?
Khaim 06-22-07, 09:50 AM	Gradak vs. Psyker done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12817104&postcount=997) I see a couple of mistakes, helping both of us. On the other hand, I won, so I'm not really going to complain. If Sjiggie wants you to redo some of it I won't argue, though.
Zevox 06-22-07, 10:11 AM	So what would happen if two characters both stabalized at negative HP? Does the fight last the weeks it would take for one of them to heal to 0, drag themselves over to the other and kill them? Do we start rolling for hunger effects? Thus far, its never happened, so we've never had to decide. I'd probably give the fight to whoever had more hp left myself. If that were a tie... I guess I'd have to declare the match a draw. Zevox
Sjiggie 06-22-07, 11:02 AM	@ Usernamer. I found some mistakes in the fight. First I didn't got the suprise round from my ambush skill package. I clearly listed what I wanted to do with it. Second if it turned out into a ranged battle waht it did I wanted to stay behind cover but you make me move so that I'm in the open and not behind cover what is in my move range. Third I asked for rapid shots but you let Gradak single shoot all the time. Please roll the extra attack that I could make in round 5 till 8. And one final question why is Psyker shooting vs AC 15 in round 9 my ac at that time is 19+1dodge+4force screen (+4 cover where Gradak shoud have moved). Can you please make the edits because these are not minor but can effect the outcome of the fight. Thanks for your effort -Sjiggie
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 11:38 AM	Looks fine to me. I'm not sure how Torel spotted me in round 1, but that doesn't matter much. Simple - you can't hide while flat-footed and since Torel is mounted on a large creature - he is able to see over the central statue (or any of the statues for that matter) to see Arden in his starting area.
Khaim 06-22-07, 11:49 AM	@ Usernamer. I found some mistakes in the fight. First I didn't got the suprise round from my ambush skill package. I clearly listed what I wanted to do with it. Second if it turned out into a ranged battle waht it did I wanted to stay behind cover but you make me move so that I'm in the open and not behind cover what is in my move range. Third I asked for rapid shots but you let Gradak single shoot all the time. Please roll the extra attack that I could make in round 5 till 8. And one final question why is Psyker shooting vs AC 15 in round 9 my ac at that time is 19+1dodge+4force screen (+4 cover where Gradak shoud have moved). Can you please make the edits because these are not minor but can effect the outcome of the fight. Thanks for your effort -Sjiggie Well if he's rerolling the fight then I want to not stand there and be shot at while refocusing- my tactics clearly say not to do that. Why everyone ignores me on this, I do not know. For that matter, in round 4 you have Gradak immediately abandon his tactics and switch to ranged. While it's obvious to you that we're going to end up in a ranged battle, it shouldn't be obvious to him for another round or two. Also, Chameleon lasts 10 min/level not min/level.
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 12:37 PM	Relanex ThinesECL9 (MacBrea) vs Sybil ap Kalten (MitzaVolchenko) and Longshot (templer10) [Interleague] is up. Nothing like a 4-round battle featuring well over 100 points in damage dealt... And with that I have an amazing week where I managed to get all of my fights done before the weekend! Yay for early tactics. As usual, I won't be around over the weekend, but if someone needs me to pickup a fight after the weekend, let me know.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 01:01 PM	By the way.. Relanex is +34% awards for Political Career. It's on his sheet 3rd line down.
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 01:14 PM	By the way.. Relanex is +34% awards for Political Career. It's on his sheet 3rd line down. Fixed. Ironically enough, I actually checked for it before the fight and wrote a reminder to myself to do it... I just forgot about it and the reminder...
Macbrea 06-22-07, 01:27 PM	Am good with the fight. I wasn't sure wether I would be able to take both of them down in the short amount of time I had. I applied a huge amount of damage to one before moving on the the next. Had the griffon missed... I would have probably killed sybil on round 5.
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 01:29 PM	Oh certainly. That griffon was the deciding factor (especially since Sybil did nothing but shoot misses - she got horrible rolls...). I was amazed when it only did the 9 damage to reduce you to 1 hp to make it a very close battle. When she made her save though - I suspected it was all over for you.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 01:44 PM	Hmmm, going to have to keep a telekinesis saved for that arena more often. Sheesh, 156 damage in 2 rounds?
templer10 06-22-07, 01:58 PM	Relanex ThinesECL9 (MacBrea) vs Sybil ap Kalten (MitzaVolchenko) and Longshot (templer10) [Interleague] is up. Nothing like a 4-round battle featuring well over 100 points in damage dealt... And with that I have an amazing week where I managed to get all of my fights done before the weekend! Yay for early tactics. As usual, I won't be around over the weekend, but if someone needs me to pickup a fight after the weekend, let me know. thanks for the run - there is a VERY serius mistake through- in round 2 - Relanx casts telekenins to do a telekinetic manuver - to grapple longshot which takes a standrat Action - after winning the grapple check he CAN NOT MOVE HIM. that is becuase with TK - he is under the normal rules for grapple - "Combat Maneuver Alternatively, once per round, you can use telekinesis to perform a bull rush, disarm, grapple (including pin), or trip. Resolve these attempts as normal" Moveing a grapple take a STANDART ACTION - i.e. - he can not ATTEMPT to move longshot before round 3. from the SRD: "Move You can move half your speed (bringing all others engaged in the grapple with you) by winning an opposed grapple check. This requires a standard action, and you must beat all the other individual check results to move the grapple. " becuase he cant move longshot per tactics should be casting freedom of movement at round 2 - and easliy escape/ressit the move at round 3, and then escape the grapple.
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 02:12 PM	Simple enough. I'll take a look. I just thought the move a grapple was handled like a single attack. I can certainly understand why it isn't though. I'll edit it shortly.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 02:15 PM	If your going to edit it. You may want to move me and Cone of cold instead. As I wished to use that over the fireball. But no biggy either way.
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 02:18 PM	Well that one's not possible. It would involve moving (drawing yet another AoO from the griffon). However, you wouldn't be able to move and cast in the same round because she was 125ft away at that point. I did look at it and made a pitlord call there. Editing it now - knowing that it would "save" you spell levels (because the griffon would kill you before you got to cast), is not reasonable for me to do. For Longshot's case, it is an actual error - for your's it was a pitlord call that didn't pan out. EDIT - Actually - things will change since Longshot won't be dead... Bear with me...
Macbrea 06-22-07, 02:22 PM	I am fine with it. I just figured I would mention it as I didn't actually look at my distance in the fight. As my choices didn't include me using my fireball from memory at all. As tactics went: Cone of cold (60ft cone) sybil. Then lightning bolt (120ft line) her, then Magic missile (210 range) her to death. Wand of fireball (720ft) after that. Which was why I was curious to the use of the fireball from memory. Not that I cared a huge amount, fight is a fight.
MitzaVolchenko 06-22-07, 02:32 PM	Relanex ThinesECL9 (MacBrea) vs Sybil ap Kalten (MitzaVolchenko) and Longshot (templer10) [Interleague] is up. Nothing like a 4-round battle featuring well over 100 points in damage dealt... And with that I have an amazing week where I managed to get all of my fights done before the weekend! Yay for early tactics. As usual, I won't be around over the weekend, but if someone needs me to pickup a fight after the weekend, let me know. We won? *checks fight again* Wow! A win...I don't think I remember how those work :P It is possible that while I did point out the control body to Mac, I did not remind him about the figurine past his first statement related to a certain unfortunate pegasus.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 02:43 PM	It will change alittle bit but probably shouldn't change anything except the amount of pp that Longshot wastes.
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 02:47 PM	I am fine with it. I just figured I would mention it as I didn't actually look at my distance in the fight. As my choices didn't include me using my fireball from memory at all. As tactics went: Cone of cold (60ft cone) sybil. Then lightning bolt (120ft line) her, then Magic missile (210 range) her to death. Wand of fireball (720ft) after that. Which was why I was curious to the use of the fireball from memory. Not that I cared a huge amount, fight is a fight. Heh - go figure. I completely misread your tactics. I didn't see lightning bolt at all and replaced it with fireball... Anyway - cone of cold did come into play since Relanex successfully spellcrafted Freedom of Movement and was able to get both the griffon and Longshot in the area of effect. Instead of 8SLs - Relanex uses 10. Instead of 7pps - Longshot uses 21. Instead of Bullet being destroyed, Lopal is killed. Instead of Sybil using 3 arrows, she uses 4 (since Control Body made Relanex helpless - it was enough of an AC change to make the miss a hit...) Fight has been updated. Crap - fight is too long... hold on. Okay - now it is updated. @Mitza (in specific - but this applies to anyone really): I really recommend switching out "URL" tags for "post" tags and "thread" tags when possible. This really reduces the number of characters in your character sheet. Compare: This post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12821558&postcount=173) This post Not really a biggie when you only have 5 or 10 links on a sheet. But at 54 characters per link in savings (give or take), when you have 20+ links - it can be a significant amount. Just as a for example: Kraegin has 24 regular fights, 2 ironman fights, 17 linked crafting weeks, 3 quests, 4 links to the blackmarket and a link to the training hall - the savings is significant (~2500+ characters)
Macbrea 06-22-07, 02:50 PM	Control body doesn't keep Relanex with magic flight from moving. As magic flight is mental actions. He can keep moving about without any problems. He is unable to cast anything but still spells though.
Zevox 06-22-07, 02:57 PM	@ UserNamer - Tactics for Kathren Durrol (vs Borodin Brightaxe) have been PMed. I really hope I win that one - Kathren's been stuck in the ECL 3 league for too long for my liking. Zevox
templer10 06-22-07, 03:01 PM	Heh - go figure. I completely misread your tactics. I didn't see lightning bolt at all and replaced it with fireball... Anyway - cone of cold did come into play since Relanex successfully spellcrafted Freedom of Movement and was able to get both the griffon and Longshot in the area of effect. Instead of 8SLs - Relanex uses 10. Instead of 7pps - Longshot uses 21. Instead of Bullet being destroyed, Lopal is killed. Instead of Sybil using 3 arrows, she uses 4 (since Control Body made Relanex helpless - it was enough of an AC change to make the miss a hit...) Fight has been updated. Crap - fight is too long... hold on. Okay - now it is updated. @Mitza (in specific - but this applies to anyone really): I really recommend switching out "URL" tags for "post" tags and "thread" tags when possible. This really reduces the number of characters in your character sheet. Compare: This post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12821558&postcount=173) This post Not really a biggie when you only have 5 or 10 links on a sheet. But at 54 characters per link in savings (give or take), when you have 20+ links - it can be a significant amount. Just as a for example: Kraegin has 24 regular fights, 2 ironman fights, 17 linked crafting weeks, 3 quests, 4 links to the blackmarket and a link to the training hall - the savings is significant (~2500+ characters) thanks for the edit- i rather lose 14 more pps then Bullet - could you please edit in i still have share pain if time roll is 2 or less. also - note for you- it didnt make a diffrence here but energy Attacks does crap all dmg to creatures with hardness which is smething you didnt note (fire/lightening does half dmg, cold does 1/4 dmg). And you didn account for the hardness at all btw (no need to edit that just so you know for the future). p.s - COntrol body Rocks (versus non psions anyway). also - mitxaq - tactics for lady liara vs the summoner with 2 many SL's to my likings sent.
templer10 06-22-07, 03:04 PM	Control body doesn't keep Relanex with magic flight from moving. As magic flight is mental actions. He can keep moving about without any problems. He is unable to cast anything but still spells though. they need to be still and silent actually since control body also controls the mouth.
Usurpator 06-22-07, 03:06 PM	@all my Pitlords all my tactics are out, finally...
Macbrea 06-22-07, 03:06 PM	Heh.. yeah, was just mentioning I am not completely sure you are helpless if you can move by magic flight. Your not pinned in a location. Now. it just becomes a matter of the griffon killing him on that round, so, no reason for an edit.
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 03:06 PM	Control body doesn't keep Relanex with magic flight from moving. As magic flight is mental actions. He can keep moving about without any problems. He is unable to cast anything but still spells though. Not sure that it matters since he was dead before he had more actions after he was affected by control body. thanks for the edit- i rather lose 14 more pps then Bullet - could you please edit in i still have share pain if time roll is 2 or less. also - note for you- it didnt make a diffrence here but energy Attacks does crap all dmg to creatures with hardness which is smething you didnt note (fire/lightening does half dmg, cold does 1/4 dmg). And you didn account for the hardness at all btw (no need to edit that just so you know for the future). I actually meant to bring this up about the hardness. I don't see anything that says that Hardness gives the listed resistance to elemental attacks. The entry you are looking at is for damaging objects. Just because a psicrystal (a construct) has hardness - does not mean that it would follow the other traits of objects. I certainly should have reduced the damage for hardness, but I don't think the damage would have been reduced by 1/4 when the cone of cold hit. I'll edit in the share pain in a moment.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 03:08 PM	A creature with hardness is considered an object. ::heh:: A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature.
templer10 06-22-07, 03:18 PM	I actually meant to bring this up about the hardness. I don't see anything that says that Hardness gives the listed resistance to elemental attacks. The entry you are looking at is for damaging objects. Just because a psicrystal (a construct) has hardness - does not mean that it would follow the other traits of objects. I certainly should have reduced the damage for hardness, but I don't think the damage would have been reduced by 1/4 when the cone of cold hit. I'll edit in the share pain in a moment. i think you are wrong there - The lower dmg from energy attacks derives from the fact an object (or a construct) has HArdness - it doesnt matter if it's a non moving object or a moveing object or an animated object. also note that animated objects also get all these benefits and (it say so spesificly in the SRD) and they get them becuase they are constructs.
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 03:24 PM	Well I would agree with the animated objects - because it specifically mentions that animated objects get these resistances even when animated. However, I would not extend this to all constructs - nor even all constructs that have hardness. What about the objects that have hardness 0 - is that "enough" hardness to give them that kind of resistance (looking at paper, cloth and rope)? If this was a "standard" element of being a construct - it should appear in the construct traits. If this was a "standard" element of having hardness - why didn't they mention it under the heading of Hardness - and instead under "Hit Points"? Like I said - I'm not sure - but my first impression is that only objects and animated objects fall under the auspices of the reduced damage from elemental attacks. I admit that I might be wrong, but I don't see anything at first glance that tells me otherwise.
templer10 06-22-07, 03:30 PM	Well I would agree with the animated objects - because it specifically mentions that animated objects get these resistances even when animated. However, I would not extend this to all constructs - nor even all constructs that have hardness. What about the objects that have hardness 0 - is that "enough" hardness to give them that kind of resistance (looking at paper, cloth and rope)? If this was a "standard" element of having hardness - why didn't they mention it under the heading of Hardness - and instead under "Hit Points"? Like I said - I'm not sure - but my first impression is that only objects and animated objects fall under the auspices of the reduced damage from elemental attacks. I admit that I might be wrong, but I don't see anything at first glance that tells me otherwise. i think you wrong- first there is no such thing as hardness 0 - theere is either hardness something or no hardness at all. second you are ignoring there is no Diffrence between an animated object and a psi crystal both are construcs and in fact it mention in the SRD that animated objects gets thier immunities BECAUSE they are constructs.
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 03:37 PM	i think you wrong- first there is no such thing as hardness 0 - theere is either hardness something or no hardness at all. Check before you state something like that: Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points Substance Hardness Hit Points Paper or cloth 0 2/inch of thickness Rope 0 2/inch of thickness Glass 1 1/inch of thickness Ice 0 3/inch of thickness Leather or hide 2 5/inch of thickness Wood 5 10/inch of thickness Stone 8 15/inch of thickness Iron or steel 10 30/inch of thickness Mithral 15 30/inch of thickness Adamantine 20 40/inch of thickness second you are ignoring there is no Diffrence between an animated object and a psi crystal both are construcs and in fact it mention in the SRD that animated objects gets thier immunities BECAUSE they are constructs. While they are both constructs, the second part of your statement is not true. Animated objects keep the properties of the object that it is animated from: Hardness (Ex): An animated object has the same hardness it had before it was animated.
Macbrea 06-22-07, 03:39 PM	This is notes on energy effects and animated objects from the FAQ: Many animated objects have hardness scores. What affect, if any, will an animated object’s hardness have on spells used against the animated object? For example, an animated wooden table would have hardness 5, right? How would that hardness affect spells such as fireball, lightning bolt, Melf’s acid arrow, ray of frost, and magic missile? If the spell in question has an energy descriptor, hardness affects the attack as noted in the rules for damaging inanimate objects (see page 165 in the Player’s Handbook); here’s a summary: • Hardness applies to acid and sonic attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects, and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a Melf’s acid arrow spell deals to the animated table in your example. • Hardness applies to electricity and fire attacks. These attacks deal half damage to inanimate objects, but animated objects are creatures and they take full damage (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a fireball or lightning bolt spell deals to the animated table in your example. Reduce the damage for a successful saving throw before you apply hardness. • Hardness also applies to cold damage. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to inanimate objects, but again, an animated object takes full damage less the effect of the hardness. You would subtract 5 points of damage for hardness from whatever damage a ray of frost spell deals to the animated table in your example. Since ray of frost deals only 1d3 points of damage, it will prove ineffective against the animated table unless you somehow increase the damage the spell deals. • Hardness applies to force attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects (when applicable), and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a magic missile spell deals to the animated table in your example. A magic missile spell normally cannot be aimed at an object. Because an animated object is a creature, however, it can affect the animated table in the example
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 03:41 PM	Thanks MacBrea - that answered the question rather succinctly.
templer10 06-22-07, 04:04 PM	M'rusha VS berri is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12822240&postcount=1000) - all 2 rounds of it....
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 04:08 PM	Well - not much I can do about that... (except be a little better about starting locations... still wouldn't have helped though - he would've just charged...)
Zevox 06-22-07, 04:33 PM	Truls Rohk vs Flamehair is done. Predictable as can be. Zevox
Usurpator 06-22-07, 05:00 PM	Truls Rohk vs Flamehair is done. Predictable as can be. Zevox Hi Zevox, Thanks for running a good clean fight as always. With such odds and dice that favor me this much, it is indeed predictable. But since Kitaya lost once on account of her opponent throwing five natural 20's within the space of 8 rounds, I'm never sure anymore. I thought NiQil might try and attack the horse first, because of the +4 AC from Ride checks. My other two fights this week are a lot less predictable though. I nearly always have a background in my mind for each character I make. Only prefer to do my RP in TT games, not here. When Flamehair reaches 7th lvl I'll do a quest to fill out her character a bit more. @NiQil: sorry about the horse killing you, I know it's not your favorite way to go.
Zevox 06-22-07, 05:03 PM	I thought NiQil might try and attack the horse first, because of the +4 AC from Ride checks. That surprised me too. I had thought he'd want it dead, since he seems to hate them so, and it had a lower AC than you anyway, plus you don't have the Mounted Combat feat. My other two fights this week are a lot less predictable though. Glad to hear you say that, given one is against a character of mine :D . Zevox
Usurpator 06-22-07, 05:07 PM	Glad to hear you say that, given one is against a character of mine :D . Zevox Well, since one of NiQil gang killed Borodin's horse it became a lot less predictable, you might thank him for that. :D
Zevox 06-22-07, 05:08 PM	Well, since one of NiQil gang killed Borodin's horse it became a lot less predictable, you might thank him for that. :D Wait, his horse is dead already? I didn't even notice that while writing my tactics! Time to get a quick revision PMed to UserNamer... Edit: Done. Well now, that raises my chances of victory quite a lot. Makes the fight less interesting, but at least Kathren now has a good chance to finally level up. Zevox
TelinArtho 06-22-07, 05:13 PM	I find it funny how often the requirement to prebuff allies is completely ignored... by the opponent. Twice, opponents of Bulgar wrote in tactics to counter the dog when the dog was - in one case - left off of the prebuffs and in the other case - crossed off of the prebuffs to indicate he was dead...
Zevox 06-22-07, 05:15 PM	I find it funny how often the requirement to prebuff allies is completely ignored... by the opponent. Twice, opponents of Bulgar wrote in tactics to counter the dog when the dog was - in one case - left off of the prebuffs and in the other case - crossed off of the prebuffs to indicate he was dead... *shrugs* For me, its become so routine around here that I tend not to check unless I have reason to believe it may be dead (saw a fight previously that I thought it died in) or they have many allies and I want to know which ones are coming in. Zevox
Khaim 06-22-07, 07:53 PM	M'rusha VS berri is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12822240&postcount=1000) - all 2 rounds of it.... I don't even need to read the post to know that that fight went exactly as planned. Edit: Wow, natural 20 on the attack. And I got lucky; I only had a 57% chance to drop you on the first swing. Still, I think you were a bit outmatched.
Khaim 06-22-07, 07:59 PM	Telin, Adolfo, I have your tactics and I'll run your fight tomorrow. Probably.
NiQil 06-22-07, 09:22 PM	That surprised me too. I had thought he'd want it dead, since he seems to hate them so, and it had a lower AC than you anyway, plus you don't have the Mounted Combat feat. Glad to hear you say that, given one is against a character of mine :D . Zevox As I've often said, I don't just arbitrarily kill animal allies...I only do so if it makes tactical sense to me. The only thing it would have accomplished here was make Flamehair use more resources to end with the same result. I would still be slower than my opponent, and if I got tripped, getting killed by the horse or the rider still ends in the same result. This fight was decided as soon as the map was rolled. A different map, and we have a whole different ballgame.
UserNamer 06-23-07, 06:05 AM	@Khaim and Sjiggie: I will probably have time on Monday, to edit the fight.
McJarvis 06-23-07, 08:31 AM	As I've often said, I don't just arbitrarily kill animal allies...I only do so if it makes tactical sense to me. /me whispers to NiQil..."That's the definition of arbitrarily" ;)
TheMagister 06-23-07, 09:31 AM	/me whispers to NiQil..."That's the definition of arbitrarily" ;) I thought the same thing! Heh. If Arbiter = judge or mediator with authority Then Arbitrarily should = to act as a judge or mediator with authority. ...but you never know with the english language. Yeah, I could look it up. No I don't care quite that much. :D
Khaim 06-23-07, 10:35 AM	Not to detract from the spawnlings or anything, but... How would Produce Flame work against a net? Assuming the spellcaster is caught in the net, I mean. There's no AC listed to hit the net, just HP, so does the caster auto-hit? With 0 hardness, and assuming that rope does not benefit from the normal half fire damage, Produce Flame will almost certainly burn through it in one hit. Is that right?
TheMagister 06-23-07, 11:57 AM	Not to detract from the spawnlings or anything, but... How would Produce Flame work against a net? Assuming the spellcaster is caught in the net, I mean. There's no AC listed to hit the net, just HP, so does the caster auto-hit? With 0 hardness, and assuming that rope does not benefit from the normal half fire damage, Produce Flame will almost certainly burn through it in one hit. Is that right? It's a sunder attempt (the only thing that makes sense). Although you can generally only sunder with a slashing or bludgeoning melee weapon, I would (as a logical-type pitlord) let you burn uses of Produce Flame to try to work your way out of the net. I'd still give the net 1/2 damage vs. your fire-touch. It's not like you're able to burn entire sections of the net at once -- it's a touch here and a touch there. Oh, and you'd provoke AoOs from the creature who "owns" the net if they're within reach, just like normal.
TheMagister 06-23-07, 11:59 AM	Phacce vs. Gash is completed here. Let me reiterate my apologies to Usernamer and Aura_Blade for the holdover. I know I hate it when it happens to me. ;) I'm available for edits until Sunday afternoon. TM
Khaim 06-23-07, 12:06 PM	It's a sunder attempt (the only thing that makes sense). Although you can generally only sunder with a slashing or bludgeoning melee weapon, I would (as a logical-type pitlord) let you burn uses of Produce Flame to try to work your way out of the net. I'd still give the net 1/2 damage vs. your fire-touch. It's not like you're able to burn entire sections of the net at once -- it's a touch here and a touch there. Oh, and you'd provoke AoOs from the creature who "owns" the net if they're within reach, just like normal. The thing is, once you throw a net you let go of it. So it's not really a "sunder" because the net is an unattended object at this point. That also means you probably don't suffer AoOs for attacking it. Wait, let me look up the rules for striking inanimate objects... Edit: Okay, so it would have AC 3 (assuming it's medium, which I'd say it is), and attacking doesn't provoke AoO or anything. I'm still not sure whether the 1/2 fire should apply, but that's probably enough to run the fight.
TheMagister 06-23-07, 12:50 PM	You have the option of retaining control of the net after you throw it so that you can control the movement of the target with opposed strength checks, don't forget! TM
Khaim 06-23-07, 01:33 PM	You have the option of retaining control of the net after you throw it so that you can control the movement of the target with opposed strength checks, don't forget! Yes, but doesn't that require one or both of your hands? In any case the tactics don't say to do that, so it's a moot point.
SauroGrenom 06-23-07, 02:03 PM	Quick question... Do spells that modify attack rolls (specifically Divine Favor) also modify grapple checks? I'm not sure in this moment. I'm leaning toward yes, but not sure.
NiQil 06-23-07, 02:06 PM	Quick question... Do spells that modify attack rolls (specifically Divine Favor) also modify grapple checks? I'm not sure in this moment. I'm leaning toward yes, but not sure. No, because grapple checks are not attack rolls. It would only modify the initial touch attack to start a grapple.
Zevox 06-23-07, 02:13 PM	Quick question... Do spells that modify attack rolls (specifically Divine Favor) also modify grapple checks? I'm not sure in this moment. I'm leaning toward yes, but not sure. NiQil is right. Divine Favor would still boost the damage, though. Zevox
Zevox 06-23-07, 02:14 PM	Lord Lorian vs Enoch the Prophet is up. Could've gone so differently if one player had just noticed the other's weakness. Zevox
templer10 06-23-07, 02:18 PM	Lord Lorian vs Enoch the Prophet is up. Could've gone so differently if one player had just noticed the other's weakness. Zevox iam aware of my "faults" sort to speak - but my strategy usally Leaves enough pps for a remanifestating of vigor/share pain and not a lot of peeps WANT to waste 2 dispel psionincs in 1 fight. Btw - ring of counterspells - SO in my to buy list. btw- it didnt help him he completly missed my brooche of shielding 2. p.s - please edit in how many HP were used from that.
SauroGrenom 06-23-07, 02:58 PM	Taren vs Ninja Pretty straight forward, grapple with CLW wand and slug it out... then almost 20 round later and many charges of CLW later, one of them comes out on top.
NiQil 06-23-07, 03:03 PM	Taren vs Ninja Pretty straight forward, grapple with CLW wand and slug it out... then almost 20 round later and many charges of CLW later, one of them comes out on top. Thanks for the run. I won't make you change it unless Vath has changes he would like made (yes I will..see below)...but you did not do any of the grappling attempts correctly. From my tactics: If I get grappled, the best he can do is a +6 with Bull's vs my +4, so if this happens, use the damage an opponent action to make opposed grapple checks to deal damage with my claws. So if there needs to be an edit, all of those rounds in the grapple need to be opposed grapple checks, rather than Taren attacking. In fact, I can say now that you will need to redo it, because if memory serves you can only attack with a single claw in a grapple (since my BAB only allows a single attack)...you had Taren attacking twice each round. So you gave Taren double the attacks he should have had. So unless Vath gives you a pass on fixing it, the entire grapple sequence will need to be redone.
MindWandererB 06-23-07, 03:29 PM	Thanks for the run. I won't make you change it unless Vath has changes he would like made (yes I will..see below)...but you did not do any of the grappling attempts correctly. From my tactics: So if there needs to be an edit, all of those rounds in the grapple need to be opposed grapple checks, rather than Taren attacking. In fact, I can say now that you will need to redo it, because if memory serves you can only attack with a single claw in a grapple (since my BAB only allows a single attack)...you had Taren attacking twice each round. So you gave Taren double the attacks he should have had. So unless Vath gives you a pass on fixing it, the entire grapple sequence will need to be redone.That's impossible, unless you have improved grab somehow. In a grapple, you can normally: 1) Make grapple checks for unarmed strike or armor spike damage, a number of times based on your BAB, or 2) Make melee attacks with a single light weapon, a number of times based on your BAB (only once if it's a natural weapon).
SauroGrenom 06-23-07, 03:33 PM	Thanks for the run. I won't make you change it unless Vath has changes he would like made (yes I will..see below)...but you did not do any of the grappling attempts correctly. From my tactics: So if there needs to be an edit, all of those rounds in the grapple need to be opposed grapple checks, rather than Taren attacking. In fact, I can say now that you will need to redo it, because if memory serves you can only attack with a single claw in a grapple (since my BAB only allows a single attack)...you had Taren attacking twice each round. So you gave Taren double the attacks he should have had. So unless Vath gives you a pass on fixing it, the entire grapple sequence will need to be redone. Ah. you are correct sir. I though you would want the attack an opponent option and otherwise just say damage with grapple checks. I sortof glossed over that, and now that I reread it I see the mistake. I'll start editing. It will almost certainly result in your loss.
NiQil 06-23-07, 04:03 PM	That's impossible, unless you have improved grab somehow. In a grapple, you can normally: 1) Make grapple checks for unarmed strike or armor spike damage, a number of times based on your BAB, or 2) Make melee attacks with a single light weapon, a number of times based on your BAB (only once if it's a natural weapon). Incorrect on the armor spikes. The only way to attack with them is using the attack an opponent action, taking a -4 penalty on your attack rolls. MWB does have a point that I overlooked, however....when using the opposed grapple checks, I am unsure whether the damage would be 1d3 as a normal humanoid, or 1d4 as with the claw....I believe it would be 1d3 as a normal humanoid, since claws can't be used to make opposed grapple checks. Part of the reason I am about ready to scrap and rebuild this character....
Hirumajoe 06-23-07, 04:13 PM	Graashnak vs Maeril is up here.
Abyssal Stalker 06-23-07, 04:28 PM	Incorrect on the armor spikes. The only way to attack with them is using the attack an opponent action, taking a -4 penalty on your attack rolls. Armor spikes can be used in grapple two ways: 1) By making a opposed grapple check to deal damage equal to the armor spikes damage 2) By attacking with them using the attack with a light weapon -option and taking the -4 penalty and deal damage equal to the armor spikes damage Armor Spikes You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)
NiQil 06-23-07, 04:32 PM	I realized that shortly after I posted that I was mistaken...I was mixing up armor spikes and natural weapons, which is how this discussion started.
Usurpator 06-23-07, 05:38 PM	Graashnak vs Maeril is up here. Hi Hirumajoe, thanks for the run! It looks like a close and exciting fight. I do have a few pointers: Shocking grasp gives +3 to attack rolls against when the opponent is wearing metal armor (like Graashnak), which means that the first attack is actually a hit instead of a miss. This also means that Maeril will fire a ray of enfeeblement the following round, which going by the attack rolls hits, and might very likely cause Graashnak to miss the blow that strikes Maeril unconscious now. (I goofed up the tactics text, I wanted to cast the ray the round after Snaggle's initial attack, I somehow assumed it would hit at +10 vs. AC 13, nothing to do about the wrong wording now, your interpretation is sensible). Also, you didn't have Maeril's horse attack. Due to the defend trick it knows, this should happen automatically. Maeril's Ride skills is sufficient for auto-success on that. If you could look into these things I'll appreciate it. They might or might not be outcome altering.
TheMagister 06-23-07, 06:06 PM	Just sayin' - if I were Graashnak, I'd 5' step to put Snaggle out of my space and make him provoke AoO every time he enters my square to try to touch me. Seems like a simple thing for a warrior to want to do...
Usurpator 06-23-07, 06:27 PM	Just sayin' - if I were Graashnak, I'd 5' step to put Snaggle out of my space and make him provoke AoO every time he enters my square to try to touch me. Seems like a simple thing for a warrior to want to do... Possibly, If I were Maeril, I would not waste a full round by just riding up to Grashnak and giving him the first blow. And if I were Snaggle, I would use the Tumble skill to avoid being hit while moving into the square. etc. etc. To me such are minor issues only, thus not worth mentioning, especially since Snaggle has AC 26 against Grashnaak...
Hirumajoe 06-23-07, 07:48 PM	Hi Hirumajoe, thanks for the run! It looks like a close and exciting fight. I do have a few pointers: Shocking grasp gives +3 to attack rolls against when the opponent is wearing metal armor (like Graashnak), which means that the first attack is actually a hit instead of a miss. This also means that Maeril will fire a ray of enfeeblement the following round, which going by the attack rolls hits, and might very likely cause Graashnak to miss the blow that strikes Maeril unconscious now. Excellent point. I'll get around to editing that sometime today or tomorrow. (I goofed up the tactics text, I wanted to cast the ray the round after Snaggle's initial attack, I somehow assumed it would hit at +10 vs. AC 13, nothing to do about the wrong wording now, your interpretation is sensible). I admit to reading the tactics fairly literally. But you're right, with the hit, that changes things. Also, you didn't have Maeril's horse attack. Due to the defend trick it knows, this should happen automatically. Maeril's Ride skills is sufficient for auto-success on that. Actually, his ride skils aren't sufficient for auto-success. While you can guide with knees, allowing you to use a two-handed weapon automatically, you can't necessarily fight in the same round as your horse attacks, unless you make a DC 10 ride check (The fight with warhorse line in the ride skill description). I'm hesitant to add things not in the tactics which are not always 100% better... Since if I happen to roll a 1 or 2, suddenly you have grounds for complaint since it wasn't in your tactics to do so. Does that make sense? Given that you have a +7 modifier and you didn't ask for it your tactics, I assumed you had made a conscious decision not to. If you had a ride modifier of +9 or higher, where its an auto-success, then I definitely would have had the horse attack along with you since then there's no disadvantage. For example, when Valen was back using a Light warhorse, I always indicated in my tactics to dismount when engaging with melee (admittedly, using his psicrystal to ride the horse and direct it), since his ride skill was rather meager (+6), and that the horse should make full attacks. Fight with Warhorse If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action. A light warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check. If you could look into these things I'll appreciate it. They might or might not be outcome altering. In any case that +3 to hit may be battle changing enough. So definitely some edits will occur. Edit: Ok, I've run the dice out to round 9 after the hit shocking grasp hit (17 damage). 5' step and casting ray deals 7 strength damage. Making his last attack miss, and the next round as well (by 1 point twice...). Maeril then swing again in round 9, hitting and finishing the fight. So yes, the +3 to hit was fight altering. I'll get it written up sometime between today and Monday, although I want to hear if Rauul has any opinions on the fight before I write too much.
Khaim 06-23-07, 08:45 PM	Um, little help here. What's the AC to sunder a wand? And for that matter, how many HP does it have?
MindWandererB 06-23-07, 08:48 PM	Um, little help here. What's the AC to sunder a wand? And for that matter, how many HP does it have? Physical Description: A typical wand is 6 inches to 12 inches long and about 1/4 inch thick, and often weighs no more than 1 ounce. Most wands are wood, but some are bone. A rare few are metal, glass, or even ceramic, but these are quite exotic. Occasionally, a wand has a gem or some device at its tip, and most are decorated with carvings or runes. A typical wand has AC 7, 5 hit points, hardness 5, and a break DC of 16.Note that that AC is for an unattended wand (Dex 0=-5 modifier). For a held one, use the character's Dex mod instead.
Khaim 06-23-07, 08:50 PM	So 12+Dex. Thanks!
Usurpator 06-23-07, 08:50 PM	Actually, his ride skils aren't sufficient for auto-success. While you can guide with knees, allowing you to use a two-handed weapon automatically, you can't necessarily fight in the same round as your horse attacks, unless you make a DC 10 ride check (The fight with warhorse line in the ride skill description). I'm hesitant to add things not in the tactics which are not always 100% better... Since if I happen to roll a 1 or 2, suddenly you have grounds for complaint since it wasn't in your tactics to do so. Does that make sense? Perfect sense. No problem with that. I think I had DC 5 in my mind. Edit: Ok, I've run the dice out to round 9 after the hit shocking grasp hit (17 damage). 5' step and casting ray deals 7 strength damage. Making his last attack miss, and the next round as well (by 1 point twice...). Maeril then swing again in round 9, hitting and finishing the fight. So yes, the +3 to hit was fight altering. I'll get it written up sometime between today and Monday, although I want to hear if Rauul has any opinions on the fight before I write too much. Agreed, let's wait for Rauul first. Thanks for looking at my points. BTW: I sort of expected him to have Raashnak to put up force screen, which would have won him the fight I think. Don't know why Rauul didn't put that in tactics....
Khaim 06-23-07, 09:19 PM	Ialgo vs Tatsuo (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12834132&postcount=1006) is done. Blech. I messed up so many times. At least I caught most of them quickly, so I don't think I have to redo a lot of it. Someone check for me?
Rauul 06-23-07, 09:58 PM	Edit: Ok, I've run the dice out to round 9 after the hit shocking grasp hit (17 damage). 5' step and casting ray deals 7 strength damage. Making his last attack miss, and the next round as well (by 1 point twice...). Maeril then swing again in round 9, hitting and finishing the fight. So yes, the +3 to hit was fight altering. I'll get it written up sometime between today and Monday, although I want to hear if Rauul has any opinions on the fight before I write too much. Acually if you straighten out the order of Attacks... My character may get an extra 1-2 attacks... As in rd 6 Maeril had already attacked.. and wouldn't of done the Ray of Enfeeblement that same round.. then next round in 7 Graashnak May get a Aoo from Maeril casting the ray.. but would't take the weapon damage of that round.. Also even though riding for cover isn't an action.. when declaring your riding for cover and fail.. you can't attack or cast spells.. Example is in round 7 he failed his ride for cover.. and still attacked.. Shrug i don't know.. Cover You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can’t attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don’t get the cover benefit. This usage does not take an action. But yea Straighten out the Rounds and such.. And lets see what happenes..
Rauul 06-23-07, 10:11 PM	BTW: I sort of expected him to have Raashnak to put up force screen, which would have won him the fight I think. Don't know why Rauul didn't put that in tactics.... Mainly because he was hoping to get into melee with 2x and 3x moves (run) before you were able to fully buff.. and charge if possable.. As for the 5ft steps to make the familiar cause Aoo's.. I didn't add it to my tactics mainly because i consider it a common sense tactic that everyone thats been in a fight should know and do.. So either or.. don't matter..
Vathelokai 06-23-07, 10:21 PM	Thanks for the run. I won't make you change it unless Vath has changes he would like made (yes I will..see below)...but you did not do any of the grappling attempts correctly. Thanks for looking out. I await the final word. Ninja is probably the first character I've paid attention to the power rating on, so if she has a shot, I'd like to see it run out. Can't believe the rolls on that clw wand....
Zevox 06-23-07, 10:31 PM	Also even though riding for cover isn't an action.. when declaring your riding for cover and fail.. you can't attack or cast spells.. Example is in round 7 he failed his ride for cover.. and still attacked.. Shrug i don't know.. Huh? Where do you read that? The rules say that while using ride for cover, you cannot attack. That means that at the moment you take cover with ride, you're incapable of attacking. Thats it. Failing to ride for cover carries no penalties. You can still attack after using ride for cover, just not while doing it. Unless you're suffering a readied attack or an AoO for an attack or spell of your own, the inability to attack while riding for cover will almost never be an issue. Zevox
Rauul 06-23-07, 11:13 PM	Huh? Where do you read that? The rules say that while using ride for cover, you cannot attack. That means that at the moment you take cover with ride, you're incapable of attacking. Thats it. Failing to ride for cover carries no penalties. You can still attack after using ride for cover, just not while doing it. Unless you're suffering a readied attack or an AoO for an attack or spell of your own, the inability to attack while riding for cover will almost never be an issue. Zevox Well it's not a "free action" or a "Swift Action", or any action at all(simular to inisitive isn't an action.. and neither is Dodge)... Skill is worded as bad as anything i have seen... I figure it is a 1 rd action.. you make the ride for cover check at the beginning of each round... make it your +4 and can act normally.. fail it well you recover from being side saddle during your round and can't attack or cast spells but no penalty to ac.. no pluses either...
Hirumajoe 06-24-07, 12:04 AM	Acually if you straighten out the order of Attacks... My character may get an extra 1-2 attacks... As in rd 6 Maeril had already attacked.. and wouldn't of done the Ray of Enfeeblement that same round.. then next round in 7 Graashnak May get a Aoo from Maeril casting the ray.. but would't take the weapon damage of that round.. Also even though riding for cover isn't an action.. when declaring your riding for cover and fail.. you can't attack or cast spells.. Example is in round 7 he failed his ride for cover.. and still attacked.. Shrug i don't know.. But yea Straighten out the Rounds and such.. And lets see what happenes.. I am 5' stepping Maeril away since thats a standard technique when casting which will negate the AoO. In hindsight, I should have been 5' stepping Graashnak if the familiar missed to force AoOs, but its rather moot since he hit with the first attack. Not used to thinking of no-reach characters. In regards to the rounds, I kinda just mentally moved Maeril's round 7 attack into round 8, but without me writing it out I admit its confusing. I'll do the write up tomorrow and it should be clear if you need extra attacks rolled or not. Unfortunately, the max strength damage ray means you need 18s to hit. Lastly, as Zevox indicates, Ride for cover only prevents attacks at the moment of the ride for cover. Thus, if you ready an attack for when he attacks, that will hit him without the +4 AC or abort his attack.
Zevox 06-24-07, 12:24 AM	Well it's not a "free action" or a "Swift Action", or any action at all(simular to inisitive isn't an action.. and neither is Dodge)... Skill is worded as bad as anything i have seen... I figure it is a 1 rd action.. you make the ride for cover check at the beginning of each round... make it your +4 and can act normally.. fail it well you recover from being side saddle during your round and can't attack or cast spells but no penalty to ac.. no pluses either... You were right with your first observation - its not an action at all. You don't spend any action doing it, which is why it works as I said. How on earth can you think its a 1 round action when the rules say you "react instantly" and don't say anything about it taking a full round to do?? Zevox
Rauul 06-24-07, 12:39 AM	You were right with your first observation - its not an action at all. You don't spend any action doing it, which is why it works as I said. How on earth can you think its a 1 round action when the rules say you "react instantly" and don't say anything about it taking a full round to do?? Zevox Basicly i think of it as you ride for cover at the top of every round.. if you make it you act normally and get a +4 to ac.. if you fail.. your basicly screwed for that 1 round..(as it states in the skill you can't attack or cast spells if you fail the ride check(your basicly recovering from failing a physical skill, and have no ac penaltys)) and Since a round is Appoximently 10 seconds.. And since it's NOT a free action you can't do it any number of times a round (as a free action specificly states you can).. as a free action, swift action ect.. are detailed.. None actions aren't detailed.. so your telling me it's faster as a free action.. and the no attack and no casting means NADA in that "Riding for cover" is faster than light NON Action fail or succeed? Gimme a break..
Rauul 06-24-07, 12:41 AM	You were right with your first observation - its not an action at all. You don't spend any action doing it, which is why it works as I said. How on earth can you think its a 1 round action when the rules say you "react instantly" and don't say anything about it taking a full round to do?? Zevox it also saids you can't attack or cast a spell.. but that is meaningless since both of those are "Actions" IE other than Ride for Cover.. show me another non action based combat skill...
Zevox 06-24-07, 12:55 AM	Basicly i think of it as you ride for cover at the top of every round.. if you make it you act normally and get a +4 to ac.. if you fail.. your basicly screwed for that 1 round..(as it states in the skill you can't attack or cast spells if you fail the ride check(your basicly recovering from failing a physical skill, and have no ac penaltys)) and Since a round is Appoximently 10 seconds.. And since it's NOT a free action you can't do it any number of times a round (as a free action specificly states you can).. as a free action, swift action ect.. are detailed.. None actions aren't detailed.. so your telling me it's faster as a free action.. and the no attack and no casting means NADA in that "Riding for cover" is faster than light NON Action fail or succeed? Gimme a break.. You're just making things up. Read the skill again - there is no penalty for failing your ride check. You do not make the check at the top of the round, you make it when you are attacked (to "react instantly" to the attack, as the skill says). You are incapable of attacking while using ride for cover (repeat - not if you fail the check, if you succeed, and only while doing so if you do), which does matter in the case of attacks of opportunity and readied attacks, but nothing more. And yes, it is faster than a free action - it takes only an instant to occur (hence the "react instantly" part). Here, the text from the skill itself is pretty explicit about all these things, albeit breifer: Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can’t attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don’t get the cover benefit. This usage does not take an action. How on earth could you possibly tell me that says anything other than what I've been saying it does?? Zevox
Zevox 06-24-07, 01:04 AM	Heres a section of the FAQ which may help convince you, Rauul: When using a Ride skill check to claim cover from your mount, exactly when do you start claiming cover from your mount? When must you stop claiming cover from your mount? The skill description says you react instantly to claim cover, and it doesn’t take an action. Does that mean you can do so anytime, even when it’s not your turn? The skill description says you can’t attack or cast spells while claiming cover. Why is that significant if you can claim cover anytime without using an action? You can make a Ride check to claim cover from your mount anytime, even when it’s not your turn. Make the check before your opponent makes his attack roll. If your check succeeds, you have cover against your opponent’s attacks. If several different opponents attack you during the same place in the initiative order, one Ride check determines if you have cover against all those attacks. If you’re attacked again, you must make another Ride check to claim cover again. You cannot claim cover while you’re casting a spell or making any kind of attack. So, for example, if you cast a spell while mounted, you can’t use your mount as cover against any attack of opportunity you might provoke. You also cannot claim cover from your mount while making a charge attack (not even during the movement portion of your charge). Zevox
Rauul 06-24-07, 01:28 AM	Heres a section of the FAQ which may help convince you, Rauul: Zevox Now why didn't you point at that since the beginning? Not that i agree with it mind you... but they did point out a few things.. (personnelly i don't feel every rider can tell the future..) But Since it is in the FAQ it's set in stone.. No backstabbing the rider.. cause he gets a +4 to his flat footed Ac before the rogue even attacks!! Hmm may have to get shadow a horse and train ride skill... +4 ride for cover, ride in and out provoking Attacks of Opportunity.. = +9 ac with dodge + mobility + ride for cover..
Zevox 06-24-07, 01:36 AM	Now why didn't you point at that since the beginning? I forgot it was there, to be honest. I just went checking through that and the errata to see if there was anything that may help explain it in more detail, and found that. No backstabbing the rider.. cause he gets a +4 to his flat footed Ac before the rogue even attacks!! The rider does have to be aware of the attack to know to take cover, you know. Ergo, can't use it flat-footed. Zevox
Erithmu 06-24-07, 02:35 AM	Beldin vs Valkin is up.
Abyssal Stalker 06-24-07, 03:08 AM	Ride for cover is probably one of the most stupid things that they've put in the rules...not that it would prevent me from using it. Ever seen a fully armored knight hang alongside his mount? It just doesn't make sense in many ways, remember the comic that someone posted in the tavern a while ago? :rant:
Rauul 06-24-07, 03:18 AM	Possibly, If I were Maeril, I would not waste a full round by just riding up to Grashnak and giving him the first blow. And if I were Snaggle, I would use the Tumble skill to avoid being hit while moving into the square. etc. etc. To me such are minor issues only, thus not worth mentioning, especially since Snaggle has AC 26 against Grashnaak... Well if i had remembered that he had all 5 pps this fight... would of had him charge the axe after the first one hit... and toss the other into a vigor... but hey i haven't played him since he leveled... and forgot.. So no great lost just means i go into the campain at hmmmm full (forgot the rules change)... *kicks himself in the arse* for that reason alone... I deserve to loose..
Rauul 06-24-07, 03:40 AM	Ride for cover is probably one of the most stupid things that they've put in the rules...not that it would prevent me from using it. Ever seen a fully armored knight hang alongside his mount? It just doesn't make sense in many ways, remember the comic that someone posted in the tavern a while ago? :rant: Now why would any of my charaters use it... i mean Shadow maybe.. but since Diplomacy Allies went good bye the week he was able to quest for one (Bards need allies more than any other class as thier class abilitys is ALL about helping allies) And then that same week the Animal Allies went under the magnefying glass.. there is no way in hell that he would be caught riding a mule..
Hirumajoe 06-24-07, 09:43 AM	Edits to Graashnak vs Maeril have been done. It can be found here. The +3 on shocking grasp made a big difference, and the maximum strength ray of enfeeblement. Couple places in that fight where one point of AC would have swung it either way.
Usurpator 06-24-07, 10:52 AM	Edits to Graashnak vs Maeril have been done. It can be found here. The +3 on shocking grasp made a big difference, and the maximum strength ray of enfeeblement. Couple places in that fight where one point of AC would have swung it either way. Maeril is grateful that Heironeous was willing to grant him this hotly contested victory. Thanks for running the fight Hirumajoe.
Abyssal Stalker 06-24-07, 12:25 PM	First few rounds of Aerryl vs Gaston are done. Please comment the way I've handled the water. I've no idea if I'm doing this right.
UserNamer 06-24-07, 12:47 PM	I'm having some problems, so don't have much time for CoCo, therefore, I'm going to surrender all fight that I'm in: Dentik Earthmolder (TelinArtho) vs. Eunice (UserNamer) : MitzaVolchenko [Arena] Phacce (UserNamer) vs. Gash (Aura_Blade) : TheMagister [Arena] [Week 2] and I'm asking if some one could take my last fight: Kathren Durrol (Zevox) vs. Borodin Brightaxe (Usurpator) : UserNamer [Arena] Tactics and characters already sent in the battles thread.
waywreth 06-24-07, 01:15 PM	First few rounds of Aerryl vs Gaston are done. Please comment the way I've handled the water. I've no idea if I'm doing this right. Looks ok to me so far. Just gotta ready that dispel for when she comes up...
TheMagister 06-24-07, 01:26 PM	Phacce (UserNamer) vs. Gash (Aura_Blade) : TheMagister [Arena] [Week 2] Sorry you're having trouble! Phacce won already, if that's any boost to your emotional status. ;) TM
TheMagister 06-24-07, 01:28 PM	Looks ok to me so far. Just gotta ready that dispel for when she comes up... What would happen if you lightning balled Aerryl while she's underwater? A no-save situation? Water's no impediment to electricity. TM
templer10 06-24-07, 01:53 PM	What would happen if you lightning balled Aerryl while she's underwater? A no-save situation? Water's no impediment to electricity. TM MEH- i remmber 2ED d&D and chain lightening in the water- OUCH. (KFC - kentuki fried charcters...).
TheMagister 06-24-07, 02:13 PM	Heck YEAH I remember! I lost a perfectly good Cavalier that way.
Abyssal Stalker 06-24-07, 02:40 PM	Gaston vs Aerryl is done.
TheMagister 06-24-07, 02:44 PM	Gaston vs Aerryl is done. Being mostly underwater gives a person Improved Cover (+8 AC and +4 Reflex saves). Improved Cover also gives a person Improved Evasion. (PHB pg. 152, if you're curious) TM
Abyssal Stalker 06-24-07, 02:47 PM	Being mostly underwater gives a person Improved Cover (+8 AC and +4 Reflex saves). Improved Cover also gives a person Improved Evasion. (PHB pg. 152, if you're curious) TM Yep, I noticed that - I just haven's listed it in the summary. That doesn't help a thing on a DC31 fort save, though...
UserNamer 06-24-07, 03:03 PM	Sorry you're having trouble! Phacce won already, if that's any boost to your emotional status. ;) TM Ah, well that's nice. Maybe i'll be playing again soon.
Khaim 06-24-07, 03:26 PM	Ride for cover is probably one of the most stupid things that they've put in the rules...not that it would prevent me from using it. I can not agree with you enough. Mounted Combat negating hits is bad enough, but ride for cover? Magic I can accept, but that's just silly.
TheMagister 06-24-07, 03:32 PM	I could accept it if the horse could get hit when it's the thing that prevents the hit.
Sjiggie 06-24-07, 03:59 PM	I'm having some problems, so don't have much time for CoCo, therefore, I'm going to surrender all fight that I'm in: Do you still have the time to edit the fight between Gradak and Psyker? If not is someone else who wants to take a look at it? I'll post the concerns in a minute here again. @ Usernamer. I found some mistakes in the fight. First I didn't got the suprise round from my ambush skill package. I clearly listed what I wanted to do with it. Second if it turned out into a ranged battle waht it did I wanted to stay behind cover but you make me move so that I'm in the open and not behind cover what is in my move range. Third I asked for rapid shots but you let Gradak single shoot all the time. Please roll the extra attack that I could make in round 5 till 8. And one final question why is Psyker shooting vs AC 15 in round 9 my ac at that time is 19+1dodge+4force screen (+4 cover where Gradak shoud have moved). Can you please make the edits because these are not minor but can effect the outcome of the fight. Thanks for your effort -Sjiggie Well if he's rerolling the fight then I want to not stand there and be shot at while refocusing- my tactics clearly say not to do that. Why everyone ignores me on this, I do not know. For that matter, in round 4 you have Gradak immediately abandon his tactics and switch to ranged. While it's obvious to you that we're going to end up in a ranged battle, it shouldn't be obvious to him for another round or two. Also, Chameleon lasts 10 min/level not min/level.
MindWandererB 06-24-07, 10:49 PM	Yep, I noticed that - I just haven's listed it in the summary. That doesn't help a thing on a DC31 fort save, though... No, but what does help is that when you have improved cover (or regular cover, or concealment), you automatically make Hide checks. That's what I was going for. That's also why I wanted distance--to maximize his Spot penalties and eliminate Touchsight as an option. So I'm going to have to ask you to take those things into consideration. (And damn, it would have worked better if I'd realized there was a hedge there, and made the Jump check.)
Zevox 06-25-07, 12:20 AM	I'm having some problems, so don't have much time for CoCo, therefore, I'm going to surrender all fight that I'm in: Dentik Earthmolder (TelinArtho) vs. Eunice (UserNamer) : MitzaVolchenko [Arena] Phacce (UserNamer) vs. Gash (Aura_Blade) : TheMagister [Arena] [Week 2] and I'm asking if some one could take my last fight: Kathren Durrol (Zevox) vs. Borodin Brightaxe (Usurpator) : UserNamer [Arena] Tactics and characters already sent in the battles thread. So, any chance someone could pick up that fight? Should be fairly straightforward - the biggest hitch is Usurpator's request to use his mist spell to buy himself healing time. Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 06-25-07, 12:22 AM	No, but what does help is that when you have improved cover (or regular cover, or concealment), you automatically make Hide checks. That's what I was going for. That's also why I wanted distance--to maximize his Spot penalties and eliminate Touchsight as an option. So I'm going to have to ask you to take those things into consideration. (And damn, it would have worked better if I'd realized there was a hedge there, and made the Jump check.) Hmmm... Someone should probably enlighten me. How water should be treated? Does it block LoS? (Because it's really hard to hide if there is nothing that blocks LoS, allthough you have cover.) This is one of those rules that could be spelled better, I think. I can roll the spot checks if you feel, but anyway I feel I am giving you quite a lot already. You are even swimming and casting spells with somatic components at the same time.
waywreth 06-25-07, 12:57 AM	Hmmm... Someone should probably enlighten me. How water should be treated? Does it block LoS? (Because it's really hard to hide if there is nothing that blocks LoS, allthough you have cover.) This is one of those rules that could be spelled better, I think. I can roll the spot checks if you feel, but anyway I feel I am giving you quite a lot already. You are even swimming and casting spells with somatic components at the same time. Perhaps, but as soon as she stands to cast anything (you can't cast underwater), the energy missile goes off and the fight is over.
MindWandererB 06-25-07, 01:12 AM	Perhaps, but as soon as she stands to cast anything (you can't cast underwater), the energy missile goes off and the fight is over. No, it doesn't. If a character has cover, they get to make Hide checks (and with Improved Cover, she even gets a bonus). It's only an autospot if she attacks without sniping, or gets entirely out of the water.
Macbrea 06-25-07, 08:21 AM	Quick Overview of water combat Thrown weapons - Do not work at all Ranged attacks - -2 to hit per 5 foot of water it has to pass through Slashing and Bludgeoning weapons - -2 to hit and half damage Attacks from land = swimmer has Improved cover (+8 ac, +4 reflex) if on surface, Full cover if below. Non-Magical Fire - Does not work in water Magical Fire - Water surface blocks LoE, To make a fire spell work underwater is Spellcraft (dc 20+spell level). If no firm footing, successful swim check, swim speed or freedom of movement you are considered to be off balance. Full SRD rules to Aquatic Combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#aquaticTerrain)
Macbrea 06-25-07, 08:23 AM	So, as to hide checks. If you are below the surface of the water you have full cover. And therefore, could hide.
waywreth 06-25-07, 08:51 AM	So, as to hide checks. If you are below the surface of the water you have full cover. And therefore, could hide. Full cover right, but when you get out of the water to cast (and casting full round summons underwater can't happen - verbal component), but Gaston didn't cast a spell (manifest) with a reflex save so the Improved cover bonus to reflex save won't apply.
Macbrea 06-25-07, 08:54 AM	Nowhere, I can find does it say you cannot speak underwater.
MitzaVolchenko 06-25-07, 10:21 AM	Full cover right, but when you get out of the water to cast (and casting full round summons underwater can't happen - verbal component), but Gaston didn't cast a spell (manifest) with a reflex save so the Improved cover bonus to reflex save won't apply. You can cast underwater...it is covered by taking an extra round away from your breath timer just like attacking.
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 10:30 AM	@Zevox and Usurpator - I am taking the Kathren vs Borodin fight. My internet connection is a little spotty - so hopefully I won't have too many troubles today... @Erithmu - in Sir Valkin's fight, I know he used at least one smite evil - but did he use any Divine Mights? (in either case - the Smite needs to be noted in the summary).
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 10:41 AM	Once it does, hit Borodin with my MM wand and have Zephyrus deliver two shocking grasps – one from memory, one from a scroll (note that using my wand won’t cause Zephyrus to lose a spell he holds). I want to note that I disagree with the parenthetical statement. Activating a wand has always equated to casting a spell in my book. I will run the fight so that the touch spells are not lost - but if it is determined later that activating the wand wouldn't discharge the touch spell - I will edit it in. The reason why I say a no-go on this is because you could effectively have 2 touch spells (or more for that matter) active in this case - and that's opening up the door to all kinds of abuse. Picture a spellcaster with spectral hand active who casts Chill Touch from memory then activates a wand of Shocking Grasp (CL5), a wand of Vampiric Touch, a wand of bestow curse, etc. Then sets one "super" touch through the spectral hand...
Erithmu 06-25-07, 10:47 AM	@Erithmu - in Sir Valkin's fight, I know he used at least one smite evil - but did he use any Divine Mights? (in either case - the Smite needs to be noted in the summary). Tactics stated to only use Divine Might on a charge attack, And you never had one of those. Smite added.
Zevox 06-25-07, 11:02 AM	I want to note that I disagree with the parenthetical statement. Activating a wand has always equated to casting a spell in my book. I will run the fight so that the touch spells are not lost - but if it is determined later that activating the wand wouldn't discharge the touch spell - I will edit it in. The reason why I say a no-go on this is because you could effectively have 2 touch spells (or more for that matter) active in this case - and that's opening up the door to all kinds of abuse. Picture a spellcaster with spectral hand active who casts Chill Touch from memory then activates a wand of Shocking Grasp (CL5), a wand of Vampiric Touch, a wand of bestow curse, etc. Then sets one "super" touch through the spectral hand... I hate to tell you, but thats something they could do by the core rules. The only magic items which work the same as casting a spell yourself according to the rules are scrolls (or other spell completion items, if such exist). Thats why everything but scrolls follow different rules from normal spellcasting. Its abusable, yes, but its core. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 06-25-07, 12:59 PM	Eunice surrenders to Dentik. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12851331&postcount=1009)
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 01:05 PM	Kathren Durrol (Zevox) vs Borodin Brightaxe (Usurpator) is up. I hate to tell you, but thats something they could do by the core rules. The only magic items which work the same as casting a spell yourself according to the rules are scrolls (or other spell completion items, if such exist). Thats why everything but scrolls follow different rules from normal spellcasting. Its abusable, yes, but its core. Zevox As it turns out, it didn't end up making a difference. As to the matter of whether it would work or not - I see nothing that indicates that spells activated from wands would behave differently with regard to touch spells than spells from scrolls or spells from memory.
Macbrea 06-25-07, 01:19 PM	Wizards seems to not think spells cast from scrolls are being cast by the activator of the scroll. Odd, Can a spectral hand spell deliver a touch spell from a staff or wand? What about from a scroll? No. The spell delivered by spectral hand must be one that you cast. Activating a magic item is not the same as casting a spell, even if the effect is virtually identical. This is relevant because of the last line of deliver touch attacks of familiars. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates.
Zevox 06-25-07, 01:21 PM	Kathren Durrol (Zevox) vs Borodin Brightaxe (Usurpator) is up. Yeesh, dice didn't like me initially there - missing with acid arrow and Zephyrus getting killed both. Good thing I took Mounted Combat, or he might have brought Starlight down. Thanks for the run. As to the matter of whether it would work or not - I see nothing that indicates that spells activated from wands would behave differently with regard to touch spells than spells from scrolls or spells from memory. Touch spells quite specifically only end if you cast another spell. With wands, you are not doing so, you're just activating an item. How is using a wand any different from, say, activating a Hand of Glory? A pair of Winged Boots? A Ring of Invisibility? All of these items duplicate spell effects, but its not you casting the spell. Should all of them cause a touch spell to end? I should certainly think not myself. Scrolls specifically work just like casting a spell yourself, so they definitely count, but they're the only magical item that works like that. Why should others where you're just activating the item's magic cause a held touch spell to be lost? Zevox
Zevox 06-25-07, 01:25 PM	Wizards seems to not think spells cast from scrolls are being cast by the activator of the scroll. Odd, That is odd, given the FAQ allows scroll spells to be shared with familiars specifically because they're treated exactly as though the wizard cast it himself. Zevox
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 01:25 PM	R1- immideatly move out Clockwise towards EACH starting location and check in there - double moveing on lancer, if I have LOS head towards him, use my own standart action (which is in middle of double move) to manifests skate on lancer 2 (so his second move is 75). @templer10, the powerstone you are manifesting from is ML1. Skate can affect you (at no matter what weight) or another at 100lbs/ML. Unless your horse is a miniature, I don't see how it is going to be under 100lbs...
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 01:27 PM	Touch spells quite specifically only end if you cast another spell. With wands, you are not doing so, you're just activating an item. How is using a wand any different from, say, activating a Hand of Glory? A pair of Winged Boots? A Ring of Invisibility? All of these items duplicate spell effects, but its not you casting the spell. Should all of them cause a touch spell to end? I should certainly think not myself. Scrolls specifically work just like casting a spell yourself, so they definitely count, but they're the only magical item that works like that. Why should others where you're just activating the item's magic cause a held touch spell to be lost? Zevox First off, I would have no problem with items activated getting rid of held touch spells... that would be the most elegant solution and would remove the abusive potential. However, @MacBrea's quote - can you tell me where in the SRD that is? I don't see it at all.
Zevox 06-25-07, 01:27 PM	@templer10, the powerstone you are manifesting from is ML1. Skate can affect you (at no matter what weight) or another at 100lbs/ML. Unless your horse is a miniature, I don't see how it is going to be under 100lbs... I've always read the weight restriction on skate as applying only to when its used on objects. Target: You or one willing creature or one unattended object (total weight up to 100 lb./level); see text Zevox
Macbrea 06-25-07, 01:29 PM	Sorry.. first quote was from FAQ. This was wether a scroll activation counted as casting a spell. It doesn't appear so from the answer to spectral hand.
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 01:32 PM	I've always read the weight restriction on skate as applying only to when its used on objects. Zevox Ah - that is a possibility. I thought this was the reason why we priced Skate tattoos as personal though (because if it was on a "willing" creature - the weight restriction would come in to play.
Zevox 06-25-07, 01:41 PM	Ah - that is a possibility. I thought this was the reason why we priced Skate tattoos as personal though (because if it was on a "willing" creature - the weight restriction would come in to play. *shrugs* Truth be told, I don't agree with us pricing it as personal to begin with, since it clearly doesn't have that in its entry. If that were the logic for it, I'd just have one more reason for disagreeing with it. Especially since "another willing creature" clearly isn't yourself, so a tattoo couldn't be made with that as the target anyway. Zevox
Zevox 06-25-07, 01:44 PM	First off, I would have no problem with items activated getting rid of held touch spells... that would be the most elegant solution and would remove the abusive potential. However, @MacBrea's quote - can you tell me where in the SRD that is? I don't see it at all. *shrugs* Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't feel the rules indicate that activating items would cause a held spell to be lost, and I don't feel that would be a necessary (house) rule to implement. If its a big deal, mayhaps we should add it to the court or council's business list? Zevox
Zevox 06-25-07, 02:03 PM	@ Telin - Just noticed, Kathren's rewards are slightly off. They should be 675 xp/gp, not 625. Zevox
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 02:05 PM	@ Telin - Just noticed, Kathren's rewards are slightly off. They should be 675 xp/gp, not 625. Zevox Fixed.
Abyssal Stalker 06-25-07, 02:57 PM	I've edited in the hide/spot/listen DC0 checks. Energy missile is just overkill.
Usurpator 06-25-07, 03:03 PM	Kathren Durrol (Zevox) vs Borodin Brightaxe (Usurpator)[/post] is up. Hi Telin, thanks for running it, looks good. I'm quite content that my tactics worked out nearly perfectly, but couldn't make it better than 40/60 odds, and thus really needed the dice to enable me to win, which they didn't. Yeesh, dice didn't like me initially there - missing with acid arrow and Zephyrus getting killed both. Good thing I took Mounted Combat, or he might have brought Starlight down. Thanks for the run. I beg to differ. A 12 was rolled for the acid arrow, which seems above average to me. Two attacks +8 for 1d10+4 damage vs. AC 19 of Zephyrus which inflicts 9.5 damage on average. Pretty normal I think. She rolled a 12 on her hold person save while she needed an 11, again pretty normal. The dice favored no one in this fight, which is why Kathren won. I managed to disable your offensive capability and your defensive capability (buffs) but not the horse nor the wand, which I needed to do to win. Congrats on the win Zevox, and incidentally my first real loss (not counting that stupid monster fight) since my return.
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 03:07 PM	Actually - the acid arrow roll was an 8 (modified by +4 for BAB and Unmodified Dex and +2 (for reduce person (+1 size, +1 dex))
Zevox 06-25-07, 03:17 PM	I beg to differ. A 12 was rolled for the acid arrow, which seems above average to me. Two attacks +8 for 1d10+4 damage vs. AC 19 of Zephyrus which inflicts 9.5 damage on average. Pretty normal I think. A 12 on Acid Arrow when she had a ranged touch attack of +6 is normal? I don't think so. On average, one of those attacks should've missed Zephyrus, which would mean he could've survived, though granted average damage would be all you'd need to kill him. She rolled a 12 on her hold person save while she needed an 11, again pretty normal. The dice favored no one in this fight, which is why Kathren won. I managed to disable your offensive capability and your defensive capability (buffs) but not the horse nor the wand, which I needed to do to win. I know she rolled average on the hold person save, which is why I said the dice hated me initially - just in the first few rounds there. As for you disabling things, I'd tend to consider the wand part of my offensive capability myself (thats the whole reason Kathren has it, after all, is to ensure she has a viable attack method during early levels), and you just happened to outlast my buffs by a few rounds. Congrats on the win Zevox, and incidentally my first real loss (not counting that stupid monster fight) since my return. Thanks - I've gotta say, I'm relieved it turned out this way, since Kathren levels up now after having spent nearly two months at ECL 3, and she doesn't get interesting combat-wise until ECL 6 and above (takes Leadership and Human Paragon at that level). Though wasn't Shazzelin's FFA loss your first since your return, monster fight not included? Zevox
waywreth 06-25-07, 03:18 PM	I've edited in the hide/spot/listen DC0 checks. Energy missile is just overkill. There's a reason it was errated in Complete Psionic (?). We use the updated version in our tabletop games. Nothing should scale at 1pp per DC/d6 damage.
templer10 06-25-07, 03:37 PM	Lycidas Arcades (stimpydoda) vs. Maeglin Eluch (bgt) is done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12851756&postcount=1012) - this was essentially an autowin.
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 03:43 PM	@templer10 - just an FYI about the "strange behavior of 0" in the CoCo roller: lyciades ride to attack 1d20+6=17 11/20 #64592 2007-06-25 20:57:37 lyciades hoof,hoof,biite,light crossbow 1d20+4=11 1d20+4=12 1d20-1=20 1d20+6= 7/20;8/20;14/20 #64593 2007-06-25 20:58:05 lyciades light crossbow- missing roll 1d20+6=16 10/20 #64594 2007-06-25 20:59:56 lyciades bite dmg 1d3+1=4 3/3 #64595 2007-06-25 21:04:21 I saw that you made an extra roll for the crossbow that was "missing." However, if you look carefully - you'll see that the bite attack of the horse (1d20-1) had a result of 20 - something that is not possible. The roller doesn't handle results of 0 correctly - it simply moves on as if the result was there (so no error), but doesn't allocate a space for it (or a value for that matter). So in other words - the light crossbow actually had the roll of 14+6=20. This is mostly for your edification for the future. Yes it is a bug and yes the creator of the roller is aware of the problem (just hasn't fixed it yet).
templer10 06-25-07, 03:46 PM	@templer10 - just an FYI about the "strange behavior of 0" in the CoCo roller: I saw that you made an extra roll for the crossbow that was "missing." However, if you look carefully - you'll see that the bite attack of the horse (1d20-1) had a result of 20 - something that is not possible. The roller doesn't handle results of 0 correctly - it simply moves on as if the result was there (so no error), but doesn't allocate a space for it (or a value for that matter). So in other words - the light crossbow actually had the roll of 14+6=20. This is mostly for your edification for the future. Yes it is a bug and yes the creator of the roller is aware of the problem (just hasn't fixed it yet). good to know - doesnt make a diffrence through - this fight was over before it was started. on another note- anyone see macjarvis - that Inter league fight that's on week 2 isnt done yet...
MindWandererB 06-25-07, 04:15 PM	I've edited in the hide/spot/listen DC0 checks. Energy missile is just overkill. Should have been some distance penalties there (and is it possible to "swim silently?"), but I don't think it made a difference. I just have no idea how to kill a kineticist with a druid, period.
templer10 06-25-07, 04:34 PM	Should have been some distance penalties there (and is it possible to "swim silently?"), but I don't think it made a difference. I just have no idea how to kill a kineticist with a druid, period. Summons possibly - By making him spend his pps or balefull polymorph if he fail BOTH saves - but i's a longshot at best, Other then that - IF you can survive his first hit you could retreat into a wall of thorns and heal up - GEt summons going then take the wall down- since the energy powers (i think) will hit on the peremiter of it.
Usurpator 06-25-07, 05:00 PM	Thanks - I've gotta say, I'm relieved it turned out this way, since Kathren levels up now after having spent nearly two months at ECL 3, and she doesn't get interesting combat-wise until ECL 6 and above (takes Leadership and Human Paragon at that level). Though wasn't Shazzelin's FFA loss your first since your return, monster fight not included? Well, personally I dislike Leadership feat, I think a cohort adds too much combat ability to a character, but it is nearly a necessity to stay competitive against cohort-equipped characters. So I get a bit sad at each character I see slated to take Leadership. Also, personally, I don't experience intermediate places in FFA's or other multiple PC fights as losses even though it might be counted as such by the rules. It wasn't a win, but not a loss either.
Zevox 06-25-07, 05:22 PM	Well, personally I dislike Leadership feat, I think a cohort adds too much combat ability to a character, but it is nearly a necessity to stay competitive against cohort-equipped characters. So I get a bit sad at each character I see slated to take Leadership. Also, personally, I don't experience intermediate places in FFA's or other multiple PC fights as losses even though it might be counted as such by the rules. It wasn't a win, but not a loss either. *shrugs* Leadership is just a personal preference then I suppose. Kathren has it on her slate for RP reasons as much as anything though - she a noble coming into her own, learning both to master magic as an Archmage and to be a strong leader in her house (which she will one day inherit). I don't think you need it to compete though - certainly that hasn't been my experience at all. Of my six high level characters, only one has it (Asran, again for RP reasons as much as anything), and only one is doing truly poorly in the arena (Featylec, mostly due to how hard it is to pull sneaks off here). One of my ECL 10s, Eraca, an Arcane Archer gish, has been doing quite well without it, even handily besting at least one character who used it (Zassl) twice. My other ECL 10, Istima, is great reknown and has never had an ally tougher than a Pegasus. My ECL 9, Ceilia, is undefeated, and doesn't have that feat and never will (in fact, for the majority of her fights, the toughest ally shes had is a Hippogriff), and she won an FFA involving a leadership-using foe (admittably thanks to a great deal of luck, but no one wins an FFA without that). And my ECL 8, Arden, is 7-3 in the arena with no allies and few expendables, and two of the losses at least were mostly to the dice (greataxe critical hit in one, abysmal rolls for him in another). He hasn't faced a leadership user yet, but he did just this week face a Druid that used heavy summoning and a Dire Bat companion and win. You do have a point about the FFA though - unless you go down last, you get better rewards than a true loss, so I guess one needn't count it as a true loss. Zevox
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 05:28 PM	Well, personally I dislike Leadership feat, I think a cohort adds too much combat ability to a character, but it is nearly a necessity to stay competitive against cohort-equipped characters. So I get a bit sad at each character I see slated to take Leadership. Also, personally, I don't experience intermediate places in FFA's or other multiple PC fights as losses even though it might be counted as such by the rules. It wasn't a win, but not a loss either. I have yet to make a character that actually got Leadership. I have one character "slated" to use it later on - but it will be a while before that happens, and she is the 23rd character (or so) that I posted... I am with Zevox in saying that leadership really isn't necessary to compete at the higher levels. Sir Valkin does well with just his mount (and although his class ally is strong - I have a feeling that most of the time - even Foreman would succeed as well...) and Kraegin has done formidably with limited use of allies brought in (though - he does summon quite a few usually). Of course - I don't have a very good record overall - but I attribute that much more to my ability to write tactics and create solid characters (or lack thereof) than to the rest of the population using the leadership feat.
Rauul 06-25-07, 06:22 PM	Well, personally I dislike Leadership feat, I think a cohort adds too much combat ability to a character, but it is nearly a necessity to stay competitive against cohort-equipped characters. So I get a bit sad at each character I see slated to take Leadership. Also, personally, I don't experience intermediate places in FFA's or other multiple PC fights as losses even though it might be counted as such by the rules. It wasn't a win, but not a loss either. Well i know my 1 and only character to have leadership feat is Corrupter.. and he got it for the little red wizards for circle magic.. the Cleric is just a bonus.. and acually does so little with the 25 pt bye it is just an exp/ gold drain when i use him.. But he works great on Quests.. Shadow is Slated to get Leadership.. around ECL 9 so he can get his own thieves guild and a Shadow Mastiff :)
Hirumajoe 06-25-07, 07:22 PM	I would like to take this opportunity to say: "Go Lillian!" :D Looking at the ECL 10 battle royal rolls so far I'm very glad Lillian is on our side... Because as far as I can tell, she's the only one doing anything useful on our team so far. She's also done more than twice thrice as much damage as the other team too... Basically, I'm amused. :)
Adolfo_Mondschein 06-25-07, 07:31 PM	I call shenanigans on this fight. What about this fight wasn't wrong? I'd appreciate a do over. Tatsuo vs Ialgo (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12834132&postcount=1006) I'd also rather not have my lizardfolk with 10 intelligence and 16 wisdom being called a "clueless beast". Thank you...
Macbrea 06-25-07, 07:46 PM	The only problem I see with that fight is that you didn't make your extra attacks during a full attack. Flavor text doesn't mean anything, so, being clueless is just an observation.
MindWandererB 06-25-07, 07:51 PM	I call shenanigans on this fight. What about this fight wasn't wrong? I'd appreciate a do over. Tatsuo vs Ialgo (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12834132&postcount=1006) I'd also rather not have my lizardfolk with 10 intelligence and 16 wisdom being called a "clueless beast". Thank you... Do you have any concrete complaints, other than calling him clueless when he is, in fact, clueless about the fact that he's searching in entirely the wrong direction? I can't see anything wrong--Tatsuo searched clockwise, threw his nets at his opponent, missed twice, and reverted to shield and morningstar because his tactics broke down. I'm not checking the die rolls, but Khaim seems to have followed your tactics.
Adolfo_Mondschein 06-25-07, 07:59 PM	He was using a produce flame to make touch attacks as AOO's. He doesn't have improved unarmed strike so he doesn't threaten, and even if he did he'd have to use a fist to deliver it, not a touch. Even though I beat his little wands AC, he never rolled damage for it, since he decided to make my character try and sunder it the whole fight, I'd say thats a big error.
Erithmu 06-25-07, 08:03 PM	He was using a produce flame to make touch attacks as AOO's. He doesn't have improved unarmed strike so he doesn't threaten, and even if he did he'd have to use a fist to deliver it, not a touch. Even though I beat his little wands AC, he never rolled damage for it, since he decided to make my character try and sunder it the whole fight, I'd say thats a big error. Produce flame makes you 'armed' so he can make AoOs with it. As for wands: if they are in the hand they have to be attacked via sunder, attacking the AC only works if they are unattended. Edit (after looking at the fight): I'm not sure that Produce flame was done correctly as even a melee attack reduces the duration of the spell. That and the strange disappearance of round 10 (which would bump your SoF for another round)
MindWandererB 06-25-07, 08:07 PM	He was using a produce flame to make touch attacks as AOO's. He doesn't have improved unarmed strike so he doesn't threaten, and even if he did he'd have to use a fist to deliver it, not a touch. Even though I beat his little wands AC, he never rolled damage for it, since he decided to make my character try and sunder it the whole fight, I'd say thats a big error. Hmm... the rules are silent on the first point. Presumably you could make an AoO with a touch spell, or with flames in your hand, because attacking with them does not provoke an AoO. But it's a good question. (IUS wouldn't apply anyway: he's not using an unarmed strike.) Your tactics say, "If he gets that wand of produce flame out, pull out a Morningstar and try to smash it, once again Tatsuo isn't afraid of the AOO." So sundering the wand, despite any AoO, was definitely the right thing to do. Now, where you do have a point is that with a Sunder attempt, unlike with a grapple, a successful AoO does not cancel the attempt. So that definitely merits some major changes. Edit: @Rith: Actually, you never sunder nonweapon/shields. The attack is always vs. AC (with the wielder's Dex, of course).
Erithmu 06-25-07, 08:15 PM	Edit: @Rith: Actually, you never sunder nonweapon/shields. The attack is always vs. AC (with the wielder's Dex, of course). Ahhh I'm thinking of the Disarm modifer.... your right I'm still trying to figure out how Valen has 35 AC in Annis Hag form ...
Adolfo_Mondschein 06-25-07, 08:20 PM	Hmm... the rules are silent on the first point. Presumably you could make an AoO with a touch spell, or with flames in your hand, because attacking with them does not provoke an AoO. But it's a good question. (IUS wouldn't apply anyway: he's not using an unarmed strike.) Your tactics say, "If he gets that wand of produce flame out, pull out a Morningstar and try to smash it, once again Tatsuo isn't afraid of the AOO." So sundering the wand, despite any AoO, was definitely the right thing to do. Now, where you do have a point is that with a Sunder attempt, unlike with a grapple, a successful AoO does not cancel the attempt. So that definitely merits some major changes. Edit: @Rith: Actually, you never sunder nonweapon/shields. The attack is always vs. AC (with the wielder's Dex, of course). Actually the rules do, just not in SRD. Also, I didn't write him up to be afraid of the AOO because I thought we were going by the rules, which says he has to make a normal attack on the AOO, not a spell. He can't hit me with a normal attack, not unless he rolls a twenty. Produce flame doesn't arm you, Spell Here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsPtoR.html#produce-flame). He wasn't armed thus he didn't get to make AOO's in the first place. Since that was the only way he won, the whole fight is flawed.
Erithmu 06-25-07, 08:24 PM	Produce flame makes you armed See Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) and scroll down to Standard Actions -> Attacks -> "Armed" unarmed attacks
MindWandererB 06-25-07, 08:37 PM	Produce flame makes you armed See Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) and scroll down to Standard Actions -> Attacks -> "Armed" unarmed attacks Ah, bingo. That's the rule I thought didn't exist. Holding a spell charge clearly allows you to make AoOs with it.
Hirumajoe 06-25-07, 08:40 PM	Ahhh I'm thinking of the Disarm modifer.... your right I'm still trying to figure out how Valen has 35 AC in Annis Hag form ... Because of the Enlarge potion he drank before he manifested Metamorphosis. Which makes his armor large and thus sticks around when changes form. And the Dex/Shield buffs. 10 Base + 1 Dex (12 Annis) +2 Dex (AA) +5 Shield (Force Screen) +6 (Armor) + 10 Natural + 1 Dodge Feat + 1 Haste - 1 Size = 35 AC. :D
Zevox 06-25-07, 08:46 PM	Kracnol & Besthira vs Jonathan Raven & Valen Sky. Wherein it is proven that high AC is good, magic missile is better, and both is just plain crazy. Zevox
Adolfo_Mondschein 06-25-07, 08:46 PM	Ok, I can live with all that. What about the wand? It was clearly destroyed right? Or is there some other rule I should know about? Sundering a Carried or Worn Object You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character. If the wand was broke, he wouldn't have won anyway right?
MindWandererB 06-25-07, 08:48 PM	Because of the Enlarge potion he drank before he manifested Metamorphosis. Which makes his armor large and thus sticks around when changes form. And the Dex/Shield buffs. 10 Base + 1 Dex (12 Annis) +2 Dex (AA) +5 Shield (Force Screen) +6 (Armor) + 10 Natural + 1 Dodge Feat + 1 Haste - 1 Size = 35 AC. :D And how did he get all that in 3 rounds? Enlarge, Metamorphosis, Force Screen, Animal Affinity... should take at least 4. Edit: Ah, I see. The potion was skipped, but the armor retained. That's a slight problem. I don't think it changes anything, though. @Zevox: I did neglect to consider grappling Valen, because I expected Jonathan to still be around. Of course, in retrospect, my chances of that would have been only marginally better.
TelinArtho 06-25-07, 09:20 PM	Ok, I can live with all that. What about the wand? It was clearly destroyed right? Or is there some other rule I should know about? Sundering a Carried or Worn Object You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character. If the wand was broke, he wouldn't have won anyway right? Well - it would certainly depend on the damage rolls - you'd have to beat Hardness 5 and 5hp and the 16 AC (+2 size, +4 dex). But beyond that it might come down to attacks in melee and see who gets downed first.
Hirumajoe 06-25-07, 09:22 PM	And how did he get all that in 3 rounds? Enlarge, Metamorphosis, Force Screen, Animal Affinity... should take at least 4. Edit: Ah, I see. The potion was skipped, but the armor retained. That's a slight problem. I don't think it changes anything, though. @Zevox: I did neglect to consider grappling Valen, because I expected Jonathan to still be around. Of course, in retrospect, my chances of that would have been only marginally better. If edits go in, probably what should happen is Valen drinks the potion, Beth still misses for that round, so the current attack rolls and misses proceed to hold, and Valen is pushed back one round in his actions, which means team Kracknol and Beth should get an extra round of attacks (11 attacks a round could still put Valen down with a few 20s in the right places- I mean you're "due" 3 or 4 given the previous rolls - and yes I know they're independant events and that type of reasoning doesn't actually work :) ). @Zevox: The enlarge potion is there to enlarge the armor and weapons, which unfortunately Metamorphosis (based off the polymorph line of spells) doesn't do. Alternate form abilities (such as Beth's) are the ones which enlarge (or shrink) equipment as needed.
Adolfo_Mondschein 06-25-07, 09:27 PM	Well - it would certainly depend on the damage rolls - you'd have to beat Hardness 5 and 5hp and the 16 AC (+2 size, +4 dex). But beyond that it might come down to attacks in melee and see who gets downed first. Well, where are my damage rolls then? And what of my morningstar, the head bypasses the hardness and it dealt 7 points of damage, so the wand should have been gone. Yet there it is, still casting. I would have liked to see the rolls of natural 20's to hit me with the rapier.
McJarvis 06-25-07, 09:51 PM	Severin Dimblade (Adolfo_Mondschein) vs. Unknown Monster : [Arena] is done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12715059&postcount=955). It was a good close fight: I'm glad I didn't go overboard on optimizing that doppleganger. Sorry again about the delay. I'll post results/3FC info after I finish my other fight. All you need to know for updating your char sheet is that you used an arrow & a dose of poison.
Adolfo_Mondschein 06-25-07, 10:08 PM	Severin Dimblade (Adolfo_Mondschein) vs. Unknown Monster : [Arena] is done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12715059&postcount=955). It was a good close fight: I'm glad I didn't go overboard on optimizing that doppleganger. Sorry again about the delay. I'll post results/3FC info after I finish my other fight. All you need to know for updating your char sheet is that you used an arrow & a dose of poison. It's no problem, I understand.
McJarvis 06-25-07, 10:44 PM	Fight 2 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12857868&postcount=1016) is well on its way. I'll prolly be able to finish it up tomorrow morning, but not sure. I don't expect it to take very long since the movement//finding each other portions are done. After this I'll be taking a break from CoCo for a while. ~McJ~
Abyssal Stalker 06-26-07, 12:44 AM	Kracnol & Besthira vs Jonathan Raven & Valen Sky. Wherein it is proven that high AC is good, magic missile is better, and both is just plain crazy. Zevox We won? Whoa! Go Valen! My tactics were hastily written, I admit. I somehow missed the potion, but looking at the will save it would have otherwise worked and that would've been crazy... I really didn't believe that Kracknol would use expansion in the cavern, considering how clumsy huge creatures are there.
Zevox 06-26-07, 12:53 AM	We won? Whoa! Go Valen! My tactics were hastily written, I admit. I somehow missed the potion, but looking at the will save it would have otherwise worked and that would've been crazy... I really didn't believe that Kracknol would use expansion in the cavern, considering how clumsy huge creatures are there. True, but he also had his huge mount already. And besides, for now at least, he can still use it to just become large, and do that as a swift action to boot (which is of course what he did). And yeah, if you had actually managed to dominate Kracknol, this would've been an even more one-sided fight than it already was. Zevox
TheMagister 06-26-07, 02:30 AM	Hmm... the rules are silent on the first point. Presumably you could make an AoO with a touch spell, or with flames in your hand, because attacking with them does not provoke an AoO. But it's a good question. (IUS wouldn't apply anyway: he's not using an unarmed strike.) Now I call shenanigans. I've been told numerous times that Produce Flame doesn't follow the same rules as a touch spell because it is an effect spell "flame in your palm". Rubi'd be usin' the hell outta that spell if he could deliver it with unarmed strikes (which, if you guys're saying it "arms" a person just like a touch spell, and can be delivered via touch on an AoO, he could!). Make up your minds! Either it is a touch spell (since the description clearly means it act in all ways as one) or it's not (because it doesn't have a "range: touch" entry). TM
TheMagister 06-26-07, 02:37 AM	Kracnol & Besthira vs Jonathan Raven & Valen Sky. Wherein it is proven that high AC is good, magic missile is better, and both is just plain crazy. Zevox Don't you have to decide whether or not to expend your psionic focus BEFORE you attack? And if you miss, isn't the focus wasted? So how did Kracknol know that he was going to hit on that third swing and then deal the extra damage needed to knock Jonathon out? TM
MitzaVolchenko 06-26-07, 02:37 AM	Liara vs. Darrgon is up. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12851583&postcount=1011) On first read through I have spotted a few non-fight affecting errors. I will also edit on tactical grounds for Darrgon if you like, Telin. Re-reading your tactics, I may have made a mistake when deciding under what conditions I was to skip the rest of the buff cycle. My two main thoughts are why the grappling? Running him through would have been easier and faster, and why the horse? Attacking the enemy that counts always seems a better idea to me.
TheMagister 06-26-07, 02:38 AM	Fight 2 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12857868&postcount=1016) is well on its way. I'll prolly be able to finish it up tomorrow morning, but not sure. I don't expect it to take very long since the movement//finding each other portions are done. After this I'll be taking a break from CoCo for a while. ~McJ~ Aw, MAN?! How'm I gonna play TBD?!
Zevox 06-26-07, 02:41 AM	Don't you have to decide whether or not to expend your psionic focus BEFORE you attack? And if you miss, isn't the focus wasted? So how did Kracknol know that he was going to hit on that third swing and then deal the extra damage needed to knock Jonathon out? TM Hm, good point, I forgot the attack that hit there was his third. That may change things all right. *looks at rolls* Actually, no it wouldn't. The GPW portion did only 14 damage on its own (it was the first +4d6 in that list), which reduces the total damage to 46, still two points higher than Jonathan's hp. Zevox
TheMagister 06-26-07, 02:50 AM	Hm, good point, I forgot the attack that hit there was his third. That may change things all right. *looks at rolls* Actually, no it wouldn't. The GPW portion did only 14 damage on its own (it was the first +4d6 in that list), which reduces the total damage to 46, still two points higher than Jonathan's hp. Zevox I didn't stop and add things up (wouldn't wanna do your job for you :)). Mostly I just wanted to make sure you knew how they worked with physical attacks. Us old fogies gotta keep each other in line. :D You keep holding me back on manyshot, and I'll...I'll keep proofreading your fights. :raincloud
MindWandererB 06-26-07, 03:02 AM	Now I call shenanigans. I've been told numerous times that Produce Flame doesn't follow the same rules as a touch spell because it is an effect spell "flame in your palm". Rubi'd be usin' the hell outta that spell if he could deliver it with unarmed strikes (which, if you guys're saying it "arms" a person just like a touch spell, and can be delivered via touch on an AoO, he could!). Make up your minds! Either it is a touch spell (since the description clearly means it act in all ways as one) or it's not (because it doesn't have a "range: touch" entry). TM The rules basically state that "armed" unarmed attacks are treated like armed attacks. So whether it's a touch spell, a flame, a dagger, or an Improved unarmed strike, it doesn't matter; you don't provoke AoOs, and you can make them.
templer10 06-26-07, 03:07 AM	Liara vs. Darrgon is up. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12851583&postcount=1011) On first read through I have spotted a few non-fight affecting errors. I will also edit on tactical grounds for Darrgon if you like, Telin. Re-reading your tactics, I may have made a mistake when deciding under what conditions I was to skip the rest of the buff cycle. My two main thoughts are why the grappling? Running him through would have been easier and faster, and why the horse? Attacking the enemy that counts always seems a better idea to me. the idia with grapple was to get him before he had time to summon nasty stuff on me and/or color spray me - would have worked 2 if i havent rolloed low on the attack roll in the charge - since you cant cast full round action spells in a grapple (summons). i did spot 2 erros that wont really make a diffrence - in round 8 liara should be doing unarmed strike dmg since she won the grapple check (1d3+4) and round 9 should be a grapple check for dmg also which will surely drop derragon (or at worst the round after that) - telin might want you to roll them.
templer10 06-26-07, 03:19 AM	FOund an Error which in theory anyway COULD be fight affecting (and iam doing telin's work for him grumble grumble) - derragon had mirror image up but you didnt do miss chances for that - for the Round 2 where lancer hit him and afterward for the grapple attempt - at the end it wouldnt really make a diffrence since derragon expended all his spells he told to use his summons were dead or gone in 1 more round and liara had almost full HP and a healing contingency - But telin might want to have it corrected.
MitzaVolchenko 06-26-07, 03:22 AM	FOund an Error which in theory anyway COULD be fight affecting (and iam doing telin's work for him grumble grumble) - derragon had mirror image up but you didnt do miss chances for that - for the Round 2 where lancer hit him and afterward for the grapple attempt - at the end it wouldnt really make a diffrence since derragon expended all his spells he told to use his summons were dead or gone in 1 more round and liara had almost full HP and a healing contingency - But telin might want to have it corrected. Bloody hell! I'll edit that in real quick and see if I need more rounds...that is what I get for using stupid color tags...makes everything too jumbled even if it does come out looking nice.
TelinArtho 06-26-07, 09:59 AM	@Mitza - couple of things that I see that are indeed fight affecting: 1. In round 5, Liara is mounted at (4,7), and Centipede I is at (2,7). My second summons should be to flank Liara (6,7) - so it shouldn't be squeezing. 2. The centipedes do not appear to be augmented. The HP are correct, but the attack bonus and damage bonus are incorrect. It should be Bite +4, 1d8+3 damage. That means the horse takes 9 damage in round 4, 9 damage in round 5. In round 6, Centipede 3's attack should deal 1d6+1 damage - which would be 5 - felling Lancer. 3. In round 6, Liara moves to base Darrgon after taking down Centipede I. However, I don't see any AoO from the other centipede for that movement. I'm not really sure what you did with mirror image - were you just having Liara close her eyes rather than chance to attack the images? Is that's fine - but I would've preferred to see that in her tactics (especially since not everyone defaults to preferring blindness over taking down the images). If you could edit for all of that - I would be appreciative - since they are clear errors about the summons.
TelinArtho 06-26-07, 10:09 AM	Well, where are my damage rolls then? And what of my morningstar, the head bypasses the hardness and it dealt 7 points of damage, so the wand should have been gone. Yet there it is, still casting. I would have liked to see the rolls of natural 20's to hit me with the rapier. I don't know why you think that the morningstar would "bypass" the hardness. The only things that bypass hardness are Acid and Sonic energy attacks and Adamantine weapons (though only up to 20 hardness). The morningstar you have is not adamantine - so its damage is reduced by 5 each attack. I agree that there should be damage rolls made though.
McJarvis 06-26-07, 12:24 PM	@All: I'm unfamiliar with the rules on spellcasting through water surfaces, so I'm going to finish this fight after work when I have books on hand. ~McJ~
Usurpator 06-26-07, 02:41 PM	Zwei und Vierzig vs. four Cockatrices is up Sorry for the lateness, thought I would have more time this weekend.
MitzaVolchenko 06-26-07, 02:45 PM	@Mitza - couple of things that I see that are indeed fight affecting: 1. In round 5, Liara is mounted at (4,7), and Centipede I is at (2,7). My second summons should be to flank Liara (6,7) - so it shouldn't be squeezing. That one stays...had to choose between it being able to attack and it not being able to attack. Had I not squeezed it I couldn't have met the requirement of you wanting it between her and you. 2. The centipedes do not appear to be augmented. The HP are correct, but the attack bonus and damage bonus are incorrect. It should be Bite +4, 1d8+3 damage. That means the horse takes 9 damage in round 4, 9 damage in round 5. In round 6, Centipede 3's attack should deal 1d6+1 damage - which would be 5 - felling Lancer. I'll go back and check those...I added the augment on in my head at some point when I remembered that it was in fact there. 3. In round 6, Liara moves to base Darrgon after taking down Centipede I. However, I don't see any AoO from the other centipede for that movement. Yep probably missed it...will go look again. I'm not really sure what you did with mirror image - were you just having Liara close her eyes rather than chance to attack the images? Is that's fine - but I would've preferred to see that in her tactics (especially since not everyone defaults to preferring blindness over taking down the images). If you could edit for all of that - I would be appreciative - since they are clear errors about the summons. I have already edited in some rounds to cover that and will check to see if the horse drops sooner and adds rounds. I actually ran the extra rounds last night but the board was down by the time I tried to post them. Gonna take a little while to wake up more thoroughly and then will check the rest of the issues. Thanks for the patience, both of you :)
Hirumajoe 06-26-07, 02:46 PM	@Zevox: As a favor, could you add the potion of Enlarge person to the expendables used for Valen in the team fight? Even if MindWandererB or Sauro don't require edits, I do want to keep item use correct for Valen. Since without the enlarge potion he technically would have been doing 1d6 less damage with the greatsword at a -2 penalty to hit along with 6 less AC. Which would have made for a very squashed Slayer...
MitzaVolchenko 06-26-07, 02:49 PM	Zwei und Vierzig vs. four Cockatrices is up Sorry for the lateness, thought I would have more time this weekend. Appreciate the run...why are they after her touch AC with bite attacks?
Usurpator 06-26-07, 02:58 PM	Appreciate the run...why are they after her touch AC with bite attacks? Whoops, I sort of assumed it would be touch attacks. In that case I'll continue the run. I have all windows and docs still open, so wouldn't be a problem. Your odds have just risen considerably I would say!
TelinArtho 06-26-07, 03:06 PM	That one stays...had to choose between it being able to attack and it not being able to attack. Had I not squeezed it I couldn't have met the requirement of you wanting it between her and you. May I point you to my tactics? They specifically say the first summons should be between me and my opponent - the second one should be to flank: When summoning, place creatures in position to flank but put the first summons between Darrgon and Lady Liara if possible. If not - put it next to Darrgon and have Darrgon take a 5ft step away afterwards. Thanks for taking another look at the fight - I appreciate it.
MitzaVolchenko 06-26-07, 03:25 PM	May I point you to my tactics? They specifically say the first summons should be between me and my opponent - the second one should be to flank: Thanks for taking another look at the fight - I appreciate it. Okay, I couldn't put one logically in between you two with the first summon. The second, I found a way to put between you two and it flanked for a round. I shifted the damage that went to Lancer but should have gone to Liara. this does two things. It makes the fight closer, and technically engages Liara's withdraw, mist, heal contingency. If ya'll prefer I will go back to the round where she drops below ten because you are quite correct on the damage from CentIII (one of the rolls for Cent III was mislabeled as CentII)...for some reason I grabbed the right one twice and the wrong one twice. this will extend the fight while she heals to full and still leave Darrgon...potentially without mirrors, but buffed to one on one face off with Liara. It is of course possible that Darrgon could melee her to death. His AC rises significantly withthe use of a couple more scrolls. there is no AoO from the other big bug in round 6 because it had to 5' scuttle to get to her. the med cent doesn't get an AoO as she is not passing through threatened squares. Your call on that one.
Usurpator 06-26-07, 03:31 PM	Zwei und Vierzig vs. four Cockatrices has been edited. Although the battle lasted a lot longer, I'm sad to report the end result didn't change.
templer10 06-26-07, 03:38 PM	Okay, I couldn't put one logically in between you two with the first summon. The second, I found a way to put between you two and it flanked for a round. I shifted the damage that went to Lancer but should have gone to Liara. this does two things. It makes the fight closer, and technically engages Liara's withdraw, mist, heal contingency. If ya'll prefer I will go back to the round where she drops below ten because you are quite correct on the damage from CentIII (one of the rolls for Cent III was mislabeled as CentII)...for some reason I grabbed the right one twice and the wrong one twice. this will extend the fight while she heals to full and still leave Darrgon...potentially without mirrors, but buffed to one on one face off with Liara. It is of course possible that Darrgon could melee her to death. His AC rises significantly withthe use of a couple more scrolls. there is no AoO from the other big bug in round 6 because it had to 5' scuttle to get to her. the med cent doesn't get an AoO as she is not passing through threatened squares. Your call on that one. technicly you are correct - but in my opinion it Wouldnt make a bit of diffrence in the end- i can outheal his querterstaff (it does 1d6-1 after all) and i got my own buffs to do that werent done since i spotted him early (shield and shield of faith). at that point it's essentially sort of fighter vs pretty much a commoner....
TelinArtho 06-26-07, 03:41 PM	Okay, I couldn't put one logically in between you two with the first summon. The second, I found a way to put between you two and it flanked for a round. I shifted the damage that went to Lancer but should have gone to Liara. this does two things. It makes the fight closer, and technically engages Liara's withdraw, mist, heal contingency. If ya'll prefer I will go back to the round where she drops below ten because you are quite correct on the damage from CentIII (one of the rolls for Cent III was mislabeled as CentII)...for some reason I grabbed the right one twice and the wrong one twice. this will extend the fight while she heals to full and still leave Darrgon...potentially without mirrors, but buffed to one on one face off with Liara. It is of course possible that Darrgon could melee her to death. His AC rises significantly withthe use of a couple more scrolls. there is no AoO from the other big bug in round 6 because it had to 5' scuttle to get to her. the med cent doesn't get an AoO as she is not passing through threatened squares. Your call on that one. I'm sure I don't understand how it centipede II could not get an AoO on Liara in round 6. Even if you don't move the summons to where I requested, it should get one. Map as far as I can tell: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=cavern;a=Name,L,4,7;b=N ame,M,1,10;c=Name,L,2,7;d=Name,L,4,9,squ eezing EDIT: In the fight - for some reason my squeezing centipede moves away from the target at the end of the round to (4,10). I have no clue why it would've moved there. I suppose yes - if it moves out of base contact - it shouldn't get an AoO, but why would it move out of base contact in the first place?
MitzaVolchenko 06-26-07, 03:57 PM	It attacked and stepped back to negate the hefty penalties of squeezing and fill your requirement that it be blocking her path to you. It seemed logical to me that it would want to have solid ground and provide the best solid defense for Darrgon. I almost summoned it flat and skipped its attack, but a chance attack squeezing seemed better than it doing nothing.
Macbrea 06-26-07, 03:57 PM	@All: I'm unfamiliar with the rules on spellcasting through water surfaces, so I'm going to finish this fight after work when I have books on hand. ~McJ~ A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects. And A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise. The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell. If the caster has made a Spellcraft check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell’s line of effect. So, he can summons freely under the surface. He cannot target with items that require rolls to hit. Or pretty much any fire spell. Or spell that in it's description says doesn't work underwater. IE. Produce Flame. EDIT: Also, note Bulgar's Bow gets a will save vs Warp wood to negate as it's an attended item. It gets to use Bulgar's will save.
TelinArtho 06-26-07, 04:03 PM	It attacked and stepped back to negate the hefty penalties of squeezing and fill your requirement that it be blocking her path to you. It seemed logical to me that it would want to have solid ground and provide the best solid defense for Darrgon. I almost summoned it flat and skipped its attack, but a chance attack squeezing seemed better than it doing nothing. Well, as I said - only the first one was supposed to be between me and Liara. Regardless, since it was squeezing, it would not be able to take a 5ft step back - it costs double movement while squeezing, so a 5ft step isn't an option. It could move away, but that would provoke. If you aren't going to edit in the AoO and the correct position on the centipede, I see no reason to pursue this further. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed about the whole mess.
MitzaVolchenko 06-26-07, 04:21 PM	Well, as I said - only the first one was supposed to be between me and Liara. Regardless, since it was squeezing, it would not be able to take a 5ft step back - it costs double movement while squeezing, so a 5ft step isn't an option. It could move away, but that would provoke. If you aren't going to edit in the AoO and the correct position on the centipede, I see no reason to pursue this further. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed about the whole mess. Now that is a vlid argument...I'll edit the 5' step...need to look it over inthat light and figure out what would have been logical at that point.
TheMagister 06-26-07, 04:39 PM	So, he can summons freely under the surface. He cannot target with items that require rolls to hit. Or pretty much any fire spell. Or spell that in it's description says doesn't work underwater. IE. Produce Flame. There's no rule anywhere about not being able to speak in a clear voice underwater? Even if it isn't explicitly spelled out, don't you guys think common sense should kick in and allow the pitlord to make a judgement call? It's physically impossible to speak in a clear voice while underwater (without pretty powerful magic like water breathing).
TheMagister 06-26-07, 04:43 PM	Zwei und Vierzig vs. four Cockatrices is up Sorry for the lateness, thought I would have more time this weekend. How about concealment rolls vs. darkness?
Usurpator 06-26-07, 04:46 PM	How about concealment rolls vs. darkness? Not needed if the Cockatrices miss. Edit: I see I didn't include the original roll. I made a concealment roll once before, but Mitza pointed out to me that the Cockatrices shouldn't use touch attacks. So I just kept the thematical concealment and save, and continued the fight. I forgot to re-edit it in, but I rolled a 77 the first time.
Macbrea 06-26-07, 04:46 PM	In this particular case the druid is outside of the water casting spells down on the individuals under the water. What should be ruled at some point is that only speakers in Aquan can speak underwater. But that is a house rule not a real rule.
TheMagister 06-26-07, 04:53 PM	Not needed if the Cockatrices miss. Edit: I see I didn't include the original roll. I made a concealment roll once before, but Mitza pointed out to me that the Cockatrices shouldn't use touch attacks. So I just kept the thematical concealment and save, and continued the fight. I forgot to re-edit it in, but I rolled a 77 the first time. Ah, there it is. How about accounting for the hampered movement that the darkness forces, both from Zwei and the cockatrices? Does that change anything in Mitza's favor?
Usurpator 06-26-07, 05:05 PM	Ah, there it is. How about accounting for the hampered movement that the darkness forces, both from Zwei and the cockatrices? Does that change anything in Mitza's favor? Hampered movement for both parties is similar to no hampered movement for either. In short, Mitza can keep a continual distance from the Cockatrices, and they must use their 60ft. fly speed to have any hope of reaching her. The cockatrice that actually flew at her from the other side while she was trying to escape the other.
Adolfo_Mondschein 06-26-07, 05:15 PM	I don't know why you think that the morningstar would "bypass" the hardness. The only things that bypass hardness are Acid and Sonic energy attacks and Adamantine weapons (though only up to 20 hardness). The morningstar you have is not adamantine - so its damage is reduced by 5 each attack. I agree that there should be damage rolls made though. Heh, sorry! My bad! I was trying to apply common sense to D&D (always a mistake). :P The fact that I can't properly break a stick with a metal-headed weapon on a good solid hit is kind of funny. Considering it's a whopping 1/4 inch thick and under a foot long. Curse you annoying hardness! :) but yeah, I'd like to see the damage rolls, at least that way I can get over it and move my attention elsewhere.
Macbrea 06-26-07, 10:21 PM	Mind rolling the SR for Yoricks bow?
McJarvis 06-26-07, 10:32 PM	Mind rolling the SR for Yoricks bow? I did roll that: he lost. (natural 20 on caster level check)
McJarvis 06-26-07, 10:36 PM	Flamehair vs the Bulgar & Yorrick is done. I'm at a loss on what rewards should be.
Macbrea 06-26-07, 10:41 PM	As soon as a person passes a SR check vs a spell they are immune to the spell completely. Though, at this point I don't care, Telin can argue the fight if he wants. Have fun...
McJarvis 06-26-07, 10:45 PM	As soon as a person passes a SR check vs a spell they are immune to the spell completely. I thought of this, but found no mention of it under the rules for SR in the SRD I use, so I assumed this was just an oddity of some spells like summons/pro-spells. All that was mentioned in those rules was that SR worked like an alternate version of AC for spells. There are numerous errors in the fight, I'm well aware. From the lion mysteriously disappearing to Yorrick not engaging the eagle in melee. I just don't think anyone wants it carried over _again_...
Macbrea 06-26-07, 10:49 PM	Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds. If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is up. There you go. I have to check back over the fight to see if I failed the first time. But it is only checked once for the whole spell.
MitzaVolchenko 06-26-07, 11:25 PM	Water grants full cover vs those on land, but the druid is not on land. I'm going with a strict reading of the rules(because it is my right to do so & it leads to fewer improvisations on my part) This absolutely needs to be addressed...both here and in Courtroom if the majority doesn't immediately see how absurd that is. The cover is from breaking the plane of the water. If the druid were hovering half an inch above the shore would he still ignore the cover? No coords in round summaries, no powers in effect listed in round summaries...no way for someone else to pick up the fight and edit it. Having delayed it and not completed it on time is no excuse for not doing it right. I know Mac doesn't want a hold over, but you counting on that to leave that travesty stand is low and completely beneath you.
MitzaVolchenko 06-26-07, 11:43 PM	Well, as I said - only the first one was supposed to be between me and Liara. Regardless, since it was squeezing, it would not be able to take a 5ft step back - it costs double movement while squeezing, so a 5ft step isn't an option. It could move away, but that would provoke. If you aren't going to edit in the AoO and the correct position on the centipede, I see no reason to pursue this further. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed about the whole mess. Okay, this is going to be rough...I am going to have to engage Liara's healing contingency and that is going to take me about an hour...I am going to tackle it after Mac goes to bed. I gave the AoO from the big bug in Round 6 and then dropped the medium bug into flanking position dealing its damage to Liara instead. That is going to put her low enough for me to not get an option but to withdraw her, mist her, and heal her. I will need Mac's dual monitor set up to get this done in any reasonable time frame. We had network issues earlier which prevented me from even opening the board...sorry for the long haul, but it will be finished before I go to bed.
templer10 06-27-07, 12:58 AM	Okay, this is going to be rough...I am going to have to engage Liara's healing contingency and that is going to take me about an hour...I am going to tackle it after Mac goes to bed. I gave the AoO from the big bug in Round 6 and then dropped the medium bug into flanking position dealing its damage to Liara instead. That is going to put her low enough for me to not get an option but to withdraw her, mist her, and heal her. I will need Mac's dual monitor set up to get this done in any reasonable time frame. We had network issues earlier which prevented me from even opening the board...sorry for the long haul, but it will be finished before I go to bed. WEll if your are going to do that - you might as well and look over earlier since correct me if iam wrong but you didnt do ride checks for Lancer when he was taking hits (to negate the hits on him) - i do have mounthed combat feat after all.
templer10 06-27-07, 01:15 AM	Flamehair vs the Bulgar & Yorrick is done. I'm at a loss on what rewards should be. Rewards are regular modified by my Lion which is 15% penalty (3/5 CA). btw - yorick should be dead earlier since once the SR is passed in the first round you dont need to roll for following rounds of the same spell. p.s - iam fine with how the things stand but if telin argues about about something that possibly lengten the fight you need to edit in summoning the hiporyph (aug) -after lightening runs out - ineffective and the lion need to attack.
MitzaVolchenko 06-27-07, 01:24 AM	WEll if your are going to do that - you might as well and look over earlier since correct me if iam wrong but you didnt do ride checks for Lancer when he was taking hits (to negate the hits on him) - i do have mounthed combat feat after all. Going into edit mode now...will start with ride checks and move on to heal contingency if needed. If ride negates hits on Lancer to avoid him falling and thus avoid the bugs shifting focus, I will not edit the body of the fight, just make a note of the additional checks at the bottom.
MitzaVolchenko 06-27-07, 01:27 AM	Rewards are regular modified by my Lion which is 15% penalty (3/5 CA). btw - yorick should be dead earlier since once the SR is passed in the first round you dont need to roll for following rounds of the same spell. p.s - iam fine with how the things stand but if telin argues about about something that possibly lengten the fight you need to edit in summoning the hiporyph (aug) -after lightening runs out - ineffective and the lion need to attack. You also have to include a summary after each round. This summary must show the positions of all combatants (including those of all summons and allies; don't forget elevation in case of flyers). If the character is mounted, just write "mounted" into the position space and list the coordinates along with the mount. Current hitpoints, maximum hitpoints, remaining spell-levels and power points, and all spells, powers, and effects that are currently affecting a character, plus the duration (for very long spells you don't have to list the duration) are also mandatory. That also includes things like "summoning" or "has charged" albeit without duration. Don't worry, you only have to type it in once, then copy and paste it (with the appropriate modifications) for the following rounds. That fight is in no way a legally run CoCo fight...my suggestion would be hold over or simply cancel it.
MitzaVolchenko 06-27-07, 02:10 AM	@Telin and templer I added the AoO which appeared to change the course of the fight until I went back and also added the ride check that negated it. That leaves the horse up and still taking the damage for the two hits that put Liara into her healing contingency. The grapple checks remain unaffected. Fight results stand unless I am still (and this is certainly possible) missing something.
templer10 06-27-07, 02:55 AM	That fight is in no way a legally run CoCo fight...my suggestion would be hold over or simply cancel it. Mitza- that fight was ALREADY extented 1 week i dont want it extend ANOTHER 1 - considering the result is fairly obvios (i didnt even tak1 point of damage) and unless Told otherwise iam operating under teh assumption it's more or less accepted - You can read the roller for the dmg results, saves ETC. p.s. like i said there are soem mistakes in favor of me also. p.s.s. mabrea accepted the fight - only telin hasnt piped in.
MindWandererB 06-27-07, 03:16 AM	That fight is in no way a legally run CoCo fight...my suggestion would be hold over or simply cancel it. Mitza is correct. Round summaries, either coordinates or maps, and either a link to the roller or annotated are required, as well as rewards. With one of those things missing, I might let it slide, but I cannot consider the fight complete as it stands. Macbrea has accepted the fight only to be nonconfrontational; we have standards, after all. Rewards: I don't know why people have a problem with this. For the solo character, ally penalties (and thus, rewards for the opponents) are calculated as normal. For the team, rewards for the solo char are averaged, but penalties are individual (unless they're an official team on the roster).
templer10 06-27-07, 03:22 AM	Mitza is correct. Round summaries, either coordinates or maps, and either a link to the roller or annotated are required, as well as rewards. With one of those things missing, I might let it slide, but I cannot consider the fight complete as it stands. Macbrea has accepted the fight only to be nonconfrontational; we have standards, after all. Rewards: I don't know why people have a problem with this. For the solo character, ally penalties (and thus, rewards for the opponents) are calculated as normal. For the team, rewards for the solo char are averaged, but penalties are individual (unless they're an official team on the roster). i just PMed McJarvis to add the details missing - But if he wont do it soon - can someone else add in a follow up post the link to the roller and rewards (i can do it myself iunless you dont think it's okay) - the result IS obvios after all and teh fight WAS EXTENTED 1 week already- i REALLY dont want it extented for NO REASON yet another week.
Usurpator 06-27-07, 07:21 AM	This absolutely needs to be addressed...both here and in Courtroom if the majority doesn't immediately see how absurd that is. The cover is from breaking the plane of the water. Agreed completely.
McJarvis 06-27-07, 09:38 AM	@My gladiators: Thanks for being understanding given my relative inability to pay close attention to the fight. @Rest: The fight was offered for grabs for over a week, nobody took it. You can re-run it if you want, but the gladiators involved seem happy with it. I have run many fights in the manner I ran this one[that is, lack of perfect notation] and they were perfectly legal. I'm gone as of this post.
TelinArtho 06-27-07, 09:47 AM	Well - I'm not happy with it - but I am more interested in keeping Bulgar going than waiting another week for a result.
Macbrea 06-27-07, 10:02 AM	I am of agreement with Telin on this one. I think the fight was completed just to get it done and not a worry about wether a ruling made sense or not. I have no interest in having this fight held over as it just costs me a credit this week and serves no real purpose. I would rather have a shot of ending Elrick's winning streak with Izumi.
templer10 06-27-07, 10:40 AM	then i assume all in agrreement the fight is over and done with and il be setting elrick as ready (soon).
Sjiggie 06-27-07, 11:15 AM	Does somebody want to take a look at the fight between Gradak Tumblebelly and Psyker Elfbane. The way it is run now I cannot accept it. There are too many errors in it. I've aksed usernamer to edit it but then he didn't editted the fight. Here are the mistakes I found and the ones Khaim found. @ Usernamer. I found some mistakes in the fight. First I didn't got the suprise round from my ambush skill package. I clearly listed what I wanted to do with it. Second if it turned out into a ranged battle waht it did I wanted to stay behind cover but you make me move so that I'm in the open and not behind cover what is in my move range. Third I asked for rapid shots but you let Gradak single shoot all the time. Please roll the extra attack that I could make in round 5 till 8. And one final question why is Psyker shooting vs AC 15 in round 9 my ac at that time is 19+1dodge+4force screen (+4 cover where Gradak shoud have moved). Can you please make the edits because these are not minor but can effect the outcome of the fight. Thanks for your effort -Sjiggie Well if he's rerolling the fight then I want to not stand there and be shot at while refocusing- my tactics clearly say not to do that. Why everyone ignores me on this, I do not know. For that matter, in round 4 you have Gradak immediately abandon his tactics and switch to ranged. While it's obvious to you that we're going to end up in a ranged battle, it shouldn't be obvious to him for another round or two. Also, Chameleon lasts 10 min/level not min/level.
Usurpator 06-27-07, 12:59 PM	Does somebody want to take a look at the fight between Gradak Tumblebelly and Psyker Elfbane. The way it is run now I cannot accept it. There are too many errors in it. I've aksed usernamer to edit it but then he didn't editted the fight. Here are the mistakes I found and the ones Khaim found. Khaim, I think it is best that you just ask for a rerun. Editing is not always possible, and it may sometimes result in what is an effective rerun anyway (especially if the changes occur in the early rounds). In that case I think it is better to let a new Pitlord look at it with all the time to spare than insist on quick and hasty edits. Yeah, that means you have to wait for another week. But then again, getting Pitlord service is completely free. And unfortunately sometimes you just have to tolerate a completely unfair ruling or interpretation of your tactics. As long as it doesn't happen too often, it will be ok.
Sjiggie 06-27-07, 01:03 PM	The problem is that Gradak is supposed to go on a guild mission this week. But I'll PM pitlords what to do with it.
Usurpator 06-27-07, 01:15 PM	The problem is that Gradak is supposed to go on a guild mission this week. But I'll PM pitlords what to do with it. I know, but can't have your cake and eat it too. Either problems are important enough to require a rerun, or they aren't important enough to require a rerun. Obviously the moment where editing could salvage the fight is long past.
Zevox 06-27-07, 01:21 PM	The problem is that Gradak is supposed to go on a guild mission this week. But I'll PM pitlords what to do with it. Don't worry too much about that. Something is about to render that attack basically meaningless anyway. [/cryptic Guildlords warning] Zevox
bgt 06-27-07, 01:40 PM	Lycidas Arcades vs. Maeglin Eluch (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12851756&postcount=1012) :banghead: And here I thought a charachter with a BAB of +1 could draw an item as part of a move action; turns out it's only "weapons or weapon-like objects, such as wands". Heh. Could've just drawn the wand and healed myself. Live and learn, I suppose. I really cant see what your are trying to do with this char – a +1 LA race that doesn’t give anything really and saddle you with a 5!!! Movement rate is just awfull and with no ranged or melee abilities to speak of (and don’t let me get started on the heavy crossbow…) First, to all Pitlords that run Maeglin in future bouts, please refrain from informing me that my charachter has a 5 ft movement rate. I assure you, being that I MADE the charachter, I am well aware of his limitations. As to any possible builds I'm going towards, there are none. He's basicly a goof. Far as I can tell, he's only the second merfolk in the history of the CoCo, (the first being Slefwee Peeorlwy, a third level sorcerer). Two more things, templar 10. First, if have a correspondance with a someone about their tactics, you should post the entire conversation in the fight. Here it is in full; you should edit it into the fight: Pre-fight: Draw and load crossbow. Rounds 1+: Begin to crawl out into the arena, shouting for Lycidas. As soon as I see him, cast entropic shield and begin to shoot at him. If he should get into melee for some reason, drop the crossbow and draw the mace. Also, should I drop below 10 hp, drink the invisibility potion, heal to full with the wand of cure light wounds, then resume shooting. Crawling as in dropping prone and crawling? No, crawling as in my 5' movement crawling. My apologies; 'twas a misleading way of phrasing it. - i ask again to be sure - you want to be standing up and each round to be moveing 5 foot only? Umm, yes. My charachter is a merfolk. That's the fastest he can move. And finally: since your crossbow is a heavy crossbow which takes 1 full round to load – you should mention, loading it in prebuffs – I gave you this one since your chances for a win weren't good and since I let stimpy get away with his violations. Pre-fight: Draw and load crossbow. Emphasis mine. :P Edit: One more problem: you got my rewards wrong; I should be getting 375 gp and xp.
MindWandererB 06-27-07, 01:50 PM	I am of agreement with Telin on this one. I think the fight was completed just to get it done and not a worry about wether a ruling made sense or not. I have no interest in having this fight held over as it just costs me a credit this week and serves no real purpose. I would rather have a shot of ending Elrick's winning streak with Izumi. FYI, holdovers don't count as an activation. There's no credit charge for two newly active characters and a holdover.
templer10 06-27-07, 01:50 PM	OH - REALLY? check char sheet for maegling queted sheet for the fight - HERE (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12851756&postcount=1012) - notice in prebuffs - XXXX.
bgt 06-27-07, 11:39 PM	OH - REALLY? check char sheet for maegling queted sheet for the fight - HERE (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12851756&postcount=1012) - notice in prebuffs - XXXX. Or, check the tactics I sent you, which replace the tactics on the char sheet. Please, templar, just read what's in front of you.
TheMagister 06-28-07, 12:12 AM	Or, check the tactics I sent you, which replace the tactics on the char sheet. Please, templar, just read what's in front of you. He's actually right. You can't specify any prebuffs anywhere else but on your sheet where everyone can see them. It's the only fair way to handle it, from the smallest action to the most important. There's no reason for him to get snippy with you about it, though. :)
templer10 06-28-07, 04:00 AM	He's actually right. You can't specify any prebuffs anywhere else but on your sheet where everyone can see them. It's the only fair way to handle it, from the smallest action to the most important. There's no reason for him to get snippy with you about it, though. :) pff i get snippy with everyone - why should he be any diffrent - And BGT - you should really go and read the rules about prebuffing - Mentioning something in the tactisc - DOESNT HELP - if it needs to be prebuffed in the first place - in my book you need to prebuff something that takes 1 full round - simply becuase i had it happen to me when i forgot to mention something minor as that and i was told that i need to prebuff it.
TheMagister 06-28-07, 04:26 AM	pff i get snippy with everyone - why should he be any diffrent I'm nobody important around here, but if I could, I'd like to give you a small bit of unasked-for advice by way of a very wise book: "Whatever a man sows, that is what he will reap." It's all very well to play around and be short with friends or long acquaintances (reference some of mine and MitzaVolchenko's exchanges), but entirely another to be abrupt and terse with complete strangers. All you're doing is hurting the board when you allow yourself to act in such a rude fashion. Your decisions are your own. But I think that everyone deserves to have at least one person cross their path who has the courage to tell them when they're acting like a jerk. If that person is ignored, then so be it. {shrug} Good gaming, templer10. I sincerely hope you enjoy it around here. TM
bgt 06-28-07, 11:04 AM	He's actually right. You can't specify any prebuffs anywhere else but on your sheet where everyone can see them. Huh. Just when I think I've caught up with all the rules changes since I took a break, another one seems to pop up. Go figure. :P
Zevox 06-28-07, 11:19 AM	Huh. Just when I think I've caught up with all the rules changes since I took a break, another one seems to pop up. Go figure. :P Um, thats not a new one by any means. That rule has been around here longer than I have. You haven't been gone that long, my friend. Zevox
bgt 06-28-07, 02:06 PM	Upon reveiw of the rules, I can see that that they haven't changed. As it was when I left: Most of them need to be mentioned in the Pre-Fight Actions Section on your sheet. Loading a crossbow is not given as a pre-fight action that needs fo be on your sheet. Only allies, spells without a duration of discharge and instantaneous, and spell storing items say that you need to list them on your sheet. Weapons are also specificly given as not needing to be on the sheet.