Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 11:42 AM	Fights of the Week: June 6th 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 Substitute GM TelinArtho 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 Finals are this week. Good luck to MindWandererB, SauroGrenom, MindwandererB, Erithmu and MindwandererB. 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!
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 11:44 AM	I am gearing up the process to be ready for the deadline. As such - if you notice things that are wrong ahead of time - let me know. I've already started updating some things (like active pitlords and credits that were changed due to blackmarket, prisons, and such), so let me know if something is amiss.
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 12:08 PM	@Macbrea/Rauul/Mitza - can one of you relay a question and answer for me? I need to know whether Mitza has all three of those fights done (but not posted) or if they aren't even started. If they are done, I won't reassign them to another pitlord next week. Also - I need to know if she is staying active for next week. At the moment - I'm assuming no - since she hasn't even been able to be online long enough to let us know she's having problems.
Erithmu 06-06-07, 12:46 PM	@Macbrea/Rauul/Mitza - can one of you relay a question and answer for me? I need to know whether Mitza has all three of those fights done (but not posted) or if they aren't even started. If they are done, I won't reassign them to another pitlord next week. Also - I need to know if she is staying active for next week. At the moment - I'm assuming no - since she hasn't even been able to be online long enough to let us know she's having problems. I'm pretty sure she has the fights done. She was going to email them to me to post, but then got the virus. She also mentioned that she should probably be removed from the pitlording list till 1) she has a working computer and 2) can log into the boards.
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 12:53 PM	Okay then As it stands, I've got 13 fights covered for pitlords plus Zevox (listed at max). According to last week's pairings sheet, we had 23 fights to run. Either I hope Zevox has a LOT of time... or I'm hoping some others will be able to step up and take a few fights. If the need is there - I will try to add a third fight myself.
Erithmu 06-06-07, 12:55 PM	Okay then As it stands, I've got 13 fights covered for pitlords plus Zevox (listed at max). According to last week's pairings sheet, we had 23 fights to run. Either I hope Zevox has a LOT of time... or I'm hoping some others will be able to step up and take a few fights. If the need is there - I will try to add a third fight myself. Zevox has to run his IMT fight too ... If you need to swing me another fight I'll be done w/ finals on Friday.
McJarvis 06-06-07, 01:06 PM	I can pick up an extra fight. [so I'd be doing 2 total]
Zevox 06-06-07, 01:14 PM	Zevox has to run his IMT fight too ... That'll be happening tomorrow. Not sure just how many fights I'll have time to do yet. I'm free tomorrow and Friday, but have work on Saturday, and until then I won't know what my work schedule is next week. 10 is a bit beyond what I could handle even in the best of times, though (and beyond what I'd want to handle). I can take 4, 5, or probably even 6 fine, which is what I've seen treated as the max for someone signed up for max, but get beyond that and you've got a problem. Zevox
hogarth 06-06-07, 01:15 PM	I'll take one fight (level 3 only, if possible). Please don't ignore my request completely (as has happened in the past with a GM who shall remain nameless).
Macbrea 06-06-07, 01:16 PM	@Macbrea/Rauul/Mitza - can one of you relay a question and answer for me? I need to know whether Mitza has all three of those fights done (but not posted) or if they aren't even started. If they are done, I won't reassign them to another pitlord next week. Also - I need to know if she is staying active for next week. At the moment - I'm assuming no - since she hasn't even been able to be online long enough to let us know she's having problems. Well, I cannot really answer that. As she and Rauul are roommates. I see her on Friday - Sundays. :P
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 01:16 PM	That'll be happening tomorrow. Not sure just how many fights I'll have time to do yet. I'm free tomorrow and Friday, but have work on Saturday, and until then I won't know what my work schedule is next week. 10 is a bit beyond what I could handle even in the best of times, though (and beyond what I'd want to handle). I can take 4, 5, or probably even 6 fine, which is what I've seen treated as the max for someone signed up for max, but get beyond that and you've got a problem. Zevox I would never assign someone 10 fights after what happened one week where the two people who were assigned "max" fights that week both were unable to fulfill even one fight each - leaving 8 or 9 to be taken up by others. If it came to that - we'd be looking at a state of emergency. I'm hoping I don't have to do that in the one week where MWB is on vacation though...
McJarvis 06-06-07, 01:17 PM	Well, I cannot really answer that. As she and Rauul are roommates. I see her on Friday - Sundays. :P And as-has been pointed out before, phones don't exist in Gladius [pre-science] :-)
Erithmu 06-06-07, 01:19 PM	And as-has been pointed out before, phones don't exist in Gladius [pre-science] :-) Just text messaging ... clerics with 'sending'
Macbrea 06-06-07, 01:19 PM	I personally don't like to use phones. Each day, I send people to jail that do.
Zevox 06-06-07, 01:20 PM	I would never assign someone 10 fights after what happened one week where the two people who were assigned "max" fights that week both were unable to fulfill even one fight each - leaving 8 or 9 to be taken up by others. If it came to that - we'd be looking at a state of emergency. I'm hoping I don't have to do that in the one week where MWB is on vacation though... Huh - must've been before my time, because I don't remember that. Zevox
templer10 06-06-07, 01:21 PM	i could take a third fight (not 2 hard please) i suppose- but if i dont get tacitcs at thursday night at the outside i cant gurentee being able to run it since my time during next week and week after that will be VERY limited. (new work and have to arrange and move aparatments).
Macbrea 06-06-07, 01:22 PM	It has happened a few times. Long ago, I suggested that the maximum number of fight any one person can be assign by the pitlord should be 4. Anything over that number should be choosen by the player when they get done with the ones that they have. IE. Sure, I will pick up that fight you didn't get finished yet, mine are done.
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 01:27 PM	It has happened a few times. Long ago, I suggested that the maximum number of fight any one person can be assign by the pitlord should be 4. Anything over that number should be choosen by the player when they get done with the ones that they have. IE. Sure, I will pick up that fight you didn't get finished yet, mine are done. Exactly. That's how I feel about it as well. @templer - I would suggest not offering yourself up for that third fight personally. Given the situation - I would suggest focusing on the rest and if you have time after the weekend, picking up another fight if you have time.
McJarvis 06-06-07, 01:30 PM	Indeed-> It's likely I'll be able to pick up a third, but I'd rather not commit to it until I see how the weekend pans out//the first two fights go.
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 01:31 PM	Huh - must've been before my time, because I don't remember that. Zevox I don't believe it was. I just remember it distinctly because I picked up 3 extra fights that week and I still had 2 characters who were held over...
Macbrea 06-06-07, 01:37 PM	Actually, it's pretty easy to tell with the pitlords list. Mitza LATE: 19/69 Dsugui LATE: 15/96 Haun LATE: 14/34 Iced LATE: 13/24 King Uther LATE: 14/48 Iced was late frequently, but I believe all of those had weeks were they took more then 4 fights but were unable to do the fights.
Usurpator 06-06-07, 01:45 PM	Okay then As it stands, I've got 13 fights covered for pitlords plus Zevox (listed at max). According to last week's pairings sheet, we had 23 fights to run. Either I hope Zevox has a LOT of time... or I'm hoping some others will be able to step up and take a few fights. If the need is there - I will try to add a third fight myself. I'll probably can do one fight next weekend.
Usurpator 06-06-07, 01:52 PM	Oh, and if we have a shortage of Pitlords, and one of my characters gets a monster fight again, plz plz just drop the fight.
templer10 06-06-07, 01:55 PM	Exactly. That's how I feel about it as well. @templer - I would suggest not offering yourself up for that third fight personally. Given the situation - I would suggest focusing on the rest and if you have time after the weekend, picking up another fight if you have time. actually i have time DURING the weekend since i all probably be moveing during the week some time, but you are probably right - ill need to do packing and stuff anyway.
Rauul 06-06-07, 01:57 PM	Why am I leaking credits... yesterday i had 1, today I have 0.. (1 quest and 1 fight -1 xtra charater should equal plus 2 not minus 1)
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 02:04 PM	Because you have a late fight - Taren Rune's monster fight.
Usurpator 06-06-07, 02:05 PM	Thinking about activating two characters in the ECL5 League instead of the one I had planned, since I'm seeing two others active now, giving me a 50/50 chance at a monster fight. If I activate two characters I will get two fights (at least, that is how I wrote the pairer) and no chance at a monster fight. However, I think doing this might be slightly cheating, since I believe you're supposed to activate your gladiators without prior knowledge of what others activate.
Rauul 06-06-07, 02:12 PM	Because you have a late fight - Taren Rune's monster fight. Mutter... thats what i get for being a nice guy... Taking one of Mitza's fights for that one.. then having McJarvis surrender the fight because he don't like mitza or Macbrea as his pitlord.. whatever.. thanks for letting me know..
TheMagister 06-06-07, 02:15 PM	I'll deactivate Rubi so Elrick and Arden can duke it out. That'll free up some room. TM
templer10 06-06-07, 02:17 PM	I'll deactivate Rubi so Elrick and Arden can duke it out. That'll free up some room. TM pff chicken (kidding), stupid monks and thier evasion....
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 02:18 PM	Mutter... thats what i get for being a nice guy... Taking one of Mitza's fights for that one.. then having McJarvis surrender the fight because he don't like mitza or Macbrea as his pitlord.. whatever.. thanks for letting me know.. Okay - now I'm confused... According to the pairings post - Rauul is marked as the pitlord for Taren Rune vs Unknown Monster. According to the FotW thread - it seems that NiQil sent his tactics to Mitza and that she rolled the monster (and is in the roller as Mitza). So what happened there? I don't recall getting a PM that the fight's Piltord changed...
Macbrea 06-06-07, 02:18 PM	You know... if her roommates didn't download random movies to watch she probably wouldn't have had an infected computer.. :P
McJarvis 06-06-07, 02:21 PM	You know... if her roommates didn't download random movies to watch she probably wouldn't have had an infected computer.. :P I'm fairly certain he's just plying for pity. I have no idea how my being responsible for Mitza having _less_ work is a bad thing ;)
templer10 06-06-07, 02:21 PM	say is deadline 20:00 or 21:00? since i forgoet to post latest fight for lorian and i want to edit it in before i forget.
Usurpator 06-06-07, 02:22 PM	Telin, Are you willing to drop a monster fight for my ECL5 character, or do you prefer I'll activate two characters to reduce my odds for getting a monster fight?
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 02:22 PM	you have 36 minutes about - whatever that means to you (should be 9pm GMT)
TheMagister 06-06-07, 02:24 PM	pff chicken (kidding), stupid monks and thier evasion.... Well, when you put it like that, I change my mind. Bring it on, Droodzilla! http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g48/larissajeanne02/kyo.gif
Rauul 06-06-07, 02:25 PM	Okay - now I'm confused... According to the pairings post - Rauul is marked as the pitlord for Taren Rune vs Unknown Monster. According to the FotW thread - it seems that NiQil sent his tactics to Mitza and that she rolled the monster (and is in the roller as Mitza). So what happened there? I don't recall getting a PM that the fight's Piltord changed... Mitza took the NiQil monster fight, I was going to take the Juggernaut (NiQil) vs. General Zaroff (McJarvis), Mcjarvis never sent any tactics and the fight was surrendered.. Dosen't matter, keep me marked as late on it.. The fights will either be recovered off her HD this week, or I will personnel run all of them on friday
Macbrea 06-06-07, 02:25 PM	Originally, Mitza was given the Unknown monster vs Taren Rune fight and the General Zaroff vs Juggernaut fight. Because McJarvis refused to have her as a pitlord. She made a deal with Rauul that he could have her fights and she would take a fight from Rauul. On the condition that, McJarvis send her tactics, so she could forward them. She wasn't going to forward the tactics without first recieving them. McJarvis edited all his characters to say, Mitza and Myself are biased against his characters and that he auto-surrenders any fight we run. Since, I have run a total of two of his fights in my entire time here I will freely do that for him. Until he edits his characters to not slander myself, I will surrender his character without accepting any tactics ever from him. It is exactly what he wants.
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 02:26 PM	Telin, Are you willing to drop a monster fight for my ECL5 character, or do you prefer I'll activate two characters to reduce my odds for getting a monster fight? Well - I'm not sure how it will work out. I tell you what - I'll put a monster fight for your character on the drop list this week because of the potential pitlord shortage. Bear in mind that this is an agreement this week only - I still want this to be resolved in the council - but we have to wait for Sauro and MWB to get back. I actually am already doing this for my characters this week - if I find we are short on pitlords - I will deactivate my own characters (because I have a large number of them active this week).
templer10 06-06-07, 02:27 PM	Well, when you put it like that, I change my mind. Bring it on, Droodzilla! http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g48/larissajeanne02/kyo.gif i did say kidding, you wait until longshot gets to ECL 7 and his infinite vigor (ml4 vigor dorja) - wil have a who's dorja runs out first contest (or sundered).
TheMagister 06-06-07, 02:29 PM	With me editing so many characters this week, I thought that I had 3 active. It's actually just one. Rubi - active. TBD - active (crafting) Hood - edited this week, but not actually ACTIVE till next week.
Rauul 06-06-07, 02:30 PM	You know... if her roommates didn't download random movies to watch she probably wouldn't have had an infected computer.. :P Well we know I don't download random movies to watch, I download TV shows.. and I have yet to get a Virus.. and I always watch them myself before putting in my share file so Mitza and the OTHER roomate can watch them
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 02:30 PM	Mitza took the NiQil monster fight, I was going to take the Juggernaut (NiQil) vs. General Zaroff (McJarvis), Mcjarvis never sent any tactics and the fight was surrendered.. Dosen't matter, keep me marked as late on it.. The fights will either be recovered off her HD this week, or I will personnel run all of them on friday I just don't remember seeing any PM or post about this in the FotW thread - so that's why I'm confused. As to running the late fights - they will be reassigned to other pitlords. Since they all have tactics posted - that should not be an issue.
TheMagister 06-06-07, 02:31 PM	i did say kidding, you wait until longshot gets to ECL 7 and his infinite vigor (ml4 vigor dorja) - wil have a who's dorja runs out first contest (or sundered). It all depends on how fast Longshot is, and how good his Fort save is, and how much Energy Resistance he has. If Rubi rolls halfway decently, he can positively MOW through the hps. If he stuns you with that first punch, you just might not wake up. And when he gains another attack at ECL 9? WHEE! Trip-flurry with GOBS of energy damage! :monk:
McJarvis 06-06-07, 02:33 PM	~Bunch of stuff~ I should probably interject here-> The tone of my default tactics was that I sharply disapprove of the way you and Mitza do fights, so I won't subject myself to arguing rules//tactics interpretations with you. It has nothing to do with bias or even protesting you as pitlords-> it has to do with my not wanting to deal with it. I could really care less if you continue pitlording for other players. As you seem to have taken offense to the entire matter & you obviously haven't looked at any of my characters since last week, I guess I'll apologize. In the future, you can probably expect my default tactics to stand in any fight you pitlord for me, though. Cheers, ~McJ~
Macbrea 06-06-07, 02:38 PM	I am not exactly sure how not to take offense of what was posted on the characters. I run the rules pretty much as I see them. And am willing to alter the fight to compaints, in truth. I doubt I will ever really run any of your fights. As I only run one fight a week vs people who run two to three. I normally get the high level fights. You generally quit on any character that recieves a loss.
templer10 06-06-07, 02:39 PM	It all depends on how fast Longshot is, and how good his Fort save is, and how much Energy Resistance he has. If Rubi rolls halfway decently, he can positively MOW through the hps. If he stuns you with that first punch, you just might not wake up. And when he gains another attack at ECL 9? WHEE! Trip-flurry with GOBS of energy damage! :monk: that fight strongly depends on the map, iam almost certenly will pick up the energy adaptation, everything thing and possibly Control body But rubi is a very hard opponents for everyone based on energy powers. i might have to do (shudder) dispelling of the energy adaptation stones... p.s. - did you see how many HP longshot will have with vigor + share pain at ecl 7 - pretty sick...
Usurpator 06-06-07, 02:39 PM	Well - I'm not sure how it will work out. I tell you what - I'll put a monster fight for your character on the drop list this week because of the potential pitlord shortage. Bear in mind that this is an agreement this week only - I still want this to be resolved in the council - but we have to wait for Sauro and MWB to get back. I actually am already doing this for my characters this week - if I find we are short on pitlords - I will deactivate my own characters (because I have a large number of them active this week). Thanks, I appreciate it. Totally understood, one-time exception only.
Sjiggie 06-06-07, 02:42 PM	I can take 1 fight this week I get a new computer tomorrow and be able to run 1 when needed.
TheMagister 06-06-07, 02:43 PM	that fight strongly depends on the map, iam almost certenly will pick up the energy adaptation, everything thing and possibly Control body But rubi is a very hard opponents for everyone based on energy powers. He wasn't exactly planned/built to counter the energy power-using players; monks are just naturally good at it. A monk with natural FR 10 and the capability to use powerstones to cover other bases and evasion and a good reflex save that can be boosted is just murder against 'em. I still remember Rubi vs. Zodiac, the fight that never happened. If I've got a 50/50 shot on a save vs. a super-specialized save-or-die caster, I'm feelin' pretty good. :) TM
templer10 06-06-07, 02:46 PM	is there no one active at ECL 6? if so- teling, any chace to NOT have a monster fight -i hate these damn things - and do some inter league stuff- could be fun - me against 2 ecl 4's maybe?
TheMagister 06-06-07, 02:47 PM	p.s. - did you see how many HP longshot will have with vigor + share pain at ecl 7 - pretty sick... You'd better hide that little psicrystal - do you realize how easy it would be to grapple it and move it more than 5' away from your character? Grapple+stun, pin, disarm(psicrystal if he's in your pocket), disengage, run away. Two rounds, max, and I've killed 40 temporary hps. And I can guarantee you won't have time to remanifest it... Memo to me anyways: save up to buy Rubi one of those 3/day dispelling weapons...
templer10 06-06-07, 02:47 PM	He wasn't exactly planned/built to counter the energy power-using players; monks are just naturally good at it. A monk with natural FR 10 and the capability to use powerstones to cover other bases and evasion and a good reflex save that can be boosted is just murder against 'em. I still remember Rubi vs. Zodiac, the fight that never happened. If I've got a 50/50 shot on a save vs. a super-specialized save-or-die caster, I'm feelin' pretty good. :) TM TM i personaly hate save or die,s but control body for longshot and crisis of breath for lorian are just 2 good to pass up really. memo - to me- craft dorja of dispell psionics with longshot, men ill end up getting quickdraw becuase i have so many of them lol.
Rauul 06-06-07, 02:48 PM	is there no one active at ECL 6? if so- teling, any chace to NOT have a monster fight -i hate these damn things - and do some inter league stuff- could be fun - me against 2 ecl 4's maybe? or give him a handicap match.. say vs an ECL 7 or 8... those are always fun
Rauul 06-06-07, 02:51 PM	instead of Pretend fighting... why don't one of your spend 1 credit and challenge the other.. get it done and over with... save your tactics for the acuall fight...
Khaim 06-06-07, 02:53 PM	I'll take one fight (level 3 only, if possible). Likewise, atlhough as a first-time pitlord I think I can only get ECL 3s...
Rauul 06-06-07, 02:54 PM	Oh and telin, since your "THE MAN" this week, you may wish to move Corrupter up to ECL 8 (i did note it in his header for the miniquest)
Macbrea 06-06-07, 02:55 PM	They like to start people on level 3s and 4s because they are the simplest of fights to run. And the least amount of time. This way you can get in the groove of running fights. After awhile the way it normally works is the guy with the least amount of fights gets the higher level fights and strange ones. The one that took a huge number of fights gets a ton of level 3 and 4s.
McJarvis 06-06-07, 02:55 PM	You generally quit on any character that recieves a loss. Of my four active characters, one has never actually fought, one just did his first fight, and the other two have received losses in their career. I suppose from this quick look-around one can gather that you seem to have opinions about me not entirely based on fact. Of my retired characters-> two of them were because of rules changes, I'd guess about three of them are b/c of frustration with pitlords, and two of them were because they lost their winning streak[which was planned to begin with] And then, of course, are all my old characters-> which are no longer useful b/c of rules changes or my having an inadequate grasp of the rules when I created them, all those years ago.
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 02:55 PM	is there no one active at ECL 6? if so- teling, any chace to NOT have a monster fight -i hate these damn things - and do some inter league stuff- could be fun - me against 2 ecl 4's maybe? We'll see how it works out. Right now I am prepared to remove any and all monster fights if I don't have enough pitlords - but only in that case. Even Usurpator will get one if we have enough. Note - this is how it would work in a state of emergency anyways - so its not all that different from that. Although since I'm not restricting the number of characters activated per player - the increased credit cost isn't in there. Starting on pairings in just a moment.
Macbrea 06-06-07, 02:57 PM	Hmm, so, Torel vs Izumi or Torel vs Relanex...
Erithmu 06-06-07, 02:59 PM	Hmm, so, Torel vs Izumi or Torel vs Relanex... No there is another active ECL 8 .... but pretty much. On a personal note ... I'm hoping for Izumi on a no ceiling map, but I don't think I would mind the rematch ...
Macbrea 06-06-07, 03:01 PM	She bought a few items this week.... to help.
Rauul 06-06-07, 03:05 PM	I sent a message to Pitlords, that i can take an extra fight, if that will help..
Macbrea 06-06-07, 03:06 PM	Grrr.. didn't notice the Were-Porpoise sneak into the mix!
Erithmu 06-06-07, 03:07 PM	She bought a few items this week.... to help. I find it funny that you can hit better with your 'new' items than your primary melee weapon ... *shrugs*
Macbrea 06-06-07, 03:10 PM	Well. I am taking a -4 penalty to hit with the Kusuri-gama. In order to add +1d6 damage. I would guess.. it's kind of like a free power attack?
Erithmu 06-06-07, 03:12 PM	Well. I am taking a -4 penalty to hit with the Kusuri-gama. In order to add +1d6 damage. I'm thinking -4 for 1d6 ... is not as good as power attack for -4 +8 ... but that might just be me ... Izumi wouldn't be Izumi without a ... BIG CHAIN* *This size 7 has been brought to you by the letter 'L' and Mad Cow disease
TheMagister 06-06-07, 03:12 PM	Well. I am taking a -4 penalty to hit with the Kusuri-gama. In order to add +1d6 damage. See, but I totally understand that. Sacrifice everything for the "theme". I'm still waiting for Izzy to be able to Expansion to Huge size. WHEE! TM
Rauul 06-06-07, 03:12 PM	She bought a few items this week.... to help. hmmm Izumi with a bow... what is she doing sewing from a distance now? sheesh..
Macbrea 06-06-07, 03:13 PM	True.. Won't be able to expand to huge til 10th. But am working on it. Bow is only for fights my opponent flies away on the plains. I am not planning on making it a primary weapon.
Rauul 06-06-07, 03:16 PM	See, but I totally understand that. Sacrifice everything for the "theme". I'm still waiting for Izzy to be able to Expansion to Huge size. WHEE! TM not me... Izumi in her little maids outfit at huge size is NOT something i want to picture
Macbrea 06-06-07, 03:22 PM	What's funny is I originally based her on a character that I misspelled her name Azumi (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384819/).
Rauul 06-06-07, 03:22 PM	hmm just noticed that Corrupter is 0-2 vs other gladiators, 2-0 in miniquests, and only win in the arena was vs a monster.. Wonder why miniquests don't add to power ratings.. Shrug, am happy with how corrupter is coming along
Macbrea 06-06-07, 03:28 PM	And yes, I am a collector of good/bad asian films. :P
Abyssal Stalker 06-06-07, 03:29 PM	I can take one fight too.
Usurpator 06-06-07, 03:30 PM	We'll see how it works out. Right now I am prepared to remove any and all monster fights if I don't have enough pitlords - but only in that case. Even Usurpator will get one if we have enough. Hey, that was not what you promised.
Pitlords 06-06-07, 03:36 PM	Well, I didn't want to exercise favoritism. In any case, there ended up being much less of a shortage with so many people putting up for one more fight (8 to be exact). Just working out the kinks...
McJarvis 06-06-07, 03:44 PM	In any case, there ended up being much less of a shortage with so many people putting up for one more fight (8 to be exact). In general, that seems to be the case when a shortage is announced. I think it's a good example of how credits are not what drives people to pitlord.
Erithmu 06-06-07, 03:45 PM	In my case I realized that I have 4 characters active and one of them is questing, so I'm trying to break even. yeesh
hogarth 06-06-07, 03:55 PM	In general, that seems to be the case when a shortage is announced. I think it's a good example of how credits are not what drives people to pitlord. Specifically, in my case earning credits IS what drives me to pitlord, but fights that take 200+ rounds to resolve are what drive me away. :weep:
Erithmu 06-06-07, 03:58 PM	@Mac: ... Izumi vs Torel ... and Torel has home field advantage? That's just wrong ...
templer10 06-06-07, 03:59 PM	Specifically, in my case earning credits IS what drives me to pitlord, but fights that take 200+ rounds to resolve are what drive me away. :weep: Batch rolling is your friend, love it, use it.
Macbrea 06-06-07, 04:02 PM	Ah.. should be fun. At least it isn't a total rout this time. She has some defenses.
McJarvis 06-06-07, 04:02 PM	Ok, ok, I get the point. I'm the only good-aligned pitlord here. happy? :P
Macbrea 06-06-07, 04:03 PM	Actually, I pitlord 1 fight because of two things. Each 10 credits I start a new character and I don't feel it is right to not pitlord at least 1 fight per 2 activations that I do.
Macbrea 06-06-07, 04:06 PM	@Telin: Izumi's tactics have been sent. :P
Pitlords 06-06-07, 04:14 PM	At least wait until they are official guys... But yes - pairings are up. Credit changes: +0 = NiQil, TheMagister, Vathelokai, McJarvis +1 = MacBrea, templer10, Yitzi, Hogarth, Usurpator, Khaim +2 = Abyssal Stalker, Salrantol +3 = Erithmu, TelinArtho, Sjiggie +4 = Zevox, Rauul +5 = SauroGrenom (P) = Pitlording/Questlording (f) = Active Characters -2 (A) = Board Administration (G) = Guildlord (C) = Campaignlord Erithmu +4(P)-2(f)+1(G) =3 MacBrea +1(P) =1 McJarvis +1(P)-1(f) =0 Rauul +4(P) =2 Salrantol +2(P) =2 TelinArtho +4(P)-3(f)+1(G)+1(A) =3 templer10 +2(P)-1(f) =1 Yitzi +2(P)-1(f) =1 Zevox +4(P)-2(f)+1(G)+1(A) =4 Hogarth +1(P) =1 Usurpator +1(P) =1 Khaim +1(P) =1 Sjiggie +3(P) =1 Abyssal Stalker +2(P) =2 Vathelokai -2(f)+1(G)+1(A) =0 TheMagister -1(f)+1(G) =0 SauroGrenom +1(G)+1(A)+3(C) =5 NiQil -1(f)+1(A) =0
Macbrea 06-06-07, 04:19 PM	@Erithmu: Relanex's Tactics are sent. :P Heh.. Well, I didn't figure it was going to change much.
Sjiggie 06-06-07, 04:19 PM	You´re forgetting the quest I´m running so I should get 3 credits this week and lose 1 for the late miniquest.
Pitlords 06-06-07, 04:22 PM	Late miniquest has already been adjusted and is not reflected above. The other point is fixed (and also fixed for Rauul...)
McJarvis 06-06-07, 04:25 PM	@Templer: Monster fight info will come tonight. I don't really know Lord Lorian's char very well, so I'm gonna do my darndest to make the monster super optimized before I check out Lorian for knowledges :) [to ensure I don't cheat..]
Erithmu 06-06-07, 04:25 PM	My credits are off +2 (P) -2 (A) +1 (G) -2 (Questing-Ephraim) = -1
templer10 06-06-07, 04:32 PM	@Templer: Monster fight info will come tonight. I don't really know Lord Lorian's char very well, so I'm gonna do my darndest to make the monster super optimized before I check out Lorian for knowledges :) [to ensure I don't cheat..] errr - dont work 2 hard- last monster fight i had wasnt... exacly.... fun.... (dispel and greater teleport at will ffs)
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 04:34 PM	You're right - I forgot to apply the active penalty separate from the quest penalty. But I think you are forgetting about the quest you are listed as running. 2 fights = +2 1 Quest = +2 3 Active characters =-1 1 Active character on quest = -2 1 Guild activity = +1 Net = +2
templer10 06-06-07, 04:34 PM	Telin - longshots full activity is wrong - his Ml4 dorja cost him 3000 and the ML2 dorja cost him 750, to craft (since i obviosly have craft dorja feat) so it should be week 1/1. Edit- is it done by what i pay or base price? since i though it was from Crafted price (or i wouldnt have done the second dorja).
TheMagister 06-06-07, 04:35 PM	Wasn't exactly a picnic to run, either.
Pitlords 06-06-07, 04:36 PM	Crafting time is determined by market price - not the price the character pays for the item (this goes for full and free activities). EDIT - @Erithmu - missed the 4th character. Adjusted to +1.
Rauul 06-06-07, 04:37 PM	Well Telin, Zax has the knowledge to know what "part" of his monster is... Satyr and playing "special" pipes.. So send tactics when you can :)
Erithmu 06-06-07, 04:38 PM	What quest? Loddick and Ephraim are on mission and quest respectively. Am I missing something? You looking at the mission that MWB is supposed to start this weekend for me when he gets back? @Telin: Torel's tactics sent, have fun w/ that fight.
TheMagister 06-06-07, 04:39 PM	And The Battlesong Duet's Full Activity is misleading as well: we're two seperate characters still, and can each handle up to 7K in crafting/week each. So Tessero's crafting ~3K worth of platemail, and ~2K worth of mithril breastplate. Cupid's enchanting less than 7K worth of stuff. Should be 1 week.
hogarth 06-06-07, 04:39 PM	Oops...I accidentally set Reginald Molehusband as ready for "Apr 6" instead of "June 6". Can I get his miniquest added? Vathelokai already PM'ed me and said he'd take it. Thanks!
Pitlords 06-06-07, 04:42 PM	And The Battlesong Duet's Full Activity is misleading as well: we're two seperate characters still, and can each handle up to 7K in crafting/week each. So Tessero's crafting ~3K worth of platemail, and ~2K worth of mithril breastplate. Cupid's enchanting less than 7K worth of stuff. Should be 1 week. I wasn't sure about it - so I put it at two weeks - still thinking about it again - I agree.
Pitlords 06-06-07, 04:43 PM	Oops...I accidentally set Reginald Molehusband as ready for "Apr 6" instead of "June 6". Can I get his miniquest added? Vathelokai already PM'ed me and said he'd take it. Thanks! Adding now Vath +1 credit
templer10 06-06-07, 04:46 PM	i guess it's 2 late now - but i didnt know crafting went by market price - is there any way to make the crafting just for the expensive dorja so it will be 1 week only? i dont really want to sit out for 2 weeks...
TelinArtho 06-06-07, 04:49 PM	i guess it's 2 late now - but i didnt know crafting went by market price - is there any way to make the crafting just for the expensive dorja so it will be 1 week only? i dont really want to sit out for 2 weeks... sure - make sure to note it as such on your sheet. I'll fix the pairings.
templer10 06-06-07, 04:51 PM	sure - make sure to note it as such on your sheet. I'll fix the pairings. thanks.
Rauul 06-06-07, 05:14 PM	Mithos Durrol Miniquest (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12631626#post12631626) is up.. please post some RP leadins, before I run my own leadin :) Valanthe Valassar Miniquest (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=861179) is up.. please post some RP leadins, before I run my own leadin :)
McJarvis 06-06-07, 07:42 PM	@Templer: monster info is up.
Zevox 06-06-07, 09:33 PM	Mithos Durrol Miniquest (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12631626#post12631626) is up.. please post some RP leadins, before I run my own leadin :) You can find a lead-in for that already posted at the tail end of the Loyalist thread (here). Dentik Earthmolder (TelinArtho) vs. Kathren Durrol (Zevox) : templer10 [Arena] Ooo, I get the honor of being the first to face one of Telin's latest Cleric experiments? Cool. Should be interesting. Arden Tarmik (Zevox) vs. Unknown Monster : Salrantol [Temple] Ah, darn. I was hoping for a fight with Elric, or an FFA with him and Rubi. Or at least an inter-league match. Oh well, maybe I'll get lucky and Arden will be paired against a Psionic monster, so he actually knows what it is. Anyway, I'll get Kathren's tactics out tonight. Arden's will be forthcoming sometime tomorrow, or as soon as I get my monster info, whichever comes second. Zevox
NiQil 06-06-07, 09:41 PM	@ Telin: Am I correct in assuming that Taren Rune's monster fight from last week was dissolved, and he is now redoing week 3 against his new opponent?
Zevox 06-06-07, 10:33 PM	@ Templer10 - Tactics for Kathren Durrol (vs Dentik Earthmolder) PMed. I take back my initial reaction - won't be such an interesting fight after all. Telin completely neglected to give that Dwarf a way to catch foes with speeds over 30', or fight at a range with any decent proficiency... Zevox
NiQil 06-06-07, 11:21 PM	@ Abyssal Stalker: Tactics for Taren Rune sent via PM @ Zevox: Tactics for Blitzkrieg sent via PM @ Erithmu: Tactics for Juggernaut sent via PM. Read them right away...there are instructions at the top you might want to know about.
hogarth 06-06-07, 11:36 PM	Atemu vs. Daren is finished. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12636131&postcount=935) Please let me know if you have any comments or concerns.
Yitzi 06-07-07, 12:18 AM	I'd just like to say, thank you for realizing that Daren meant to use the crossbow based on the assumption that deflect arrows would protect him, and improvising the immediate move to melee accordingly. Some pitlords would just have run it by the literal tactics, and I appreciate that you didn't (even if I still lost-at lower levels, Daren is weak against those with good AC and attack modifiers).
stimpydoda 06-07-07, 12:43 AM	@ templer10: Tactics for Sarai Farenze sent via PM @ Erithmu: Tactics for Esau Sampson sent via PM. Thanks ^.^
hogarth 06-07-07, 06:45 AM	I'd just like to say, thank you for realizing that Daren meant to use the crossbow based on the assumption that deflect arrows would protect him, and improvising the immediate move to melee accordingly. Some pitlords would just have run it by the literal tactics, and I appreciate that you didn't (even if I still lost-at lower levels, Daren is weak against those with good AC and attack modifiers). I wasn't trying to improvise tactics at all. I was trying to obey your "Shield spell" tactic: Once I see Atemu, and he will be able to attack me next turn, cast shield (obviously don't double move into a place he can attack me until my shield is up) and keep going. I think I'll say once I see him use the crossbow to soften him up (don't bother moving) until he comes close enough to me to force shield, once I cast shield I drop the bow and draw siangham and go for him with that. The way I read those lines was that if Atemu could attack you (e.g. fire arrows at you), cast Shield and attack him with your siangham. Did you intend to get into a ranged duel? I admit I was a bit confused by the "soften him up with the crossbow" bit.
Salrantol 06-07-07, 06:46 AM	Anyway, I'll get Kathren's tactics out tonight. Arden's will be forthcoming sometime tomorrow, or as soon as I get my monster info, whichever comes second.Well, conveniently, your monster info was up before you posted your comment, so you should be able to get to the tactics at anytime.;)
Yitzi 06-07-07, 10:23 AM	I wasn't trying to improvise tactics at all. I was trying to obey your "Shield spell" tactic: The way I read those lines was that if Atemu could attack you (e.g. fire arrows at you), cast Shield and attack him with your siangham. Did you intend to get into a ranged duel? I admit I was a bit confused by the "soften him up with the crossbow" bit. I expected my deflect arrows to force him to go for melee. In any case, thanks for running it.
waywreth 06-07-07, 10:32 AM	@MacBrea - Tactics for Vantis in Vantis Dar'ath (waywreth) vs. Ialgo (TelinArtho) : MacBrea [Arena] sent via PM. @Yitzi - Tactics for Inzin in Inzin Dar'ath (waywreth) vs. Tatsuo (Adolfo_Mondschein) : Yitzi [Arena] sent via PM.
Korone 06-07-07, 12:08 PM	Thanks for running the fight Hogarth. I'm surprised to see that the gnoll won, though. Maybe I got a bad impression when I saw a potential 27 AC to hit without realising that it was with a scroll of protection, my bad, which could not be casted. Although, you seems to had forgotten Daren's dodge bonus. Not that it really matter when looking at the rolls.. just thought you should know.
Yitzi 06-07-07, 12:09 PM	Atemu vs. Daren is finished. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12636131&postcount=935) Please let me know if you have any comments or concerns. Actually, there is a minor problem-you listed Daren as using a scroll of expeditious retreat and a spell of RoE, when in fact it is the other way around.
Rauul 06-07-07, 12:18 PM	beginning to think it should be a Prison violation for not having Known languages on your sheets...
McJarvis 06-07-07, 12:22 PM	beginning to think it should be a Prison violation for not having Known languages on your sheets... Only if talking or understanding what people say is going to be a part of your tactics ;)
Khaim 06-07-07, 12:23 PM	beginning to think it should be a Prison violation for not having Known languages on your sheets... Nah, it just means your character doesn't know any languages.
Zevox 06-07-07, 12:39 PM	Well, conveniently, your monster info was up before you posted your comment, so you should be able to get to the tactics at anytime.;) ...I'm afraid not quite. Even without an appropriate knowledge skill, our rules say I'm supposed to get the creature's "size and rough description". Presently, all you've given me is its size - "something" is not a description at all. Come on now, surely you can think of something vague to add to the size. Is it monstrous? Brutish? Bipedal? What? Zevox
Salrantol 06-07-07, 12:51 PM	Actually, the something is a very substantial hint, because that's about the closest to a description one can make of your monster. Edit: If you can't figure out exactly what the monster is now, shame on you.
Zevox 06-07-07, 01:01 PM	Actually, the something is a very substantial hint, because that's about the closest to a description one can make of your monster. Edit: If you can't figure out exactly what the monster is now, shame on you. Eh, actually, that at best narrows it down to three (Chaos Beast, Phasm, and maybe Phrenic Phthisic). And all of them I can think of descriptions for that are vague yet more descriptive than "something"... Anyway, I'll see about getting tactics off after posting some RP around here. Zevox
McJarvis 06-07-07, 01:08 PM	tactics sent for General Zaroff.
Rauul 06-07-07, 01:47 PM	Nah, it just means your character doesn't know any languages. bah all my characters have languages listed... so I can cuss at my opponent in infernal.. actually in the Rp my Corrupter casts all his spells in Giant, and talks to his familiar and Cohort in Terran (is confusing but well someday his background will be known.. till then he just the man outside of society.. )
TheMagister 06-07-07, 01:49 PM	actually in the Rp my Corrupter casts all his spells in Giant... Not that it matters to me at all (I'm all for roleplaying angles), but I understood the "language of magic" to be Draconic. So that when you cast arcane spells, you're "speaking Draconic." Just curious. TM
McJarvis 06-07-07, 01:51 PM	Not that it matters to me at all (I'm all for roleplaying angles), but I understood the "language of magic" to be Draconic. So that when you cast arcane spells, you're "speaking Draconic." Just curious. TM In many campaign settings, Giants/Dragons were first/second users of ancient magic. [Including FR, I believe] I forget which order, though.
Zevox 06-07-07, 01:53 PM	I'm pretty sure Draconic isn't actually the language of magic, its just a language old enough and belonging to a race with so much inherent magical talent that many ancient tomes on magic are written in it, which is why Wizards can learn it in lieu of one of their other racial bonus languages. Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 06-07-07, 02:11 PM	Dunerunner vs Taren Rune is done.
Rauul 06-07-07, 02:19 PM	I'm pretty sure Draconic isn't actually the language of magic, its just a language old enough and belonging to a race with so much inherent magical talent that many ancient tomes on magic are written in it, which is why Wizards can learn it in lieu of one of their other racial bonus languages. Zevox Yea, Well dragons consider their language to be that of magic (egotistical), as do elves (Egotistical also) And in Old (2nd edition) Forgotten realms setting the Giant language used to be called the Language of the Elders and was found in Magical scrolls that predate the oldest know elf and dragon writings..
TelinArtho 06-07-07, 02:21 PM	@NiQil - Yes the monster fight was removed in order to better accomodate the roster this week. I believe MWB mentioned this as an option when doing pairings and it removed two monster fights to create a single 1v1 fight.
TheMagister 06-07-07, 02:26 PM	Dunerunner vs Taren Rune is done. You forgot to pin Taren, dude. You also forgot to flurry-grapple.
Zevox 06-07-07, 02:27 PM	Yea, Well dragons consider their language to be that of magic (egotistical), as do elves (Egotistical also) And in Old (2nd edition) Forgotten realms setting the Giant language used to be called the Language of the Elders and was found in Magical scrolls that predate the oldest know elf and dragon writings.. [Off-Topic]Were Giants one of the creator races in FR then? I can never remember all of those... I know Humans, Dragons, and Sarrukh, but I'm pretty sure there were supposed to be 5, and I know most of the common demihuman races (Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, etc) were interlopers.[/Off-Topic] Zevox
Zevox 06-07-07, 02:36 PM	@ Salrantol - Tactics for Arden Tarmik (vs Monster) have been PMed. Zevox
Rauul 06-07-07, 02:38 PM	[Off-Topic]Were Giants one of the creator races in FR then? I can never remember all of those... I know Humans, Dragons, and Sarrukh, but I'm pretty sure there were supposed to be 5, and I know most of the common demihuman races (Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, etc) were interlopers.[/Off-Topic] Zevox [Off-Topic] Sarrukh, also known as sauroids, ancestors of the serpents and the scalykind (with the notable exceptions of the saurials, which come from another crystal sphere and the ophidians, who are perverted humans); Batrachi, also known as amphibioids, ancestors of the dopplegangers, kopru, kuo-toa, locothah, sivs, tako and others shapeshifters; Aearee, also known as aerials, ancestors of aarakocra, dire corbies, kenkus, and other flying humanoids (with the notable exception of the avariel or winged elves); Fairy folk, also known as sylvans, ancestors of the korred, brownies and pixies. Humans, although some human ethnicities are immigrants from other Crystal spheres. (Note that some sources list the dragons as a creator race and not the Aearee.) (Note that some sources list the Giants as a creator race and not the Humans.)[/Off-Topic]
Macbrea 06-07-07, 02:39 PM	[off-topic = Forgotten realms] ? to ? * The Days of Thunder: This is the time of the fabled Creator Races, when many gods came to the consciousness of mortals, and many races still hid in caves. No mention can be found of elves, dwarves, and other races in this time. Still, their absence on ancient cave paintings is hardly sufficient evidence to say that they did not exist in the Realms. ? to -24000 * The Dawn Ages/The Time of Dragons: Dragons and giants rule Toril at this time; elves and dwarves settle in small but growing communities all over Faerûn. The dwarves overthrow the giants and start their empires. Toward the end of this time, the elves start doing the same against the dragon overlords of this era.
Vathelokai 06-07-07, 02:47 PM	@Rith: tactics for Antalya sent @Zevox: tactics for Unholy Ninja sent
Yitzi 06-07-07, 03:23 PM	About Dunerunner's fight-I explicitly said I want to pin Taren in grapple. Furthermore, due to FoB I get 2 grapple checks a round (both at full bonus). So can you please revise it, I suspect it will make a big difference (and probably won't be too much harder, just rolling checks)? Edit: this is the same point made by TM above, for some reason I didn't see it.
Erithmu 06-07-07, 03:50 PM	@stimpydoda: Response to tactics sent @Niqil, Macbrea, Vath: Tactics recieved Fights maybe tomorrow, maybe Saturday, possibly Sunday .. but most likely after I am fully done w/ my last paper.
Khaim 06-07-07, 04:31 PM	Can someone give me some help with Phacce's donkey horde? Setup is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12632966&postcount=931). Specifically, doesn't it take a move action to command each one to do something?
TheMagister 06-07-07, 04:31 PM	Can someone give me some help with Phacce's donkey horde? Setup is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12632966&postcount=931). Specifically, doesn't it take a move action to command each one to do something? Yes, it does take a move action to handle each animal seperately.
hogarth 06-07-07, 06:33 PM	Actually, there is a minor problem-you listed Daren as using a scroll of expeditious retreat and a spell of RoE, when in fact it is the other way around. Fixed. Also, I did forget about the Dodge feat, but luckily it didn't change anything.
templer10 06-07-07, 08:11 PM	telin- tactics for elrick vs rubi sent - sigh why couldnt it have been in the plains... this is the fight of who can do LEAST dmg to each other. Tactics for lord lorian vs ogre and troll sent also.
NiQil 06-07-07, 09:21 PM	@NiQil - Yes the monster fight was removed in order to better accomodate the roster this week. I believe MWB mentioned this as an option when doing pairings and it removed two monster fights to create a single 1v1 fight. That's perfectly fine...I was just seeking clarification. However, since that is the case, then I should be getting a credit back for the one that was spent to have the character active last week, since the fight was abolished, rather than held over.
TelinArtho 06-07-07, 09:29 PM	Good point - send a PM to Pitlords and I'll resolve it in the morning (signing off now)
Khaim 06-07-07, 09:36 PM	Phacce vs Arbin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12632966&postcount=931) is done- sort of. It was really close and I think I made some mistakes. Next time, let's not give the guy with multiple allies to the first-timer, shall we? Also, I know I haven't done the results block; I'll get to it later when I'm sure the fight is correct.
waywreth 06-07-07, 10:24 PM	Phacce vs Arbin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12632966&postcount=931) is done- sort of. It was really close and I think I made some mistakes. Next time, let's not give the guy with multiple allies to the first-timer, shall we? Also, I know I haven't done the results block; I'll get to it later when I'm sure the fight is correct. Hah, Arbin was lucky he was staggered not disabled in that final round. Close fight.
Yitzi 06-07-07, 11:19 PM	Vallgar vs. Liara is up.
Abyssal Stalker 06-08-07, 12:44 AM	@Yitzi: Sorry about the tactical error. For some reason I managed to completely ignore that part of your tactics. This will of course be fixed.
UserNamer 06-08-07, 01:53 AM	Phacce vs Arbin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12632966&postcount=931) is done- sort of. It was really close and I think I made some mistakes. Next time, let's not give the guy with multiple allies to the first-timer, shall we? Also, I know I haven't done the results block; I'll get to it later when I'm sure the fight is correct. Hey Khaim, thanks for running, but I think you really have to edit a lot since you din't follow my cont. : heal when at 12hp or lower. That would be from round 11. This is pretty important, since it will make me win the fight.
Yitzi 06-08-07, 10:20 AM	Unless I succeed at disarming...
McJarvis 06-08-07, 10:25 AM	Tactics sent for Anger
Khaim 06-08-07, 10:42 AM	Hey Khaim, thanks for running, but I think you really have to edit a lot since you din't follow my cont. : heal when at 12hp or lower. That would be from round 11. This is pretty important, since it will make me win the fight. You know what, you're right. I knew I forgot something. All right, round 11.5+ is void; I'll redo it when I get the chance.
TelinArtho 06-08-07, 11:22 AM	@Yitzi - There's a couple of issues I see with the fight as is and it is going to require some editing: In round 5, Lady Liara should have taken falling damage from the fall off of the horse. In round 9, when Lancer moves away - this draws an AoO from Turon. If the horse withdraws - Lady Liara still provokes since she has already moved that round and can't take the full round withdraw. In addition, you seem to have neglected the 9hp damage that Turon dealt to Lancer in that round in the summary. This means that by round 11 at the latest - Lancer goes down due to the attack in that round. This should have a fairly big effect on the fight from that point on.
Yitzi 06-08-07, 12:13 PM	@Yitzi - There's a couple of issues I see with the fight as is and it is going to require some editing: [quote]In round 5, Lady Liara should have taken falling damage from the fall off of the horse. I rolled the ride check (it does not take an action, so HL should not stop it), she made the check and takes no damage. In round 9, when Lancer moves away - this draws an AoO from Turon. If the horse withdraws - Lady Liara still provokes since she has already moved that round and can't take the full round withdraw. No idea why I missed that, I rolled the attack, it missed. In addition, you seem to have neglected the 9hp damage that Turon dealt to Lancer in that round in the summary. This means that by round 11 at the latest - Lancer goes down due to the attack in that round. This should have a fairly big effect on the fight from that point on. Sorry about that. Actually, it doesn't make that much difference, it just deletes rounds 11.5-14.5, and changes a bit at the end, due to Liara not having to recast her shield as soon. Item uses change a bit, but that's all.
TelinArtho 06-08-07, 12:29 PM	Thematic rolls are supposed to remain in order - so instead of applying a bulk delete to those rounds - you are supposed to use them as they come up. However, looking them over - that's not going to help anyway - so there's no need to further edit on my part. On the matter of taking the soft fall, I want to know how someone who is not able to take actions is going to "react instantly" in order to avoid damage from a horse. I don't think she should've been able to make a ride check in order to avoid it there. That said - it doesn't change anything enough - so no need to edit.
Yitzi 06-08-07, 12:33 PM	Normally I do keep them in order, but here it was different (attack with a lance was deleted, she was attacking with a sword; attack the horse was deleted, Vallgar and Turon were attacking Liara).
TelinArtho 06-08-07, 12:41 PM	Also, although I am asking Yitzi for this right now - I want to stress some things need to be included in the fight summaries for all pitlords: 1. Anything that is a lasting prebuff - for instance Vallgar used two pearls of Power as a prebuff to week 2 - this needs to be marked in the prebuff section of the fight summary for that week. 2. Anything that has a CL, ML needs to be recorded on used items - this includes potions, wands, scrolls, staves and the equivalent psionic items. It is fairly often in the higher ECLs to have items that are of different CL/ML and the fight summary should be crystal clear on what specifically was used.
TheMagister 06-08-07, 01:12 PM	Also, although I am asking Yitzi for this right now - I want to stress some things need to be included in the fight summaries for all pitlords: 1. Anything that is a lasting prebuff - for instance Vallgar used two pearls of Power as a prebuff to week 2 - this needs to be marked in the prebuff section of the fight summary for that week. 2. Anything that has a CL, ML needs to be recorded on used items - this includes potions, wands, scrolls, staves and the equivalent psionic items. It is fairly often in the higher ECLs to have items that are of different CL/ML and the fight summary should be crystal clear on what specifically was used. I'd like to add something to this: It might just be me who it bothers, but I really like it when my players include the CL/ML of the items they'd like used in their buffing or during tactical moments (i.e. - "use the ML 3 powerstone of vigor if I drop below 15 hp" instead of "draw/use powerstone of vigor if I drop below 15 hp"). Sure, sometimes there's only one choice, and I understand that. But it's nice to know what the CL/ML of a spell/power is because then I don't have to flip to your character sheet to determine the duration. Maybe it's just me; I dunno. I put it in my pitlord profile -- that's all I can do, I guess. TM
TelinArtho 06-08-07, 01:17 PM	Certainly not unreasonable - and if there are multiple choices it better be specified in the tactics. As a pitlord - you should double-check it regardless just to be sure though.
Zevox 06-08-07, 01:23 PM	@ Salrantol - I noticed Ceilia's fight is partially run, and theres a couple of errors you need to know about. First, her Inflict spells give Srissa a will save for half damage. Second, you seem to have totally cut out her Spiritual Weapon after the round it was cast - it has a 7 round duration, so it should be attacking the whole time, even if she has to redirect it for those few rounds where Srissa breaks LoS. And third, Ceilia needs to cast those spells defensively once shes based - she almost auto-succeeds, but not quite, so they do need to be rolled. Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 06-08-07, 01:50 PM	Dunerunner vs Taren Rune is edited. Result changed.
Salrantol 06-08-07, 02:32 PM	@ Salrantol - I noticed Ceilia's fight is partially run, and theres a couple of errors you need to know about. First, her Inflict spells give Srissa a will save for half damage. Yeah, so reading descriptions matters...grumble. Second, you seem to have totally cut out her Spiritual Weapon after the round it was cast - it has a 7 round duration, so it should be attacking the whole time, even if she has to redirect it for those few rounds where Srissa breaks LoS.It's not cut out, it's forgotten. Now you see why the "Edit" button is very nice.
Erithmu 06-08-07, 03:01 PM	Antalya vs Relanex Dice sorted it out.
Macbrea 06-08-07, 03:09 PM	Sheesh.... dps build works.. sometimes. Edit: Can you add 250gp diamond dust to my expendature on Relanex. Stoneskin is expensive to cast. :P
Yitzi 06-08-07, 04:29 PM	Also, although I am asking Yitzi for this right now - I want to stress some things need to be included in the fight summaries for all pitlords: 1. Anything that is a lasting prebuff - for instance Vallgar used two pearls of Power as a prebuff to week 2 - this needs to be marked in the prebuff section of the fight summary for that week. The Fight: During the fight, Varia cast a darkness spell with a 2 hour duration from a scroll, Invisibility (4 min), Magic Missile (Instantaneous) and extended Alter Self (80 min). In the fight summary (at the end of the fight), the pitlord writes down the running spells incl their duration: mage armor (5 hours), false life (1 hour), alter self (80 min). Although invisibility is still running, its duration is too short to carry over to the next fight (1 hour is minimum) and although darkness has a longer duration, it affects the arena so it cannot be prebuffed with. PS: Since False Life can also run out if the hitpoints are gone, the Pitlord also adds the hp it has left into the summary. From this it seems quite clear that what goes into the summary under that section is any spells with time left over, which are then treated as prebuffs for the next fight. So if the mage armor were CL 2, I would put down "mage armor (1184 rounds)". It is not for things prebuffed before the fight. 2. Anything that has a CL, ML needs to be recorded on used items - this includes potions, wands, scrolls, staves and the equivalent psionic items. It is fairly often in the higher ECLs to have items that are of different CL/ML and the fight summary should be crystal clear on what specifically was used. If they have more than one CL/ML I mark it, if not I don't really see any reason to bother, when they adjust their sheet they're not going to remove something they don't have by accident.
TelinArtho 06-08-07, 04:45 PM	It is still important to note in the summary what was used during prebuffs because it has to be noted for future fights. If Darrgon uses 2 pearls of power in week 1, and I note it as a prebuff for between week 1 and 2, but you don't note it in your fight summary in week 2, then there is nothing on Darrgon's sheet for week 3 to indicate that the pearls are used. This is also important especially for Pearls of Power because of how they affect the spells per fight. If Darrgon has 4 SLs/fight and casts 2SLs in week 1, he has 6 for week 2. However, if he recalls SMII with a pearl of power after week 1, he really has 6 SLs plus a "free" casting of SMII to work with. The recall and the recasting needs to be marked so that there is no confusion about it. As to the CL/ML mark - it is mostly important for auditors to have this information. It makes their lives easier when there is complete information in the fight summary. In the event that you don't notice another expendable with a different CL - it clears up any question. Leaving it out just leaves the possibility for error.
Yitzi 06-08-07, 04:50 PM	It is still important to note in the summary what was used during prebuffs because it has to be noted for future fights. If Darrgon uses 2 pearls of power in week 1, and I note it as a prebuff for between week 1 and 2, but you don't note it in your fight summary in week 2, then there is nothing on Darrgon's sheet for week 3 to indicate that the pearls are used. This is also important especially for Pearls of Power because of how they affect the spells per fight. If Darrgon has 4 SLs/fight and casts 2SLs in week 1, he has 6 for week 2. However, if he recalls SMII with a pearl of power after week 1, he really has 6 SLs plus a "free" casting of SMII to work with. The recall and the recasting needs to be marked so that there is no confusion about it. I see your point. Fixed.
Rauul 06-08-07, 05:11 PM	Gawd i have noticed that Pearls of Power are extremely useful in the 3fc, i do believe corrupter will be crafting a level 3 PoP and some more level 1's.. just so useful to go into a fight with all spells after blowing a load in your 1-2nd fight..
TelinArtho 06-08-07, 05:17 PM	They are certainly very effective for casters who want to be able to use their casting stat for casting. Kraegin focuses almost exclusively on them (1 5th, 2 4th, 1 3rd, 1 2nd, 2 1st), but over time you'll find (most likely) that by your 3rd fight you won't be using much of anything. What it does enable you to do is have variety. Picture 2 Cleric 3 with 2 2nd levels spells (plus his domain spell). One has no pearls of power, and the other has 2 PoP (2nd). In the first case, if the primary method for the cleric to take down an opponent is Hold person - s/he memorizes two of them and hopes s/he can get by in the 3rd fight (or in one of the first two) without it. In the latter case, the cleric can memorize one Hold person and another useful spell and recall what he casts as he uses it. Since variety is often the way to winning with casters - PoPs are an easy way to attain that.
Erithmu 06-08-07, 05:38 PM	They are certainly very effective for casters who want to be able to use their casting stat for casting. Kraegin focuses almost exclusively on them (1 5th, 2 4th, 1 3rd, 1 2nd, 2 1st), but over time you'll find (most likely) that by your 3rd fight you won't be using much of anything. What it does enable you to do is have variety. Picture 2 Cleric 3 with 2 2nd levels spells (plus his domain spell). One has no pearls of power, and the other has 2 PoP (2nd). In the first case, if the primary method for the cleric to take down an opponent is Hold person - s/he memorizes two of them and hopes s/he can get by in the 3rd fight (or in one of the first two) without it. In the latter case, the cleric can memorize one Hold person and another useful spell and recall what he casts as he uses it. Since variety is often the way to winning with casters - PoPs are an easy way to attain that. Agreed, or it just makes your 3rd fight nova look really really scary.
templer10 06-08-07, 06:16 PM	Gash (Aura_Blade) vs. Sarai Farenze (stimpydoda) is done. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12655990&postcount=940)
Rauul 06-08-07, 09:12 PM	Would like for someone to look and make sure the template is correct on the half-celestrial satyr (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12634317&postcount=934) please... before i start the fight tomorrow.. thanks in advance
templer10 06-08-07, 09:43 PM	Would like for someone to look and make sure the template is correct on the half-celestrial satyr (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12634317&postcount=934) please... before i start the fight tomorrow.. thanks in advance half celestials can also cast daylight at will and have SR of 10+hd (so 15). the fly speed should be twice base land speed (so 80), it should have a LOT more skills (8+int bonus)X (HD+3). also - gloves of Dex+1 cost 1000 (1X1X1000).
Vathelokai 06-08-07, 09:47 PM	Gawd i have noticed that Pearls of Power are extremely useful in the 3fc, i do believe corrupter will be crafting a level 3 PoP and some more level 1's.. just so useful to go into a fight with all spells after blowing a load in your 1-2nd fight.. They are also a great investment. At higher levels you can sell a couple back at cost and craft better items.
Vathelokai 06-08-07, 09:56 PM	Antalya vs Relanex Dice sorted it out. Fight approved. Question though: I didn't know lightning bolt worked that way. I thought the 'dmg to objects' clause was about targeting unattended objects. Similarly, I'm not sure how shout would work in a similar situation. I'm not following the rolls; could someone explain it to me?
Rauul 06-08-07, 10:14 PM	half celestials can also cast daylight at will and have SR of 10+hd (so 15). the fly speed should be twice base land speed (so 80), it should have a LOT more skills (8+int bonus)X (HD+3). also - gloves of Dex+1 cost 1000 (1X1X1000). thanks updated... not really worried about the skills (more headaches for me than they are worth).. got rid of the prot vs arrows, and made the bow +1 Me personnely have always pictured a Satyr as a happy go lucky sadistic pest who will torment his target just to have fun.... sort of like me...
Erithmu 06-08-07, 10:24 PM	Fight approved. Question though: I didn't know lightning bolt worked that way. I thought the 'dmg to objects' clause was about targeting unattended objects. Similarly, I'm not sure how shout would work in a similar situation. I'm not following the rolls; could someone explain it to me? the Damage to objects are as a result of the Nat 1 on your saving throw. (this is under the magic overview section in SRD) I do this will all 'damage' related spells. (And as I'm looking at this, I'm seeing I did it wrong.) So from there you pick 4 items going down that list, and then the item gets a saving throw (based on user), and then you check damage. Edit: Shout would ignore hardness The error is that apparently Electrical damage is halved to objects and that hardness applies (Carrying, Movement, section of SRD) which would mean that the wand takes 4 damage that is fully absorbed by the hardness. (since I think that elemental resistance applies.)
Zevox 06-08-07, 11:22 PM	Would like for someone to look and make sure the template is correct on the half-celestrial satyr (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12634317&postcount=934) please... before i start the fight tomorrow.. thanks in advance I don't believe you're allowed to give a monster items that cost credits. They have no credits to purchase them, after all. Zevox
hogarth 06-08-07, 11:37 PM	I don't believe you're allowed to give a monster items that cost credits. They have no credits to purchase them, after all. TheMagister has done it before (with a svirfneblin adept a few weeks ago). I don't think it's a great idea, but I'd rather see Gloves +1 than a truckload of potions and other expendables. Why is the rapier only a +1 attack bonus? And why not give him a longbow? As an outsider, he's familiar with all martial weapons, so why not?
Vathelokai 06-08-07, 11:55 PM	the Damage to objects are as a result of the Nat 1 on your saving throw. (this is under the magic overview section in SRD) I do this will all 'damage' related spells. (And as I'm looking at this, I'm seeing I did it wrong.) So from there you pick 4 items going down that list, and then the item gets a saving throw (based on user), and then you check damage. Edit: Shout would ignore hardness The error is that apparently Electrical damage is halved to objects and that hardness applies (Carrying, Movement, section of SRD) which would mean that the wand takes 4 damage that is fully absorbed by the hardness. (since I think that elemental resistance applies.) Completely forgot that; effects of a one on a save. As for the error. I'm willing to except the loss as is. If your own philosophies dictate otherwise, then feel free to change things. No worries.
Rauul 06-09-07, 12:57 AM	I don't believe you're allowed to give a monster items that cost credits. They have no credits to purchase them, after all. Zevox Personnely i would rather see no monsters use any equipment... but as for a the credit thing... credits aren't an IN game item, they are a way for PLAYERS to get custom non DMG items.. Monsters don't have the Option of Pitlording or prisoning to get credits (But that would be funny thou) :D :D
Zevox 06-09-07, 01:00 AM	Personnely i would rather see no monsters use any equipment... but as for a the credit thing... credits aren't an IN game item, they are a way for PLAYERS to get custom non DMG items.. Monsters don't have the Option of Pitlording or prisoning to get credits (But that would be funny thou) :D :D Precisely my point. We allow players to get such custom, non-DMG/SRD items only via using credits. Why should we allow monsters to get those items as though they were typical pieces of equipment? Zevox
Rauul 06-09-07, 01:10 AM	Precisely my point. We allow players to get such custom, non-DMG/SRD items only via using credits. Why should we allow monsters to get those items as though they were typical pieces of equipment? Zevox then a rule needs to be made about it in council because since i have been here i have seen it happen alot.. this is the first time i have done it.. now if telin feels i shouldn't (it's his fight) i will remove it and give potions... it's not a big deal to me..
Erithmu 06-09-07, 01:58 AM	Completely forgot that; effects of a one on a save. As for the error. I'm willing to except the loss as is. If your own philosophies dictate otherwise, then feel free to change things. No worries. Ok ... my philosophies are to point out the situation. If the person doesn't have any major issues then I roll with it.
TelinArtho 06-09-07, 01:58 AM	I don't care either way to be honest and if the alternative is potions - then no - I don't want it changed. That said - there certainly should be some restrictions drawn up and I am going to breach that subject when the current ally issues are resolved on MWB and Sauro's return.
Rauul 06-09-07, 02:27 AM	I don't care either way to be honest and if the alternative is potions - then no - I don't want it changed. That said - there certainly should be some restrictions drawn up and I am going to breach that subject when the current ally issues are resolved on MWB and Sauro's return. I agree, maybe make it so Monsters get 1 credit per Cr or something.. that way they can have +1 arrows and stuph like that.. Shrugs.. Ok will run the fight tomorrow..
Abyssal Stalker 06-09-07, 03:52 AM	Precisely my point. We allow players to get such custom, non-DMG/SRD items only via using credits. Why should we allow monsters to get those items as though they were typical pieces of equipment? Zevox Then again, why not? After all, you may come up against those items in the Arena, why not on a quest. But I agree to a certain point - giving unlimited access to stuff that costs credits is unbalancing. But I think giving monsters stuff that costs credits within reason is OK. At least I like to toy with the UA material when I create monsters with class levels. And that costs also credits, so in your suggestion it would be impossible to use those variants.
Rauul 06-09-07, 03:55 AM	Then again, why not? After all, you may come up against those items in the Arena, why not on a quest. But I agree to a certain point - giving unlimited access to stuff that costs credits is unbalancing. But I think giving monsters stuff that costs credits within reason is OK. At least I like to toy with the UA material when I create monsters with class levels. And that costs also credits, so in your suggestion it would be impossible to use those variants. Yup and since Templates cost us credits... no more monster with templates!!!
Abyssal Stalker 06-09-07, 04:00 AM	:D Not exactly. Having a template doesn't cost credits - starting at a higher level costs (which is the result of having a template). Edit: I'll return to your quest later tonight. Now I have some construction to do...
Salrantol 06-09-07, 07:22 AM	Ceilia vs. Srissa the Lizardwoman Operative is up.
Zevox 06-09-07, 08:58 AM	Ceilia vs. Srissa the Lizardwoman Operative is up. Well, you forgot the rewards (by my calculations, 2,507 xp and 4,178 gp), and it looks like you still forgot to roll defensive casting checks, but otherwise looks fine. Thanks for the run. Zevox
Salrantol 06-09-07, 12:51 PM	Rewards? We're supposed to hand out rewards for fights now? OK, I added in the Concentration checks, and you failed the important one on the inflict critical wounds so it took a bit longer, but you're still going to win. She just can't hit you when you're buffed to the nines.
MitzaVolchenko 06-09-07, 01:07 PM	Well...reformatted and virus free, I am back. Lesson learned, no access to my harddrives to the rest of my network...the real painis replacing my music and art collection. *sighs*
NiQil 06-09-07, 01:15 PM	Well...reformatted and virus free, I am back. Lesson learned, no access to my harddrives to the rest of my network...the real painis replacing my music and art collection. *sighs* Meh....it's not the access that is the problem, it's the need for a firewall and a good virus scan. Thankfully, my network has both. But in any event, welcome back.
MitzaVolchenko 06-09-07, 01:20 PM	Meh....it's not the access that is the problem, it's the need for a firewall and a good virus scan. Thankfully, my network has both. But in any event, welcome back. I have a solid firewall and my anti-virus did catch the issue when I went looking (I frequently disable it to play BF2)...real issue is roommates that indiscriminately download stuff and are not careful with where they store it...oh Pooka is out of hard drive space...lets just toss this on Mitza's hard drive until we have time to burn it. Real kicker is that I spent all night Monday running fights...if it is okay with Pitlords, I'll go ahead and post the dropped monster fight...you won...poor ankheg couldn't burrow ;)
templer10 06-09-07, 01:20 PM	Dentik Earthmolder (TelinArtho) vs. Kathren Durrol (Zevox) is done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12658008&postcount=941) - predictably..... the guy with the sling..... lost
NiQil 06-09-07, 01:25 PM	I have a solid firewall and my anti-virus did catch the issue when I went looking (I frequently disable it to play BF2)...real issue is roommates that indiscriminately download stuff and are not careful with where they store it...oh Pooka is out of hard drive space...lets just toss this on Mitza's hard drive until we have time to burn it. Real kicker is that I spent all night Monday running fights...if it is okay with Pitlords, I'll go ahead and post the dropped monster fight...you won...poor ankheg couldn't burrow ;) The monster fight was cancelled....Taren was assigned a new fight this week (which he lost). So no need to post it.
MitzaVolchenko 06-09-07, 02:32 PM	The monster fight was cancelled....Taren was assigned a new fight this week (which he lost). So no need to post it. Was offering to post it up if allowed to give him the fight that he should have had...but no big deal either way to me.
Zevox 06-09-07, 03:33 PM	Dentik Earthmolder (TelinArtho) vs. Kathren Durrol (Zevox) is done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12658008&postcount=941) - predictably..... the guy with the sling..... lost Looks pretty good overall, but theres a minor mathematical error that may extend it a round or two. When Kathren's ray hit for 19 damage, you took 20 from Dentik's hp. So between that and the two 5 damage MM hits, he'd be down to 0 hp in that last round, and he has orders to convert a spell to CLW. Most likely this would just mean another charge or two of Kathren's wand, so its probably unnecessary to edit for it, but if Telin wants to, it should probably get done. Otherwise, like I said, looks good. Pretty predictable, like you said. Telin, you really need to get that guy a way to deal with fast-moving ranged foes. Casters or archers with expeditious retreat, mounted casters or archers, or even just manifesters or archers with skate will eat you alive as-is. A mount or a better ranged weapon (crossbow comes to mind) would work as a temporary solution for the lower levels at least. Zevox
templer10 06-09-07, 03:41 PM	Looks pretty good overall, but theres a minor mathematical error that may extend it a round or two. When Kathren's ray hit for 19 damage, you took 20 from Dentik's hp. So between that and the two 5 damage MM hits, he'd be down to 0 hp in that last round, and he has orders to convert a spell to CLW. Most likely this would just mean another charge or two of Kathren's wand, so its probably unnecessary to edit for it, but if Telin wants to, it should probably get done. Otherwise, like I said, looks good. Pretty predictable, like you said. Telin, you really need to get that guy a way to deal with fast-moving ranged foes. Casters or archers with expeditious retreat, mounted casters or archers, or even just manifesters or archers with skate will eat you alive as-is. A mount or a better ranged weapon (crossbow comes to mind) would work as a temporary solution for the lower levels at least. Zevox oops forgot about that healing thing - if telin wants i will edit it but i dont see a whole lot of point - he has 0 chance of winning really.
TelinArtho 06-09-07, 04:49 PM	Well - I would appreciate it actually It has to do with that whole thing about using things that people are asking to use. If you don't have the time - don't worry - but I would prefer to have that.
Zevox 06-09-07, 04:58 PM	Dentik Earthmolder (TelinArtho) vs. Kathren Durrol (Zevox) is done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12658008&postcount=941) - predictably..... the guy with the sling..... lost Just noticed a change that does definitely need to be made - Kathren's free activity is missing. Should be Craft (Sculpting) for 68 gp. Edit: Oh, and you need to list which spell Kathren cast, not just how many spell levels she used. Zevox
NiQil 06-09-07, 05:07 PM	Was offering to post it up if allowed to give him the fight that he should have had...but no big deal either way to me. I appreciate the offer, but with the fight having been cancelled, it would only confuse things, in my opinion. Maybe you can just save it and if I get another monster fight with that character before I level, you can swap the fight with the assigned pitlord and just post it then LOL
Salrantol 06-09-07, 05:08 PM	Arden Tarmik vs. Chaos Beast is up. Not too much a chaos beast can do from 15 ft. away. I also apologize to Zevox for being a little bit oversarcastic when discussing monster information. I should have read the monsters list more thoroughly before assuming something could only refer to a chaos beast. And for future reference to anyone getting a monster fight with me, something means it's gonna have an inconstant or generally featureless form.
Zevox 06-09-07, 05:20 PM	Arden Tarmik vs. Chaos Beast is up. Not too much a chaos beast can do from 15 ft. away. I also apologize to Zevox for being a little bit oversarcastic when discussing monster information. I should have read the monsters list more thoroughly before assuming something could only refer to a chaos beast. And for future reference to anyone getting a monster fight with me, something means it's gonna have an inconstant or generally featureless form. Looks good to me. Thanks for running it. And don't worry about the monster info - I've just seen some monster descriptions say things like that at times no matter what the creature is, so it made me think you were trying to go without giving any real description at all (considering that, without knowing you use it that way, calling it "something" just tells one that it exists). Zevox
templer10 06-09-07, 05:21 PM	Well - I would appreciate it actually It has to do with that whole thing about using things that people are asking to use. If you don't have the time - don't worry - but I would prefer to have that. I can do it from work tommarow (hopefully) but i rahter doubt it will actually matter (unless you miracously make a couple of crits with that sling with that whopping +1 or -1 to hit (depend if 1 or 2 range increments).
Usurpator 06-09-07, 07:45 PM	Felice Tu'ria vs. Kai Engel is up. Comments, people pointing out mistakes (and spelling errors) are welcome.
stimpydoda 06-09-07, 07:45 PM	@templer10 - Thanks for running Sarai's fight. Just a couple of things: -I don't see anything in the rules against taking a full-round action to ready to charge. - Her free activity isn't listed in the wrap up: Free Activity: Using Profession(Hunter) to make 54gp Thanks!
Zevox 06-09-07, 07:50 PM	-I don't see anything in the rules against taking a full-round action to ready to charge. Theres nothing in the rules allowing that. The rule for readying is that you can ready a standard, move, or free action by using a standard action. A charge is none of the above, and hence cannot be readied. Zevox
Zevox 06-09-07, 09:09 PM	Blitzkrieg vs General Zaroff is up. Zevox
Salrantol 06-09-07, 11:50 PM	Felice Tu'ria vs. Kai Engel is up. Comments, people pointing out mistakes (and spelling errors) are welcome.Bah, I can't believe I put "counterclockwise". Put that in before I decided where I was going and didn't think to take it out afterwards. Plus, I didn't realize that Energy Ray would provoke an AoO, so I didn't add "but not threatening me" to the Energy Ray clause. You're right, the tactics beat me. Next time I think I'll have to proofread.
McJarvis 06-10-07, 01:06 AM	Blitzkrieg vs General Zaroff is up. Zevox *whew*. I don't think I realized just how easily he could have broken through my vigor wall, I'm glad I decided at last second not to make it a ranged fight. edit-> Rewards are wrong. Zaroff gets +675/675 gp/xp.
NiQil 06-10-07, 03:36 AM	Blitzkrieg vs General Zaroff is up. Zevox In reference to your question, the reason for the handaxe is that when charging the bow with pp, I lose the pp regardless of whether the shot hits or misses. With a melee weapon, the pp will stay charged for either 1 minute or a successful hit. Better chance of getting to deal more damage that way.
Abyssal Stalker 06-10-07, 07:47 AM	Looks good to me. Thanks for running it. And don't worry about the monster info - I've just seen some monster descriptions say things like that at times no matter what the creature is, so it made me think you were trying to go without giving any real description at all (considering that, without knowing you use it that way, calling it "something" just tells one that it exists). Zevox We all should remember that the monster info shouldn't actually reveal what the monster is if the character hasn't got any ranks in appropriate knowledge skills. If we do that, it kinda spoils the whole idea of the knowledge skill. I try not to give away too much in the monster description if the character has no knowledge. Not sure how well I do on that, but that's a different thing. I think it's mportant to only give so much that the player can write tactics that don't break in the first round. I for example always try to give a general description of the way the monster moves.
Salrantol 06-10-07, 07:54 AM	Looks good to me. Thanks for running it. And don't worry about the monster info - I've just seen some monster descriptions say things like that at times no matter what the creature is, so it made me think you were trying to go without giving any real description at all (considering that, without knowing you use it that way, calling it "something" just tells one that it exists).That's what the italics was for, to add inflection to the text.
TelinArtho 06-10-07, 08:41 AM	Looks pretty good overall, but theres a minor mathematical error that may extend it a round or two. When Kathren's ray hit for 19 damage, you took 20 from Dentik's hp. So between that and the two 5 damage MM hits, he'd be down to 0 hp in that last round, and he has orders to convert a spell to CLW. Most likely this would just mean another charge or two of Kathren's wand, so its probably unnecessary to edit for it, but if Telin wants to, it should probably get done. Otherwise, like I said, looks good. Pretty predictable, like you said. Telin, you really need to get that guy a way to deal with fast-moving ranged foes. Casters or archers with expeditious retreat, mounted casters or archers, or even just manifesters or archers with skate will eat you alive as-is. A mount or a better ranged weapon (crossbow comes to mind) would work as a temporary solution for the lower levels at least. Zevox Well - like most of my characters, I'm trying to build them around a theme. In this case, the crossbow is not very much in tune with the ideas around the character, while the sling is. With Dentik's strength bonus, the average damage is higher with the sling, has a higher minimum and only 1 point less on the maximum. I've considered also using magic stone to boost the damage - but I'm not sure I see enough bonus to that to make it worth it. The range of course is worse, but the sling isn't supposed to be his primary weapon. Except in the arena and plains - the range isn't going to be that much. That said - I know you're right about getting something to deal with faster opponents. I just don't know what I can do about it without sacrificing the character's idea. I'll have to give it some more thought though.
Hirumajoe 06-10-07, 09:23 AM	Bah, I can't believe I put "counterclockwise". Put that in before I decided where I was going and didn't think to take it out afterwards. Plus, I didn't realize that Energy Ray would provoke an AoO, so I didn't add "but not threatening me" to the Energy Ray clause. You're right, the tactics beat me. Next time I think I'll have to proofread. I really, really hate to bring this up (mostly because it was a really long and heated debate): I believe there was a ruling in the Courtroom of Gladius thread that spells (and by extension) manifested powers which use touch attacks (and ranged touch attacks) do not provoke attacks of opportunity for the attack part, just the casting (manifesting) part. Thus a successful cast defensively means there are no AoOs for Kai to make. Assuming I'm remembering it correctly, it was originally in reference to using a wand and associated AoOs. This will probably result in Kai losing when the ray of energy goes off and (most likely) hits. Anyways, thanks for the run and the story. Don't get many of those these days. :)
Zevox 06-10-07, 10:30 AM	I really, really hate to bring this up (mostly because it was a really long and heated debate): I believe there was a ruling in the Courtroom of Gladius thread that spells (and by extension) manifested powers which use touch attacks (and ranged touch attacks) do not provoke attacks of opportunity for the attack part, just the casting (manifesting) part. Thus a successful cast defensively means there are no AoOs for Kai to make. Assuming I'm remembering it correctly, it was originally in reference to using a wand and associated AoOs. This will probably result in Kai losing when the ray of energy goes off and (most likely) hits. Anyways, thanks for the run and the story. Don't get many of those these days. :) Regardless of the ruling on that, a successful manifest defensively check definitely removes any and all AoOs associated with manifesting a power. Special: You can use Concentration to manifest a power or use a psi-like ability defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether. The DC of the check is 15 + the power’s level. If the Concentration check succeeds, you can manifest normally without provoking any attacks of opportunity. If the Concentration check fails, the power also automatically fails and the power points are wasted, just as if your concentration had been disrupted by a distraction. Zevox
Macbrea 06-10-07, 10:39 AM	Also, one of the least remembered rules is people with psionic focus may expend focus on a concentration check to take 15.
Hirumajoe 06-10-07, 10:40 AM	Also, one of the least remembered rules is people with psionic focus may expend focus on a concentration check to take 15. Except in this case, the focus was already expended with Overchannel/Talented. :)
Usurpator 06-10-07, 12:34 PM	Also, one of the least remembered rules is people with psionic focus may expend focus on a concentration check to take 15. Yeah, I did catch that one, the focus expending. But I'm unclear about the manifesting ones. Like a touch spell, when you manifest a ranged touch power, you already succesfully manifested. The pp. are gone, your power is active/charged. The ranged attack comes after the manifesting. And ranged attacks draw AoO's normally. I'll be happy to correct it if it turns out the AoO has been incorrectly given.
templer10 06-10-07, 01:18 PM	Yeah, I did catch that one, the focus expending. But I'm unclear about the manifesting ones. Like a touch spell, when you manifest a ranged touch power, you already succesfully manifested. The pp. are gone, your power is active/charged. The ranged attack comes after the manifesting. And ranged attacks draw AoO's normally. I'll be happy to correct it if it turns out the AoO has been incorrectly given. it was wrongly given - the someone said applies - if you make the concetration check for manifesting/casting defensingly you dont get AoA - no matther if it's ranged touch spell, reguler ranged attack spell, touch spell (or power) ETC ETC ETC - there was a huge discusiion about it and similar things in the courtroom a few weeks ago.
hogarth 06-10-07, 02:40 PM	Yeah, I did catch that one, the focus expending. But I'm unclear about the manifesting ones. Like a touch spell, when you manifest a ranged touch power, you already succesfully manifested. The pp. are gone, your power is active/charged. The ranged attack comes after the manifesting. And ranged attacks draw AoO's normally. I'll be happy to correct it if it turns out the AoO has been incorrectly given. There was a rather heated argument about this. In the end the majority of elders ruled that the ranged attack portion of a ray spell doesn't provoke a separate AoO, but the decision was far from unanimous.
NiQil 06-10-07, 02:51 PM	There was a rather heated argument about this. In the end the majority of elders ruled that the ranged attack portion of a ray spell doesn't provoke a separate AoO, but the decision was far from unanimous. Most of our decisions aren't...wouldn't be any fun if they were...
templer10 06-10-07, 03:28 PM	per the request - edited Dentik Earthmolder (TelinArtho) vs. Kathren Durrol (Zevox) is done - nothing changed expend more wand charges got used.
Salrantol 06-10-07, 05:25 PM	I will refrain from further personal comment on the AoO issue, having a major stake in it and all, but here is a good summary of the decisions/statements made in the Courtroom about the issue. Note that comments that follow are very heated, so tread lightly.
Yitzi 06-10-07, 05:50 PM	Inzin vs. Tatsuo is up. Talk about close!
Usurpator 06-10-07, 05:59 PM	I will refrain from further personal comment on the AoO issue, having a major stake in it and all, but here is a good summary of the decisions/statements made in the Courtroom about the issue. Note that comments that follow are very heated, so tread lightly. That's certainly a heated discussion. I'm personally more inclined to be on Sauro's side of things, but for this case my opinion is not relevant, only the eventual ruling is. I do have one other question though, is this ruling added anywhere to the official rules? Since the opponent brought it up, this shouldn't be a problem here, but I generally dislike to be blindsided by rulings I could not have known in advance because they were hidden in some discussion thread. My rules opinion: every action can exist of subset of other actions. And each action in the subset can trigger an AoO *regardless if the encompassing action does not*. A Charge action does not draw an AoO, but constituent parts of the charge action may, like the movement or the attack at the end. As for the Dorje of Energy Ray, you don't simple point and activate like a Wand of Magic Missiles, you actually have to take careful aim, hence why your attack bonus and dex modifier matters like with any ranged touch attack. If you have to take careful aim, you draw an AoO, that is the general idea behind ranged attacks drawing AoO's.
Zevox 06-10-07, 06:38 PM	As I pointed out, the fact of the matter is that, regardless of the ruling on that, the concentration rules specifically say that if you cast/manifest defensively, you do not provoke any attacks of opportunity for the casting at all. Whether those would normally be because its a spell, because its a ranged attack, etc etc, doesn't matter - casting defensively specifically prevents any AoOs associated with the casting. Personally, I too wound up agreeing with Sauro on it in the end - when it comes to times when you cant' cast defensively (like with a wand) or just don't, it should provoke an AoO for the ranged attack. But casting defensively is another matter entirely. Zevox
Zevox 06-10-07, 09:20 PM	Question: Would attacking a mirror image discharge a held touch spell? Zevox
hogarth 06-10-07, 09:22 PM	Question: Would attacking a mirror image discharge a held touch spell? Zevox The FAQ specifically says "yes". (Personally, I think that's pretty dumb.)
Zevox 06-10-07, 10:22 PM	Darrgon the Summoner vs Unholy Ninja is up. Zevox
TelinArtho 06-11-07, 10:47 AM	An unexpected SNAFU has made running my fights today nigh impossible. I should still have plenty of time tomorrow and I have already started on the Torel vs Izumi fight (though I need to go back through some of it). If someone wants to pick up the other fight - that would be fine - but I shouldn't "need" it - though it will probably be late per the soft deadline.
Usurpator 06-11-07, 11:59 AM	@Zevox and Sjiggie: How are the fights coming along? I think I might get my first (non-monster) loss since me return to the CoCo this week for Shazzelin, so I'm eagerly awaiting the results.
Zevox 06-11-07, 12:03 PM	@Zevox and Sjiggie: How are the fights coming along? I think I might get my first (non-monster) loss since me return to the CoCo this week for Shazzelin, so I'm eagerly awaiting the results. I'm going to run the FFA today and, if it takes that long, finish it tomorrow morning. I kinda had three other fights I've been running over the weekend, you see. Zevox
Hirumajoe 06-11-07, 12:17 PM	@Zevox and Sjiggie: How are the fights coming along? I think I might get my first (non-monster) loss since me return to the CoCo this week for Shazzelin, so I'm eagerly awaiting the results. Speaking of which... :) @Usurpator: Any idea when you'll get a chance to do those last few rolls for Felice vs Kai fight? (i.e. the ranged touch attack?) Kai still has a 20% chance of victory...
Usurpator 06-11-07, 12:21 PM	Speaking of which... :) @Usurpator: Any idea when you'll get a chance to do those last few rolls for Felice vs Kai fight? (i.e. the ranged touch attack?) Kai still has a 20% chance of victory... I was waiting for someone to show me the definitive ruling, point me to the right spot where the ruling is. I looked over house rules and court clarifications, but could not find it there.
MindWandererB 06-11-07, 12:49 PM	@Erithmu: Loddick's mission is up. Let's get this show on the road.
Hirumajoe 06-11-07, 12:57 PM	I was waiting for someone to show me the definitive ruling, point me to the right spot where the ruling is. I looked over house rules and court clarifications, but could not find it there. Hmm... About the only place I can seem to find it is deep within the Courtroom of gladius thread. Which I guess means Niqil (or whoever is in charge of the rulings) needs to add it to the Courtroom decisions. There is a post here where its stated that a majority of Elders have voted (Telin, MindwandererB, and NiQil being the 3). That combined with the post here that was linked by Salrantol I think makes it clear what they were discussing. If you're looking for it in an easily accessible and clearly stated place, I don't think there is one at this time (or at least I can't find it either, which I think defines not easily accessed) I can also only point to Zevox's earlier post in this thread on the subject.
Usurpator 06-11-07, 01:14 PM	Normally I wouldn't apply a ruling unless it is archived in an official place. Any ruling that isn't mentioned in an official place (where a prospective player can actually find it) is inofficial as far as I am concerned. I would ask NiQil to add it to the rulings, but it doesn't seem clear from the discussion what ruling was actually voted upon. The original question concerned a Dorje specifically, but not manifesting in general. I would like to see the actual ruling text, since it's wording might indicate that casting levitate defensively and using the spell to move upwards doesn't draw an AoO for movement anymore. Or that casting produce flame and throwing a flame doesn't draw an AoO anymore, or at least, not right after you cast it. Right now it's unclear to me what has actually been decided. But since both of you seem to agree that there shouldn't be an AoO where I gave it in this case, I'm willing to make the adjustment as an exception even if the actual ruling is still unclear. As far as my opinion is concerned, if a power can be succesfully manifested without the part that draws the AoO, it is separate from the casting defensively. You can manifest energy ray succesfully and have no targets with your range for example, suggesting to me that the actual throwing of the ray is separate from the manifesting, and thus invites an AoO in itself.
Usurpator 06-11-07, 05:23 PM	I have edited Felice vs. Kai as per the suggested interpretation of not allowing AoO's after manifesting defensively.
Salrantol 06-11-07, 05:28 PM	I would like to see the actual ruling text, since it's wording might indicate that casting levitate defensively and using the spell to move upwards doesn't draw an AoO for movement anymore. Or that casting produce flame and throwing a flame doesn't draw an AoO anymore, or at least, not right after you cast it. Right now it's unclear to me what has actually been decided.Here's the difference between the power in question and what you mention--the attack from an Energy Ray is part of manifesting the power. Moving under the effect of levitate is not part of casting the spell, it's a separate action. Throwing a produced flame is not part of casting the spell, it's a separate action.
Usurpator 06-11-07, 05:50 PM	Here's the difference between the power in question and what you mention--the attack from an Energy Ray is part of manifesting the power. Moving under the effect of levitate is not part of casting the spell, it's a separate action. Throwing a produced flame is not part of casting the spell, it's a separate action. That is your interpretation, my interpretation is that the ray is the *effect* of the spell and not part of manifesting the power. Energy Ray Psychokinesis [see text] Level: Psion/wilder 1 Display: Auditory Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Effect: Ray Let's compare another power: Energy Push Psychokinetic [see text] Level: Psion/wilder 2 Display: Auditory and visual Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./ level) Effect: Ray Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Reflex half or Fortitude half; see text Power Resistance: Yes Power Points: 3 *snip* The movement caused by energy push does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Another ray, a ray that can cause movement this time. If the ray is part of the spell, then it shouldn't cause AoO's, yet the spell text specifically excludes AoO's, which signals to me that they were included by default. Attacking with the power is not part of the manifesting the power, it is the *effect* of manifesting the power. An effect that draws AoO's, just like an effect that causes movement would draw AoO's. Flame Blade Evocation [Fire] Level: Drd 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 0 ft. Effect: Sword-like beam Once again, the spell makes *an effect* and what you do further with that effect could draw AoO's. If you try to disarm with the flame blade, you would draw an AoO. An effect is not part of the casting, it is part of the *result of the casting*. Of course, this is hardly a clear subject, and I could be terribly wrong, but this is the way that makes most sense to me now. EDIT: making a ranged touch attack is certainly an action in itself. The power says you have to make a ranged touch attack. As far as I know all rules for a ranged touch attack apply. If it is part of manifesting the power, can you try and counter or interrupt the power once you see at who the touch attack is directed? I would say no, the manifesting is already successful before the attack is made. Making the ranged touch attack is not part of the manifesting anymore than making a regular touch attack is part of casting a touch spell.
TheMagister 06-11-07, 05:51 PM	I don't remember at the moment where I saw it, but isn't it impossible to trip something that has an amorphous form? Examples would be an ooze or a gibbering mouther. I have no problem with the fight staying as it is, it just never would've occurred to me to try to trip a chaos beast. If my thinking is flawed, I'd like to know for the future.
Zevox 06-11-07, 05:57 PM	I don't remember at the moment where I saw it, but isn't it impossible to trip something that has an amorphous form? Examples would be an ooze or a gibbering mouther. I have no problem with the fight staying as it is, it just never would've occurred to me to try to trip a chaos beast. If my thinking is flawed, I'd like to know for the future. *shrugs* My tactics specified that if he ruled it couldn't be tripped (which I would, to be honest), just make plain attacks instead. Obviously, Salrantol decided not to rule it that way. It wouldn't really make a difference, to be honest. Arden's damage output and AC are way too much for that thing to handle. The FAQ does have an entry about this, IIRC, stating basically to simply use common sense on the matter, and giving some examples of what can't be tripped (I recall Oozes and Beholders being mentioned). Unless a Chaos Beast is on that list, its a pitlord call as-is. I'd not allow it to be tripped, like I said, but its Salrantol's choice. Zevox
templer10 06-11-07, 05:58 PM	I don't remember at the moment where I saw it, but isn't it impossible to trip something that has an amorphous form? Examples would be an ooze or a gibbering mouther. I have no problem with the fight staying as it is, it just never would've occurred to me to try to trip a chaos beast. If my thinking is flawed, I'd like to know for the future. I dont think there is anything in the rules strickly forbidding this But any Sane DM will laught his ass off if you try tripping an ooze... on the other thing - we here arent what i would call a "sane anything" (pointing finger at self)
TheMagister 06-11-07, 06:00 PM	*shrugs* My tactics specified that if he ruled it couldn't be tripped (which I would, to be honest), just make plain attacks instead. Obviously, Salrantol decided not to rule it that way. It wouldn't really make a difference, to be honest. Arden's damage output and AC are way too much for that thing to handle. The FAQ does have an entry about this, IIRC, stating basically to simply use common sense on the matter, and giving some examples of what can't be tripped (I recall Oozes and Beholders being mentioned). Unless a Chaos Beast is on that list, its a pitlord call as-is. I'd not allow it to be tripped, like I said, but its Salrantol's choice. Zevox Oh, I know it didn't really have a chance: that's why I'm not all up in arms about it. I just wanted to see if my thinking was screwy. This answered my question -- I'm fine. {twitch}
Usurpator 06-11-07, 06:00 PM	I dont think there is anything in the rules strickly forbidding this But any Sane DM will laught his ass off if you try tripping an ooze... on the other thing - we here arent what i would call a "sane anything" (pointing finger at self) I would allow an ooze to be subject to a trip attack, a 'tripped' ooze would not differ in any way from a non-tripped ooze. Maybe try to trip a rat swarm next time? ;)
Salrantol 06-11-07, 06:31 PM	A chaos beast is not an ooze--it has legs, they just change into and out of legs very frequently. I probably should have given it a +4 for more than two legs (which it would usually have), but that's probably about it. I might also rule that it wouldn't take an AoO for standing. Hmmm...
Hirumajoe 06-11-07, 06:59 PM	EDIT: making a ranged touch attack is certainly an action in itself. The power says you have to make a ranged touch attack. As far as I know all rules for a ranged touch attack apply. If it is part of manifesting the power, can you try and counter or interrupt the power once you see at who the touch attack is directed? I would say no, the manifesting is already successful before the attack is made. Making the ranged touch attack is not part of the manifesting anymore than making a regular touch attack is part of casting a touch spell. First, thanks for the corrections on the run. Second, I happen to agree with you. I used a similar line of argument during the great heated debateTM. However, the other viewpoint, that the ranged attack is part of the casting was the one upheld by the elders at the time. The fact of the matter is the rules are sufficiently unclear that multiple interpretations are defendable. A ruling was necessary and it was made. However, they probably should still add it to the courtroom decisions (*pokes* NiQil). :)
Salrantol 06-11-07, 07:01 PM	I don't remember at the moment where I saw it, but isn't it impossible to trip something that has an amorphous form? Examples would be an ooze or a gibbering mouther. I have no problem with the fight staying as it is, it just never would've occurred to me to try to trip a chaos beast. If my thinking is flawed, I'd like to know for the future.I looked the fight over again and it really doesn't matter either way. It's not mechanically possible for the chaos beast to kill Arden by the time it dies. That will be the same round, because only one trip attempt would miss if it were switched to an attack, and the trip attempt in the last round would become a critical hit. Edit: Plus I checked the FAQ and it says "Anything using limbs for locomotion can be tripped." That includes a chaos beast. Problem solved.
Sjiggie 06-11-07, 08:20 PM	@Zevox and Sjiggie: How are the fights coming along? I think I might get my first (non-monster) loss since me return to the CoCo this week for Shazzelin, so I'm eagerly awaiting the results. I've started the fight but will finish it tommorow have a few hours of sleep left before I have to work again. It will be finished before the deadline. -Sjiggie
NiQil 06-11-07, 09:11 PM	First, thanks for the corrections on the run. Second, I happen to agree with you. I used a similar line of argument during the great heated debateTM. However, the other viewpoint, that the ranged attack is part of the casting was the one upheld by the elders at the time. The fact of the matter is the rules are sufficiently unclear that multiple interpretations are defendable. A ruling was necessary and it was made. However, they probably should still add it to the courtroom decisions (*pokes* NiQil). :) I have it added, I just haven't updated the rulings yet...I will do so when I do the prison update in a little while. Too damn hot to do anything but lay in the dark at the moment.
NiQil 06-11-07, 09:15 PM	That is your interpretation, my interpretation is that the ray is the *effect* of the spell and not part of manifesting the power. Let's compare another power: Another ray, a ray that can cause movement this time. If the ray is part of the spell, then it shouldn't cause AoO's, yet the spell text specifically excludes AoO's, which signals to me that they were included by default. Attacking with the power is not part of the manifesting the power, it is the *effect* of manifesting the power. An effect that draws AoO's, just like an effect that causes movement would draw AoO's. Once again, the spell makes *an effect* and what you do further with that effect could draw AoO's. If you try to disarm with the flame blade, you would draw an AoO. An effect is not part of the casting, it is part of the *result of the casting*. Of course, this is hardly a clear subject, and I could be terribly wrong, but this is the way that makes most sense to me now. EDIT: making a ranged touch attack is certainly an action in itself. The power says you have to make a ranged touch attack. As far as I know all rules for a ranged touch attack apply. If it is part of manifesting the power, can you try and counter or interrupt the power once you see at who the touch attack is directed? I would say no, the manifesting is already successful before the attack is made. Making the ranged touch attack is not part of the manifesting anymore than making a regular touch attack is part of casting a touch spell. I have one very simple thing that I don't believe was ever brought up before in the touch attack debate that this made me think of. If the touch attack/ranged touch attack was not a part of the spell casting action, then you could not cast a ranged touch attack spell as a standard action. You would have to use your standard action to cast the spell, and then wait until next round to make the attack. Since you are specifically allowed to do them both in the same round, and both would normally be standard actions otherwise, then this can only lead me to further believe that the touch/ranged touch attack is a part of the action used to cast the spell or manifest the power. But in any event, this only reinforces the ruling that was already made, and which I will post shortly.
McJarvis 06-11-07, 09:22 PM	If the touch attack/ranged touch attack was not a part of the spell casting action, then you could not cast a ranged touch attack spell as a standard action. This assumes that any given action can only provoke 1 AoO. A good counter example would be a staggered opponent doing a partial charge at someone with a large reach & the "hold the line" feat, or someone using a single-move action without regard through multiple opponents[or just 1 opponent with combat reflexes] reach. Both of these actions are a "single action" with multiple parts that each provoke an AoO. I'm not really being very profound here, though, since that is the crux of the argument-> Some elders believe every action can only provoke an AoO in 1 way, others[Read: only Sauro?] believe actions can comprise of many things that provoke AoO's.
Rauul 06-11-07, 09:36 PM	Zax Kar Nissex vs. Half-Celestial Satyr (with pipes) : ECL 5 [Plains] is done.. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12634317&postcount=934)
Salrantol 06-11-07, 09:50 PM	@Abyssal Stalker: I just read Corruptor's MQ and, even though it won't matter, since the enemy has too many HP to be slain by the chill touch, I thought I'd mention that the SR only has to be beaten once by the spell. If he beat it on the first touch attack (as he did), the spell works normally for all 7 touch attacks--and if he fails on the first touch attack, all of them will be resisted.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.
Rauul 06-11-07, 10:11 PM	@Abyssal Stalker: I just read Corruptor's MQ and, even though it won't matter, since the enemy has too many HP to be slain by the chill touch, I thought I'd mention that the SR only has to be beaten once by the spell. If he beat it on the first touch attack (as he did), the spell works normally for all 7 touch attacks--and if he fails on the first touch attack, all of them will be resisted. Lol not a problem... in 2 weeks Corrupter wants a rematch with that creature.. with Reaper, Gravedigger and himself... Dang SR on the Lightning bolt is what hurt...
McJarvis 06-11-07, 11:23 PM	Lord Lorian vs the Troll and the...well, why does that troll need the ogres help, anyway? :( edit-> Just realized I made a mistake: with spiderclimb the troll could have easily avoided the hampered movement caused by the water(crawl on the side of the wall). Mobility was NOT a factor in this after all...but it changes nothing. The Fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12633595&postcount=933)
hogarth 06-11-07, 11:36 PM	Lord Lorian vs the Troll and the...well, why does that troll need the ogres help, anyway? :( Score another one for monsters with equipment! :cheer:
Zevox 06-11-07, 11:37 PM	Lightwolf Phoenixstar vs Shazzelin the Grey vs Bulgar Stronhammer is done. @ McJarvis - You have the price on that Troll's expansion tattoo wrong. Its personal range, so it costs at least 300 gp. If its augmented, not just ML 3 (as I'd expect), its treated as power level 2, so its 600 gp. Just something I noticed looking at the fight's setup. Zevox
Yitzi 06-12-07, 01:03 AM	Lightwolf Phoenixstar vs Shazzelin the Grey vs Bulgar Stronhammer is done. About the comments-I know that it was largely luck, I was hoping my 10 rounds on the balcony would be enough for Bulgar to knock out Shazzelin, and I would then take out Bulgar. Didn't quite work out that way, but I still won, so I'm not complaining.
Usurpator 06-12-07, 03:31 AM	I have one very simple thing that I don't believe was ever brought up before in the touch attack debate that this made me think of. If the touch attack/ranged touch attack was not a part of the spell casting action, then you could not cast a ranged touch attack spell as a standard action. A fine argument. Although a bit weakened by the fact that you currently can cast and attack with a touch spell in the same (time) action according to the rules. It also does not refute or counter my arguments, which only results in two different but equally valid opinions. You would have to use your standard action to cast the spell, and then wait until next round to make the attack. Since you are specifically allowed to do them both in the same round, and both would normally be standard actions otherwise, then this can only lead me to further believe that the touch/ranged touch attack is a part of the action used to cast the spell or manifest the power. Actually, no. There are many examples of actions that normally take standard actions that in specific situations don't take any 'time', like attacks of opportunity. This could easily be one of them. Example: person A readies to cast Sanctuary on person B manifesting. Person B manifests energy ray, person A interrupts with Sanctuary, and person B fails the save. Person B finishes manifesting but is now unable to throw the energy ray at A. Was the power successfully manifested or not? If a legal target needs to be chosen prior to manifesting, then it's part of the casting, if a target can be chosen after manifesting, it is not part of the manifesting. Energy Ray doesn't have a Target: entry, hence targeting and throwing the ray is not part of manifesting. The ranged touch attack is subsumed in the standard action is costs to manifest energy ray, but it does not become part of the 'manifesting' it still remains an effect.
Usurpator 06-12-07, 03:46 AM	Lightwolf Phoenixstar vs Shazzelin the Grey vs Bulgar Stronhammer is done. Zevox, thanks for running it! One of minor (non-fight affecting) remark: In round 19 Shazzelin snipes at Lightwolf against AC 20, this should be AC 14 right (flat-footed AC)? As for the hiding modifier: I used to be able to use invisibility and dissolving weapon on each fight, not anymore. Combined with the one or two extra unopposed shots I got get from sniping, this was usually plenty. I think you don't necessarily need to be an expert at something for it to be useful. @Yitzi: congrats on the win. Once it devolved into an archery duel, Lightwolf had the better cards. Just be careful about those evasion tactics, as long as your stationary and waiting, my characters are never going to engage you unless they feel it is in their advantage to do so. @TelinArtho: I was a bit surprised at your tactics. No hold person at Lightwolf? No protection from evil to use against Shazzelin? Only melee tactics against two characters who will probably try their best to avoid it?
templer10 06-12-07, 04:04 AM	Lord Lorian vs the Troll and the...well, why does that troll need the ogres help, anyway? :( edit-> Just realized I made a mistake: with spiderclimb the troll could have easily avoided the hampered movement caused by the water(crawl on the side of the wall). Mobility was NOT a factor in this after all...but it changes nothing. The Fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12633595&postcount=933) ty for the run- some problems with it first and it's more of a general thing i take serios issue why a monster that his standart tactics ARENT grapple (no improved grapple, no Grab) will use that when it can do massive dmg with his attacks + rend seems a bit like he did grapple becuase he knew share pain and vigor is much less effective against that - abit TOO smart - ISNT IT? second- Giving a troll a full lod of expendbles (1250 worth!) including the ever so chessy ranger crafted CL7 ressist fire? (why not ressist ACID 20 for instance?) and why spider climb? it didnt KNOW it was going for the sewer after all- arent you pushing it? third- you didnt do the dispel psionincs when i asked spesificly to do it if fire is ressisted -so i should be able to do fire dmg after which possibly knocks him out. forth - why didnt the horse attack? fifth and general again - you said it yourself- that troll is ECL 11 - why then you felt the need to super optimize it to be unkillable is beyond me. i am not saying this lightly but from reading the fight this really feels like i felt i faught the pitlord and not the monster. since is this i think my third or forth? loss to a monster with any of my chars (which is almost all of my loss's) and all vs equipted monsters- i see that i have been very much 2 lenient when pitloding monster fights myself - so i seroisly pity then next guy who gets me as a pitlord for a monster fight with the "right" kind of monster.
Usurpator 06-12-07, 05:49 AM	i am not saying this lightly but from reading the fight this really feels like i felt i faught the pitlord and not the monster. It is inherently difficult to be both neutral and also a competent adversary. If I had a monster fight, I would prefer that a Pitlord would do his utmost best to beat me. But if my characters are to have any chance of victory we need: A. Monster balanced to fight characters (not just putting something to gather based on CR) B. Complete information about the monster we face in advance (otherwise the Pitlord would have the advantage) C. Utter impartiality on part of the Pitlord (difficult) D. Equipment, abilities, feats, spells etc. of the monster selected by the someone else but the Pitlord (in advance, without knowledge of the opponent) E. Adhering to the exactly the same rules (3FC, 1/3rd rule, expendables rules etc) as PCs do. My other suggestion is to make monster fights more like fights against PCs: A balanced monster list of pre-equipped and statted monsters that we as players have complete access to, then volunteer players or Pitlords who write tactics for the monster, and then another Pitlord who runs the actual battle. Knowledge skills could provide a free buffing round or something like that instead of monster identification.
Erithmu 06-12-07, 08:14 AM	Esau vs Juggernaut is up. Score one for the delay penalty.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 08:31 AM	ty for the run- some problems with it I have been informed that monster fights assume the following: 1) Optimized for general combat before viewing opponent[as you can see, the two guys are. 2) Default tactics for general opponents are provided. 3) Specific tactics are written after viewing opponent's character sheet. In this case, grappling was clearly the best way of taking out Lord Lorian. If you feel this is unfair, it is probably b/c monster fights are too tough if done properly. I'm willing to bet that most monster-fight "wins" are due to pitlord laziness. second- Giving a troll a full lod of expendbles (1250 worth!) including the ever so chessy ranger crafted CL7 ressist fire? (why not ressist ACID 20 for instance?) and why spider climb? it didnt KNOW it was going for the sewer after all- arent you pushing it? He has a potion of fire res 20 and acid res 20. In specific tactics he handed the acid one off to the ogre to try the acid pit/grapple tactic[which never panned out]. He has spiderclimb potion b/c a fly potion was too expensive and monsters need a good way of dealing with "flighted" opponents, and I have found a combination of spiderclimb/jump checks to work in the past. In this case, I thought lorian might try to levitate to the center of the acid pool, so I decided to have him drink the spiderclimb potion[though looking at the map-> it was a good idea in general] Generally speaking: If anyone else thinks I was unfair in this fight, please speak up. I really believe I just gave the troll tools that any troll would want. [Namely, those resist energy potions+a method to get off the ground] RE: My impartiality: I was throwing you a bone with the ogre walking around instead of joining the grapple[when it started, the ogre was in plain view of it]. I forgot about the horse-> though I'm afraid that if I did include it I think I'd have to move the ogre in, which IMO would negate the horses effectiveness. In fact, I think I was pretty darn good at adjusting the fight in your favor multiple times.[technically, by your tactics, the Mind Thrust you threw out should have been with MAX pp, not the mere 2 I made it] As far as the dispel psionics-> I did forget that, but lets look at how it would change the fight: 1) It doesn't trigger until after the troll resists fire the first time 2) The troll grapples you next turn 3) So the result is you area dispel to include the nearby ogre & get rid of the trolls res fire, spiderclimb, your vigor/share pain, and the ogre's mage armor/res acid.[maybe..if all the dispel checks go right] The lack of res fire + vigor dropping would effectively negate each other, I believe.
templer10 06-12-07, 08:42 AM	I have been informed that monster fights assume the following: 1) Optimized for general combat before viewing opponent[as you can see, the two guys are. 2) Default tactics for general opponents are provided. 3) Specific tactics are written after viewing opponent's character sheet. In this case, grappling was clearly the best way of taking out Lord Lorian. If you feel this is unfair, it is probably b/c monster fights are too tough if done properly. I'm willing to bet that most monster-fight "wins" are due to pitlord laziness. there is a line between making it tough to making the monster unbeatable in my opinion but beyond taht you still havent answered why you diddnt have me do dispel on that ressist eenrgy like i asked and why didnt my warhorse attack.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 08:44 AM	there is a line between making it tough to making the monster unbeatable in my opinion but beyond taht you still havent answered why you diddnt have me do dispel on that ressist eenrgy like i asked and why didnt my warhorse attack. Heh...I edit posts for about five minutes after originally posting them. You'll find your answers there :) If you want me to go back and edit the fight you'll have to wait for me to get home from work, since I can't reasonably do more than normal forum activity while shuffling paperwork. edit-> The edit would consist of me correcting the Ogre's tactics[just walking around instead of joining the fight like is specified in his tactics], having the horse attack, and having Lorian attempt to dispel psionics while in the grapple, and the troll's lack of availability to spiderclimb. [which means he will base/attack you instead of just double-moving]
Usurpator 06-12-07, 08:55 AM	there is a line between making it tough to making the monster unbeatable in my opinion but beyond taht you still havent answered why you diddnt have me do dispel on that ressist eenrgy like i asked and why didnt my warhorse attack. If the Pitlord has the power to make a monster unbeatable if he wishes to, and the fight is meant as adversarial, then in my opinion something is clearly wrong with the system. I recognize that a Pitlord often has that power, especially with 'configurable monsters' which have lots of equipment and powers to choose from. Personally, as I have run monster fights in the past, I look at the character, and then choose equipment and write tactics in such a way that the character has a base 50/50 chance to win. Good tactics will raise that odds, poor tactics lower that odds. My goal as a monster Pitlord would be to create a fun and exciting fight, and I would be deliberately biased to create such a fight, choosing nastier equipment and tactics against tougher opponents, and choosing easier ones against lighter opponent. As a monster Pitlord I have no interest in auto-wins or auto-losses and adversial fights. Whatever changes in this fight templer10, it is essentially the Pitlord now who decides if you win or lose. I dislike that.
Erithmu 06-12-07, 08:55 AM	Re: Lorian's monster fight: I think the Ranger potions are weaksauce (then again I think ranger/paladin scribing/brewing are weaksauce to begin with). I can understand giving them resist fire and acid potion as those are the only things that 'can' kill them, but I think this will only add to Uruspator's vote for needing to fix monster fights. I think that you went and bought equipment as if the trolls were a character rather than a monster. I make this distinction as only recently were odd CL and odd spell list scrolls and potions allowed outside of the Blackmarket. I don't think you optomized these guys to have a 3FC, (or you would have bought 3 of each, or tried to.) this helps to balance the issue in some ways. McJ: you might just try to switch places w/ T10 for a moment and think if you would have the same reaction. Granted you are two different people, but mull it over. I think that the monsters might have been a little 'stacked'
McJarvis 06-12-07, 09:18 AM	If the Pitlord has the power to make a monster unbeatable if he wishes to, and the fight is meant as adversarial, then in my opinion something is clearly wrong with the system. I recognize that a Pitlord often has that power, especially with 'configurable monsters' which have lots of equipment and powers to choose from. Personally, as I have run monster fights in the past, I look at the character, and then choose equipment and write tactics in such a way that the character has a base 50/50 chance to win. Good tactics will raise that odds, poor tactics lower that odds. My goal as a monster Pitlord would be to create a fun and exciting fight, and I would be deliberately biased to create such a fight, choosing nastier equipment and tactics against tougher opponents, and choosing easier ones against lighter opponent. As a monster Pitlord I have no interest in auto-wins or auto-losses and adversial fights. Whatever changes in this fight templer10, it is essentially the Pitlord now who decides if you win or lose. I dislike that. But see, that's what we're NOT supposed to do. It's my understanding that I'm supposed to generate the monster before looking at the character sheet or tactics, and that's what I did in this case.
Macbrea 06-12-07, 09:32 AM	Order is suppose to be: 1) Look at pairing and see monster fight 2) Roll monster vs ECL 3) Compare moster vs Knowledge 4) Buy equipment without reviewing opponents sheet 5) Determine tactics vs arena 6) Determine wether it is an auto-win for character 7) On outwin roll Monster again 8) Forget all you just read and figured out 9) Buy equipment for new monster 10) Write tactics for new monster on map 11) Determine if auto-win. If so go back to step 8 12) Describe monster to player based off knowledges 13) Run fight As you can see.... that whole reroll if auto-win produces an impossible occurance. My theory is if the monster was put on the table it had a possibility of winning the fight against the opponent or it is just an easy fight for the opponent. If the monster was an auto-win. It probably shouldn't be on the table.
Usurpator 06-12-07, 10:27 AM	But see, that's what we're NOT supposed to do. It's my understanding that I'm supposed to generate the monster before looking at the character sheet or tactics, and that's what I did in this case. I agree completely, you were doing the right thing, and what I would do would be against the rules. If I were to do it the proper way, I would probably complaints, since I see no problem with a grappling Troll too. If it was said to me 'equip a creature to win' I would certainly go for a potion of flying or somesuch. If it was said to me: 'equip the creature like a normal monster of its kind', I would go huh? Most trolls I meet in TT games don't have any valuable equipment, and those few that do generally don't have expendables, but something more along the lines of a +1 weapon or something like that. Expensive armor: definitely not.
templer10 06-12-07, 10:28 AM	dont bother with the dispel - it wont likely make a diffrence but 1 thing i want to point out - the troll had 1250 GP of expendables (amx) and most pitlords dont buy full expendble load for monsters. also - they usualyl buy it as if planning for 3 fights (as they are supposed 2) - on the other hand - the troll bought - Expendables: Ranger crafted Resist Energy(Fire) Potion [CL7]: 350 gp [7*1*50] Ranger crafted Resist Energy(Acid) Potion: [CL7]: 350 gp [7*1*50] Potion of Spider Climb: 300 gp Tattoo of Expansion[ML3]: 150 gp Potion of Protection from Evil[50gp] Potion of Protection from Good[50gp] Potion of Protection from Law[50gp] in fact the troll bought expendbles as if expecting 1 fight only. to make it even worse - he used - 1000! GP yes 1000! GP worth of expendbles in 1 FIGHT! please tell me - WHICH SANE PERSON USES 1000 GP WORTH OF EXPENDBLES IN 1 FIGHT - especially if all he has is 1250!. (hell most ironmen fights used a lot less). i might not have been here for ages- but generally speaking i have very good records on my fighters - so it realyl galls me to have loss's on my guys due to being handed essentially auto losses in most monster fights. iam sorry iam speaking a lot more emotionally then usual but this is simply unfair - and i say again i truly hope something will get done about monsters or at least mosnter equptment - the easyst way as some i think suggested them is to put them under the 1/3 rule and give them 1/3 expendbles (but regular gold) since they can blow it all on 1 fight.
Yitzi 06-12-07, 10:46 AM	Yes, the expendables are the real problem. I can see using all his expendables if needed, but no self-respecting player or monster will blow all their cash on expendables. I just outfit the monster as I would if I expected it to fight a random assortment of characters, getting a moderate amount of $ after each fight-just like what CoCo characters have to do.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 11:17 AM	in fact the troll bought expendbles as if expecting 1 fight only. I disagree, here. Not every opponent has fire AND acid damage, and I only used the pro:acid potion as an afterthought(the strategy was a longshot & only worth 2d6 extra regular damage). Generaly speaking, I highly doubt the troll will want to enlarge/spiderclimb/be complete-energy-immune/have protection from three alignments all in one fight. His two highest cost expendables came into play in this fight-> but he isn't necessarily going to be facing an energy flinging opponent every battle. (nor would be need the spider climb every battle) If you wanted to argue that the CL7(read: ECL 14 ranger crafted them!) Resist Energy potions were too high for the ECL, then you might have a point...but the 3 ECL2 res energy potions I could have bought in their place would have had the same effect-> you did not do meaningful damage over 10 the one time your character would have shot with fire damage. In fact, this would make the troll _more_ deadly[in this fight] since he could draw/use a potion of fire res in response to that buff getting dispelled. ~McJ~ RE: High ML/ECL of crafter(subject brought up in my previous paragraph): Oddly, the rules don't seem to cover this. You can purchase expendables of a CL up to your ECL, but it doesn't make an exception for classes with 1/2 progression CLs. [And all that aside, monsters seem to be able to buy cred items anyway :rolleyes:]
Macbrea 06-12-07, 11:18 AM	Monsters aren't particularly limited amount of expendables. They should be built to win the fight. I am not going to say that the troll with ogre buddy isn't unfair to a single character. It is.. but by that same standard the Hydra is an auto-loss for the same character. The arguement that comes back to wether we should have present gear to each monster on the chart. That is more an issue for the community to figure out as a whole.
Zevox 06-12-07, 11:32 AM	One of minor (non-fight affecting) remark: In round 19 Shazzelin snipes at Lightwolf against AC 20, this should be AC 14 right (flat-footed AC)? No, 20 is correct. He has a +2 Mithril Chain Shirt and cover, so AC 10+6+4=20. Zevox
TelinArtho 06-12-07, 11:39 AM	@TelinArtho: I was a bit surprised at your tactics. No hold person at Lightwolf? No protection from evil to use against Shazzelin? Only melee tactics against two characters who will probably try their best to avoid it? Well, the simplest explanation was that I didn't have much time this past week to write tactics and I was fairly overwhelmed with doing the Pitlords work for the first time. Add in a combination of Real-life annoyances (like getting a new(er) car since my last one was going to cost too much to fix...). That said - I prefer Bulgar to get to melee range if possible. He has a bow for the opponents that he absolutely can't handle - but the invisibility thing is just not something he is built to handle (right now). If he hadn't suffered the critical, I think he might have had a chance to get to where he wanted - but that's the way it goes sometimes. As I said - I'm not worried about it. @Zevox's comment at the end - the bolas can suffer huge penalties usually because I only need to hit touch ACs to make them worth it.
Erithmu 06-12-07, 12:01 PM	Esau vs Juggernaut is up. Score one for the delay penalty. Stimpydoda just noticed that he did not have the towershield on his character so the result is changed, but uses will still be counted. @Niqil: Sorry from me
Abyssal Stalker 06-12-07, 12:56 PM	@Abyssal Stalker: I just read Corruptor's MQ and, even though it won't matter, since the enemy has too many HP to be slain by the chill touch, I thought I'd mention that the SR only has to be beaten once by the spell. If he beat it on the first touch attack (as he did), the spell works normally for all 7 touch attacks--and if he fails on the first touch attack, all of them will be resisted. Well, learn something new every day.
Khaim 06-12-07, 01:22 PM	Phacce vs Arbin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12632966&postcount=931) is fixed, with predictable results. Kind of funny that the donkey ended things with a critical bite, but Arbin was somewhat outmatched to begin with.
TelinArtho 06-12-07, 01:25 PM	Torel Silvanus (Erithmu) vs Izumi (MacBrea) is up. Moving on to finish the late quest before starting on the other fight.
Macbrea 06-12-07, 01:42 PM	Is there a reason you choose not to expend focus for greater weapon focus, when swinging the torch at the swarm? +4d6 damage would have helped alot. And was with my tactics of 'Expend focus for Psionic weapon on swings and regain it on the move action. '
UserNamer 06-12-07, 01:43 PM	Phacce vs Arbin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12632966&postcount=931) is fixed, with predictable results. Kind of funny that the donkey ended things with a critical bite, but Arbin was somewhat outmatched to begin with. Thanks for running, just a little something: - I have a xp/gp penalty for 5/6 CR = 20,83333% penalty, so I should have 712,5 xp/gp earned.
TelinArtho 06-12-07, 02:09 PM	Is there a reason you choose not to expend focus for greater weapon focus, when swinging the torch at the swarm? +4d6 damage would have helped alot. And was with my tactics of 'Expend focus for Psionic weapon on swings and regain it on the move action. ' Well, if you give me something that indicates the Psionic weapon damage is elemental and not weapon damage - then sure I'll apply it to the hits. The problem is it is weapon damage - and therefore subject to the swarm's immunity.
templer10 06-12-07, 02:15 PM	Well, if you give me something that indicates the Psionic weapon damage is elemental and not weapon damage - then sure I'll apply it to the hits. The problem is it is weapon damage - and therefore subject to the swarm's immunity. isnt the psionic dmg is the same type of damage casued by the primary cause of the dmg? i know that when shooting for instance a power that does elemental dmg the dmg is considerd the same energy type (that how it was run many many times for me).
Erithmu 06-12-07, 02:18 PM	isnt the psionic dmg is the same type of damage casued by the primary cause of the dmg? i know that when shooting for instance a power that does elemental dmg the dmg is considerd the same energy type (that how it was run many many times for me). True, but a torch normally does bludgeon damage + 1 pt of fire damage. Under the swarm description it says that it does 1d3 fire damage, but I think that the base damage is still bludgeon typed
MindWandererB 06-12-07, 02:24 PM	True, but a torch normally does bludgeon damage + 1 pt of fire damage. Under the swarm description it says that it does 1d3 fire damage, but I think that the base damage is still bludgeon typed I don't think so--the swarm can't be damaged by the weapon part. You're not really smooshing them with the torch, you're just trying to burn them.
Erithmu 06-12-07, 02:26 PM	I don't think so--the swarm can't be damaged by the weapon part. You're not really smooshing them with the torch, you're just trying to burn them. so ... your saying yes to psi weapon, or no to psi weapon? As that is the relevant question.
Rauul 06-12-07, 02:26 PM	Some ECL 8 will get a lucky roll with corrupter this week...
Yitzi 06-12-07, 02:28 PM	Thanks for running, just a little something: - I have a xp/gp penalty for 5/6 CR = 20,83333% penalty, so I should have 712,5 xp/gp earned. And I get the same bonus, for a total of 312.5 xp/gp. Also, any spells with less than 1 hour left don't get counted.
templer10 06-12-07, 02:29 PM	so ... your saying yes to psi weapon, or no to psi weapon? As that is the relevant question. he was saying yes since the only thing in the torch that did dmg is the fire.
Erithmu 06-12-07, 02:36 PM	What I am suggesting (and I think Telin is as well) is that the elemental damage is not the 'base' damage of the weapon but more like additional damage. Psi weapon adds damage to a melee weapon. Extended example: If someone had a flaming sword (something covered in the swarm description) could you add Psi weapon to the elemental damage? Now extend this so that you could choose to do this, you now have Psi weapon able to bypass someones DR simply by choosing to have the Feat power the elemental damage rather than the weapon damage. My opponent has DR 15/- ... I light a torch and hit him with it expending focus to add damage to the fire effect ... I think your going the wrong direction here.
MindWandererB 06-12-07, 02:36 PM	so ... your saying yes to psi weapon, or no to psi weapon? As that is the relevant question. Meh... I have mixed feelings. I'm inclined to say yes--a torch does damage different from its usual type when used against a swarm. Instead of 1d3 bludgeoning + 1 fire, it's 1d3 fire, much like a lantern used as a grenadelike weapon. Edit: But Rith makes a good point--it's probably more like an energy weapon, in which case it wouldn't apply.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 02:38 PM	A flaming sword is one thing, but this is more like someone who has cast flame-sword. [2nd level druid spell]. I think the fire damage would be added.
Erithmu 06-12-07, 02:43 PM	I'm more making a case that the 1d3 fire damage is a special case for the fire damage and not a replacement of the basic properties. Flame blade or Produce flame and using Psi Feats I would fully agree that they stack with the elemental damage, which would make an interesting character design ...
MindWandererB 06-12-07, 02:47 PM	Flame blade or Produce flame and using Psi Feats I would fully agree that they stack with the elemental damage, which would make an interesting character design ...Better to just be a pyrokineticist. Although you could energy sub or subdual sub the spells....
Macbrea 06-12-07, 02:53 PM	The write-up for swarm says: 'A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon deals 1d3 points of fire damage per hit.' The write-up for psionic weapon reads: 'Your attack with a melee weapon deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. You must decide whether or not to use this feat prior to making an attack. If your attack misses, you still expend your psionic focus.' This does not indicate that the damage is of any type of damage at all. It is assumed it is of the same type damage as the weapon does. Example: a mace does 1d6 bludgeoning damage + 2d6 damage (bludgeoning?) torch would do 1d3 fire + (2d6 fire) Being the same type. We already allow psionic shot to do +2d6 energy damage of the ray being shot.
Erithmu 06-12-07, 03:01 PM	Might need to get a couple other elders in on this one, Telin and MWB have weighed in with a no and leaning strongly towards no respectively.
Macbrea 06-12-07, 03:11 PM	Nah.. I have given my viewpoint. I was just wondering as to the reasoning for choosing, what was done. The pitlord of each individual fight determines the rules they wish to apply to that fight. My arguement of a torch does fire damage has been made and can be decided upon by TelinArtho as he feels it should be run.
TelinArtho 06-12-07, 04:07 PM	Rubicanti (TheMagister) vs Elrick Flamebrother (templer10) is up.
Macbrea 06-12-07, 04:18 PM	can someone explain this FAQ answer to me? Can any of these feats (Psionic Shot, Psionic Fist, Psionic Weapon) be attached to powers or spells? For example touch spells/powers/effects? Ranged touch spells/powers/effects? If so, what type of damage is it? In general, the rule of thumb for such things is that the most recent effect applied takes the place of any previous effect, unless specifically noted otherwise (such as the hunter of the dead’s smite undead ability, which is specifically noted to work with his smite evil ability on the same swing). But, a DM may decide to allow two effects to work together if it seems reasonable for her game, even if not specifically noted.
MindWandererB 06-12-07, 04:22 PM	can someone explain this FAQ answer to me? God, I hate that answer. I don't remember who gave it, but it wasn't any Sage there's ever been. I even asked about that on Andy Collins's message board, and he declined to comment. Clearly, whoever answered it failed entirely to understand the question--and, as near as I can tell, gave the wrong answer to whatever they thought the question was--so there's not much one can do but ignore it.
templer10 06-12-07, 04:26 PM	Rubicanti (TheMagister) vs Elrick Flamebrother (templer10) is up. thanks for the run - god i never seen so many buffs.... i think doing the spike stones on the walls also won it for me really, that spell has a HUGE aoe. themagister- Good tactics - 1 of the better fights elrick had.
McJarvis 06-12-07, 04:50 PM	God, I hate that answer. I don't remember who gave it, but it wasn't any Sage there's ever been. I even asked about that on Andy Collins's message board, and he declined to comment. Clearly, whoever answered it failed entirely to understand the question--and, as near as I can tell, gave the wrong answer to whatever they thought the question was--so there's not much one can do but ignore it. I read the last part to mean "But it's a DM call, so disregard this FAQ entry!"
Rauul 06-12-07, 07:29 PM	God, I hate that answer. I don't remember who gave it, but it wasn't any Sage there's ever been. I even asked about that on Andy Collins's message board, and he declined to comment. Clearly, whoever answered it failed entirely to understand the question--and, as near as I can tell, gave the wrong answer to whatever they thought the question was--so there's not much one can do but ignore it. Oh i agree, except for the point where we Ignore something from the Offical FAQ .. would rather Ignore Skippy that we aren't Allowed to either... To me.. psionic shot/weapon/ect.. Amplifys the damage done by the weapon.. because if it don't.. alot of these energy ray/crystal shard/psionic shot people gonna be upset dearly..
McJarvis 06-12-07, 08:08 PM	Oh i agree, except for the point where we Ignore something from the Offical FAQ .. would rather Ignore Skippy that we aren't Allowed to either... The "Official" FAQ has lots of rulings that end with "but if you don't like this, you can disregard it entirely". We ignore plenty there. [An example is the language used for Mirror Image-> I'll contest heavily the first pitlord that has my opponent close his eyes for a 50% miss chance]
McJarvis 06-12-07, 09:52 PM	@Sjig: Good clean fight on Anger vs Bord. I approve edit-> Actually... The hawk could have just plain moved into boradin's square(invis=no AoO), delivered the touch attack next round while 5' stepping out of his square, and then full-retreated after triggering his readied action. No need for an AoO, as my tactics specify I don't want. I *think* I'm right here....it doesn't affect the outcome, but having the familiar for my third fight is a pretty big deal for my char.
Usurpator 06-13-07, 03:30 AM	@Sjiggie: thanks for running the fight, looks good. @McJarvis: I know the familiar is a pretty big deal to you, and that is why I especially wrote some tactics to kill it. I don't want any of my characters to face it next battle if possible. I don't think the instruction you gave to escape the AoO would work, since Borodin moves every round, and the hawk won't be in the same square anymore to make the touch attack and the 5 ft. step. Besides that, it is a very specific instruction, something that I think you should have put in tactics if you wanted it executed like that IMO. Basically, you are asking the Pitlord to make an improvisation after seeing the fight and reading my tactics, and asking the Pitlord to counter my familiar-killing tactics while you had provided no counter-tactics in advance. I don't think it is fair if you are allowed to counter my tactics with very specific post battle instructions to the Pitlord.
McJarvis 06-13-07, 08:05 AM	Basically, you are asking the Pitlord to make an improvisation after seeing the fight and reading my tactics, and asking the Pitlord to counter my familiar-killing tactics while you had provided no counter-tactics in advance. I don't think it is fair if you are allowed to counter my tactics with very specific post battle instructions to the Pitlord. I'm asking the pitlord to do what I desired-> avoiding an AoO. I write tactics in this general sense because I find it impossible to plan for every forseeable situation, and in this case I came to the conclusion[granted, after reading tactics] on how to avoid the AoO pretty easily. [It's just a matter of taking advantage of invisibility, which was a core part of my tactics] It's not a matter of reading your tactics[I haven't yet] & wanting to change mine due to them, it's just me wanting the most optimal use of my own. [namely, withdrawing while avoiding AoO's] ~McJ~
Sjiggie 06-13-07, 08:24 AM	I'll look into it but have some other things to do at the moment I think your option can work but I'm not certain of it I'll have to look into it where I don't have the time for now but I will do it before the next pairing are made. Thanks for the compliments about the fight I rather do a fight that runs late then hurry it and post a fight before the deadline full of errors.
McJarvis 06-13-07, 08:59 AM	I'll look into it but have some other things to do at the moment I think your option can work but I'm not certain of it I'll have to look into it where I don't have the time for now but I will do it before the next pairing are made. Thanks for looking into it. I'm not activating Anger this coming week anyway, so no worries on it being late[and I believe that since this wouldn't affect the outcome or my opponent, only Anger needs to be "held up"]
Usurpator 06-13-07, 09:40 AM	I'm asking the pitlord to do what I desired-> avoiding an AoO. I write tactics in this general sense because I find it impossible to plan for every forseeable situation, and in this case I came to the conclusion[granted, after reading tactics] on how to avoid the AoO pretty easily. [It's just a matter of taking advantage of invisibility, which was a core part of my tactics] It's not a matter of reading your tactics[I haven't yet] & wanting to change mine due to them, it's just me wanting the most optimal use of my own. [namely, withdrawing while avoiding AoO's] ~McJ~ If you want optimal use of your own tactics, you should provide them. It is always easier to provide tactics in hindsight. If this were not the case you could just write 'defeat my enemy in the most efficient way possible' and then complain when you see the fight about every inefficient choice made. If you want specific things to be done, you need to write specific instructions. In this case the general clause 'avoid attacks of opportunity' was insufficient (obviously) and the Pitlord chose to use the withdraw action to avoid AoO's. Everyone (by default) wants to avoid unnecessary AoO's. If you want to do so by other than a basic method, you must provide the specific tactic in advance. This was certainly not an unforseeable situation (as you seem to claim), there was no tactics breakdown on either of or characters, everything was running *exactly* according to your script and as such it was 100% foreseeable that your familiar would end up in my square. You could have easily added a specific tactic handling such a case in advance but you didn't. I don't think this has anything to do with unforeseeable events. Additionally, in this case, movement by Borodin would negate your tactic even if the Pitlord implemented them. If you ask the Pitlord to have your familiar to deliver a touch spell, the default way would be to have the familiar enter the opponent's square and touch at the earliest possible moment. Not 'get into the square, wait for next round, and then attack and 5 ft. step'. I haven't ever seen it played like that, is a non-standard tactic. Additionally, you only specified that you wanted to avoid AoO's after you delivered the touch spell. There are many options to avoid AoO's, your hawk could have just taken a 5ft. step away on the first round after touching, and then fly away on the next round. It is not up to the Pitlord to invent and execute very specific (and smart) tactics, but only general ones. I can imagine many nasty tactics myself, but I will only execute basic ones unless a gladiator asks me to do so specifically. Anything else is outside of the realm of allowable Pitlord improvisation. We need to be specific, otherwise the only tactics I need to write are those mentioned in my goal section, and the expect the Pitlord to cast resistance and guidance, and complain if he didn't, stating that I did ask "to get my saves as high as possible against Anger's spells". If I don't specify how, it's up to the Pitlord to decide how. And he doesn't need to choose the best solution, the Pitlord might not even realize the best solution. Why am I pointing this out? Because I think the advantage should go to the player who writes specific and legible smart tactics, and not to the one who writes general tactics and gets a smart Pitlord who improvises bases on the general tactics. Improvisation on the spot based on something general goal always has an advantage over a scripted response, since it remains flexible and adaptable. That is liking being rewarded for writing very sparse tactics and counting on the Pitlord to compensate. I like to provide unexpected and novel tactics, I like to anticipate to my opponent's most likely tactics and provide specific counters. I think that should be rewarded. I have had fights where I though of a brilliant tactic, which was totally unanticipated by my opponent. In the fight the Pitlord thought of a brilliant and unorthodox counter, and then let my character try and retry his now failing tactic against his self-imagined counter. That's to me losing to the Pitlord, and not losing to the other player.
McJarvis 06-13-07, 10:02 AM	As it all lies: I'm not sure why you are making a big deal of this. If Sjig looks at it and says "You know what? You really couldn't avoid the AoO", then no big deal. If he says the familiar could have, then he by all means can change it since such a course of action would be closer to what I wrote in my tactics. I strongly believe that tactics should be played out as the intent lies: you can see that I play this way in cases like the troll fight with Lord Lorian this week. templer clearly stated to use an "e-ray"[which I read as electric at first & later changed to fire due to my believing that was what he intended] & "max mindthrust" [changed to "2 pp mindthrust" since his tactics mentioned manifesting another power as well, and he probably thought the mindthrust tactics would come last] Winning battles by writing tactics an opponent does not expect is not admirable in the slightest: nor is it a test of optimization. It is merely a test of who can spend the most time thinking about & writing tactics. Sometimes long tactics are necessary: but most of the time common sense can apply. ~McJ~
hogarth 06-13-07, 10:11 AM	Winning battles by writing tactics an opponent does not expect is not admirable in the slightest: nor is it a test of optimization. It is merely a test of who can spend the most time thinking about & writing tactics. That's funny -- when I see a win pulled off via clever and unexpected tactics, I find that much more interesting than having the stronger/luckier character steamroll of the weakier/unluckier one. YMMV.
TheMagister 06-13-07, 11:56 AM	@Telin - thanks for the run! @Elrick's Player (whatshisname) - spike stones on the walls and ceiling?! Why didn't I think of that?! I always thought that they were strictly a ground-effect. Oh well. TM
templer10 06-13-07, 12:48 PM	@Telin - thanks for the run! @Elrick's Player (whatshisname) - spike stones on the walls and ceiling?! Why didn't I think of that?! I always thought that they were strictly a ground-effect. Oh well. TM T-10 is the name (i remmbnered the wall walking from el rapido's fight in the last second and did the stoens on the walls part)
Zevox 06-13-07, 12:51 PM	Winning battles by writing tactics an opponent does not expect is not admirable in the slightest: nor is it a test of optimization. It is merely a test of who can spend the most time thinking about & writing tactics. I think you've just stumbled upon a disagreement with some folks of what makes this place fun. I, for instance, find writing tactics one of the more enjoyable parts of this place, and winning through superior or surprising tactics to be far more fun than most any other method of winning. Certainly I find it quite admirable and find fights much more enjoyable when I see someone do it. I don't care which character is more optimized in the slightest, personally. This is what I was talking about over in the Council when I mentioned that not everyone agreed on what the so-called "CoCo Philosophy" is. Everyone has different opinion on why they're here and what makes this place fun. Zevox
TheMagister 06-13-07, 01:09 PM	Everyone has different opinion on why they're here and what makes this place fun. Zevox And I think that that is a grand thing, all in all. If I had to come here and play with twenty other "me's" it'd get boring (and probably argumentative) really quickly. CoCo philosophy - a place where people who like to play DnD can come together to experience a friendly gaming environment (not too dissimilar from their home gaming table) and talk about DnD, DnD tactics, and most of all build interesting characters that they can use to compete against other players, go on quests, or participate in an ongoing "live" storyline involving numerous other people who also enjoy that sort of thing. Pretty much covers it for me. TM
Usurpator 06-13-07, 01:22 PM	I strongly believe that tactics should be played out as the intent lies: I agree, but there is a difference between playing out intent, and inventing/improvising smart tactics on the spot. It is not up to the Pitlord to figure out the weaknesses of an opponent, it is up to the player. Winning battles by writing tactics an opponent does not expect is not admirable in the slightest: nor is it a test of optimization. It is merely a test of who can spend the most time thinking about & writing tactics. Sometimes long tactics are necessary: but most of the time common sense can apply. ~McJ~ Actually no. Tactics are (for me) the biggest part of winning a battle. If my players in a TT game are using stupid tactics (splitting up, not supporting each other, choosing to cast poor spell, doing trip attacks at inappropriate moments etc. etc.) they will lose no matter how the die rolls. Without tactics it is simply a die rolling contest. I can take two builds and do a die rolling contest at home. I don't need the CoCo for that. You looked at Moradin's sheet, hopefully analyzed his strengths and weaknesses and prepared an appropriate tactic. Lesser players might have chosen to use blindness/deafness or ghoul touch. You did not, you chose a fairly optimal tactic and it gave you decent odds to win. The dice decided the rest.
Sjiggie 06-13-07, 03:12 PM	@ McJarvis I leave the fight at is not because the deadline has past but because I believe your asking a too specific edit that was not in the tactics. I tried to avoid the AoO's as good as I could and next time you should put that specific move in your tactics.
McJarvis 06-13-07, 03:18 PM	I tried to avoid the AoO's as good as I could There was only 1 possible AoO and you didn't avoid it. I'm ok with you not changing it[since its only a familiar]-> but don't try to act like you did me any favors.
Sjiggie 06-13-07, 03:41 PM	I'm not acting to do you any favors and if I let your familiar running away from Borodin he would draw 2 AoO one from leaving his square and one from leaving his treathend square so I chose to use the withdraw action.
McJarvis 06-13-07, 03:56 PM	I'm not acting to do you any favors and if I let your familiar running away from Borodin he would draw 2 AoO one from leaving his square and one from leaving his treathend square so I chose to use the withdraw action. ...which was just you doing part of what my tactics said. Like I said-> no favors.
Usurpator 06-14-07, 06:58 AM	Just doing my administrative duties (updating char sheets) when I came across: Lightwolf Phoenixstar is the winner! He gains 3,249 xp and 3,465 gp (+8.3% allies). Shazzelin takes second place, gaining 958 xp and 1,021 gp (-4.16% allies). Bulgar loses, gaining 479 xp and 510 gp (-4.16% allies). @Zevox: I don't think Lightwolf's rewards are correct. He is supposed to get one winner's and two losers rewards, totalling 2500 XP (1500+500+500) and then the 8.3% bonus. Not two winner's rewards plus 8.3%. Also, Shazzelin makes 110 gp. from torturing (my mistake in the title line)
Zevox 06-14-07, 08:07 AM	Just doing my administrative duties (updating char sheets) when I came across: @Zevox: I don't think Lightwolf's rewards are correct. He is supposed to get one winner's and two losers rewards, totalling 2500 XP (1500+500+500) and then the 8.3% bonus. Not two winner's rewards plus 8.3%. Also, Shazzelin makes 110 gp. from torturing (my mistake in the title line) You are correct - I'm just too used to 4 person FFAs effectively giving the winner two winner rewards (because 3 loser rewards equals a winner reward). I'll adjust accordingly. Edit: Done. Zevox