| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| waywreth03-29-06, 03:43 PM | Editing deadline for this week is up in about 10 minutes. Post any comments or concerned for this weeks fights in this thread, be aware of the Rules of Gladius (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=448520&origin=), be kind and courteous to your fellow posters, don't feed the pitlords, and above all, have fun! However with the undead creeping us on us, be sure to keep a close watch on your spicy brains (http://www.matazone.co.uk/animpages/kitty1.html) (link goes to a funny flash animation). |
| Pitlords03-29-06, 05:16 PM | PAIRINGS DONE! I want to remind all guildmembers of the new taxes! Please change that on your sheet. The undead and equipment discussion is still pending. One Pitlord needed for War (NiQil) vs. Finrod Felagund (Lonewolf) : XXXXX Credit Changes: +9: King Uther +8: Caterane +5: Myrridin +2: funnymike, Kaigan, Mysticmonk, Stonetree, Malither, DSugui, Usurpator +1: Abyssal, Argaud, CptStrong, Erithmu, lonewolf, Mindwanderer, Sauro, Skojar, Turin, sindorin, NiQil +0: Gonbow, Vathelokai -1: Dracazar, Luni, Stormwind -2: Huan, Zevox |
| Usurpator03-29-06, 05:29 PM | I can take a fight, but I prefer to Pitlord a Hunter Fight or FFA. |
| Pitlords03-29-06, 05:30 PM | Sure :) Tan (Book5) vs. Death (NiQil) vs. Danidus (Vecnoran) vs. Loddick (Erithmu) : Usurpator [All-vs-All] War (NiQil) vs. Finrod Felagund (Lonewolf) : DSugui |
| Ravashack03-29-06, 05:31 PM | Perius is fighting Uilo 2 weeks in a row? |
| Pitlords03-29-06, 05:33 PM | Sorry, but the Pairingmaker doesn't recognize rematches. Here's a new one: Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) vs. Perius (Ravashack) : Abyssal Stalker Uilo (Dracazar) vs. Lortavos (Gonbow) : MysticMonk2005 @Usurpator: Can you send me the code for your crawler and pairingmaker please? And if possible, can the pairingmaker include the lvl 10 league? They might want to quest or craft up there. Thanks a lot!! |
| Ravashack03-29-06, 05:59 PM | Thanks. :) |
| SoulLord03-29-06, 06:15 PM | Tactics for Vandelar the red vs Lord Frost ECL 9 league sent to Caterane by E-mail. |
| StoneTree03-29-06, 06:21 PM | Ah, a glorious first time pitlording. Zevox, Book5, MysticMonk2005, Pittbull, send me them tactics by PM, please. |
| waywreth03-29-06, 07:30 PM | Regarding this fight: Loquan Dar'ath (waywreth) vs. Unknown Monster : King Uther [Monster] Let me know when you roll the monster King Uther, because Loquan has a pretty good chance of knowing some basics about the monster, since has has ranks in many of the knowledge skills. Thanks! |
| MindWandererB03-29-06, 07:43 PM | @Skojar & Lonewolf: Tactics have been sent. Should be an interesting week for me. @Erithmu & King Uther: Early would be good, if you can manage it. Thanks. |
| Myrridin03-29-06, 07:48 PM | Aww crap, hunter fight. I've never been in one of these. Well, this'll be interesting. I'm working on tactics. |
| MysticMonk200503-29-06, 07:56 PM | Aww crap, hunter fight. I've never been in one of these. Well, this'll be interesting. I'm working on tactics. Oh good, I havn't been in one either, its a relief that the person hunting me hasn't. Question, what all do i need to do to run a mini-quest? I've never run one before. |
| LLMadCow03-29-06, 08:49 PM | Sir Doyle is not questing for fun, but instead he is questing to join EYE. :) Just so everyone knows. LLMC |
| MysticMonk200503-29-06, 10:15 PM | @StoneTree: Tueors tactics sent via PM @Gonbow: Look for Lissa's tactics later tonight. |
| Book503-29-06, 10:53 PM | @stonetree: Tactics sent for Ba'al |
| Zevox03-29-06, 10:58 PM | Aw crud. Archdevil Asran vs the Harvester... man, as if Asran's luck in his fight last week wasn't bad enough, now he gets to fight that monstrosity. @ CaptainStrong, StoneTree, & SauroGrenom: Tactics should be in tomorrow afternoon. @ Usurpator & Donak: If you two can have me tactics by Friday morning, that'd be best. I'll have a good opportunity to run it then, but the rest of my weekend is crammed with homework. Zevox |
| TheMagister03-29-06, 11:08 PM | @Argaud - tactics for The White Hand vs. Shaz Greatheart sent via PM. Flowers for Shaz's next of kin sent via Gladius Courier Service. =) Good luck, Drac! Don't think I'll go easy on you because of you awesome contributions to the CoCo! TWH will have his revenge!! TM |
| Ariel2303-29-06, 11:34 PM | Credit Changes: +9: King Uther +8: Caterane +5: Myrridin +2: funnymike, Kaigan, Mysticmonk, Stonetree, Malither, DSugui, Usurpator +1: Abyssal, Argaud, CptStrong, Erithmu, lonewolf, Mindwanderer, Sauro, Skojar, Turin, sindorin, NiQil +0: Gonbow, Vathelokai -1: Dracazar, Luni, Stormwind -2: Huan, Zevox I'm not on the list, I don't know if that's an accident or if I will not get credit for a fight that was defaulted. If you click on my spoiler block, you can see that I ran the fight to its conclusion (with maps!); I just happened to notice the editing thing as I was finishing the loose ends. |
| Erithmu03-30-06, 12:05 AM | @MindwandererB: Tactics for Sola sent via PM ... ugga @Turin: Tactics sent for Ignatius sent via PM ... Ditto ugga @Usurpator: Tactics for Loddick sent via PM ... Triple ugga (literally) 3 gladiators ... 5 opponents ... I'm hoping for 1/2 and maybe a 3rd place at best this week. |
| NiQil03-30-06, 12:13 AM | @ Huan: Tactics for Famine sent via PM @ DSugui: Tactics for War in the "loser gets the Failure tag" match sent via PM @ Usurpator: Tactics for Death in the steaming pile of cow patties (aka FFA) sent via PM Unlike Erithmu, I am hoping to go 0/3....and praying this reverse psychology thing works LOL. |
| TheMagister03-30-06, 01:42 AM | @lonewolf - Tactics for Sdentch vs. Telveren sent via PM. Good luck, Sunwolf! Good luck, Sdentch! Kitties!! TM |
| TheMagister03-30-06, 01:43 AM | I'm not on the list, I don't know if that's an accident or if I will not get credit for a fight that was defaulted. If you click on my spoiler block, you can see that I ran the fight to its conclusion (with maps!); I just happened to notice the editing thing as I was finishing the loose ends. Same here. I ran a fight last week, too, but don't see a credit for it on the list. TM |
| Zevox03-30-06, 01:57 AM | @ CaptainStrong - Tactics for Istima Telarc (vs Raw) have been sent via PM. Good luck running that one - it'll probably be an easy win for the psionic mounted Goblin, but it'll also probably be a pain to run. Thanks in advance for running it! @ StoneTree - Tactics for Sir Alboreth (vs Ba'al of the Grave) have been sent via PM. Not anywhere near so much pain in that one - could even be a fun one to run. Should be interesting one way or another. @ SauroGrenom - Yeah, ETA on Asran's tactics is still Thursday afternoon. Sorry, but thats a bit more difficult of a fight than those two (Harvester...). Zevox |
| King Uther03-30-06, 02:42 AM | @MindWanderer Simple tactics for Alagar sent via PM. |
| King Uther03-30-06, 02:50 AM | @Anyone Could someone please take my monster fight? I am moving Friday afternoon(a 30 hours drive with the moving truck), then I don't know how soon my Internet will be up. I really don't want to have to worry about getting my connection up then running the fight last minute. @Miniquesters Since my time is little this week and there are 4 MQs, my goal is to finish them as quickly as possible, then filling in the roleplay when I get my internet back up. |
| MindWandererB03-30-06, 03:06 AM | @Everyone concerned with the credits: my understanding is that Cat awards credits based on the current week, not last week. These awards will then be modified based on lateness/pickups, etc. Does that make it all make sense? @King Uther & Erithmu: Tactics received. Will plug away at it over the next couple of days, should be up by Friday. |
| Dracazar03-30-06, 03:37 AM | @Argaud - tactics for The White Hand vs. Shaz Greatheart sent via PM. Flowers for Shaz's next of kin sent via Gladius Courier Service. =) Good luck, Drac! Don't think I'll go easy on you because of you awesome contributions to the CoCo! TWH will have his revenge!! Shaz thanks for the flower and send some balmy oils to TWH, you will need them after the fight! :D Dear TM :) |
| Scribelords03-30-06, 03:42 AM | @ALL Due to many many many things, I have been lax as the Scribelords. This is about to change. In addition to putting a lot of effort into the Gladius Project in the coming weeks and months, I will do a much much better job of answering questions by making sure I get on this twice a week, on Wed. night and Sunday. With my new job I can do what I've always hoped I could. |
| Caterane03-30-06, 04:50 AM | Tactics sent for the Harvester to SauroGrenom. Tactics received for Telveran and Frost. Will run it tonight. @Ariel23: The credits are for this week's fights. @LLMadCow: If it wouldn't have been for Erithmu's PM to Pitlords, Doyle wouldn't be paired at all. Your headline does not fulfill the standards. For the second week btw. @King Uther: :cheer: |
| DSugui03-30-06, 07:34 AM | @NiQil: Tactics for WAR received. @funnymanmike: Tactics for Eito received. |
| TheMagister03-30-06, 07:46 AM | Tactics received for Telveran and Frost. Will run it tonight. ???? I thought Sdentch was fighting Telveren? I sure hope she is, because I spent 2 hours on the tactics last night... TM |
| Mal-203-30-06, 08:13 AM | @ Usurpator & Donak: If you two can have me tactics by Friday morning, that'd be best. I'll have a good opportunity to run it then, but the rest of my weekend is crammed with homework. I should have Donak's tactics to you tonight sometime. |
| Ravashack03-30-06, 08:15 AM | Perius's tactics sent in to Abyssal Stalker via PM. |
| waywreth03-30-06, 08:16 AM | @Anyone Could someone please take my monster fight? I am moving Friday afternoon(a 30 hours drive with the moving truck), then I don't know how soon my Internet will be up. I really don't want to have to worry about getting my connection up then running the fight last minute. Just wanted to note this since the monster fight is my character... |
| Caterane03-30-06, 08:30 AM | ???? I thought Sdentch was fighting Telveren? I sure hope she is, because I spent 2 hours on the tactics last night... TM Sorry, my bad. I meant Vandelar and wrote Telveran. Forget my post. |
| Pittbull03-30-06, 08:34 AM | KazzzAHM's tactic has been sent via PM. Barthleby's tactic has been sent via E-Mail. Thanks for running their fights! |
| Turin03-30-06, 08:54 AM | Are the credits listed for Pitlords net credits for the week? I've only got 1 credit listed and am running two fights this week... but I'm also involved in a quest. |
| Sunwolf03-30-06, 08:54 AM | @Cat Tactics for Leif vs monster sent by PM |
| Argaud03-30-06, 08:57 AM | @Turin - Tactics for Korinal vs Evaine sent by PM. @TheMagister - Tactics for TWH received. Waiting for Dracazar to start. |
| Zevox03-30-06, 08:58 AM | Are the credits listed for Pitlords net credits for the week? I've only got 1 credit listed and am running two fights this week... but I'm also involved in a quest. Yep. Thats why I'm at -2o on that list. +1 Pitlording, -1 quest, -2 character activation. Else you wouldn't have anyone on the list with negative credits for the week, true? Zevox |
| Vathelokai03-30-06, 09:07 AM | Aww crap, hunter fight. I've never been in one of these. Well, this'll be interesting. I'm working on tactics. Oh good, I havn't been in one either, its a relief that the person hunting me hasn't.Huzzah; I havn't been in a hunter fight either. @Gonbow: Tactics for Saffron sent via PM |
| Vathelokai03-30-06, 09:09 AM | @Anyone Could someone please take my monster fight? I am moving Friday afternoon(a 30 hours drive with the moving truck), then I don't know how soon my Internet will be up. I really don't want to have to worry about getting my connection up then running the fight last minute. Just wanted to note this since the monster fight is my character... I'LL TAKE IT. Let me go roll the monster real quick... Loquan Dar'ath (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8581507) encounters a kobald (well technicly its a small, repilian humanoid, but there's only one type of those). It seems unarmed, and has a backpack. |
| waywreth03-30-06, 09:22 AM | I'LL TAKE IT. Let me go roll the monster real quick... Sweet, roll it up, let me know via PM or post what I know about the monster, and I'll have tactics ASAP. Loquan has the following knowledge skills: +13 (Knowledge: Psionics) [8 ranks psion, +5 Int] +6 (Knowledge: Arcana) [1 rank psion, +5 Int] +6 (Knowledge: Dungeon) [1 rank psion, +5 Int] +6 (Knowledge: Local) [1 rank psion, +5 Int] +6 (Knowledge: Nature) [1 rank psion, +5 Int] +6 (Knowledge: Religion) [1 rank psion, +5 Int] +6 (Knowledge: Planes) [1 rank psion, +5 Int] |
| Myrridin03-30-06, 09:39 AM | @Gonbow: Tactics for Morgan in the Hunter fight have been sent. Should be interesting... |
| waywreth03-30-06, 09:56 AM | @Abyssal Stalker - Tactics for Gaston Dar'ath sent via PM. @Vathelokai - Tactics vs. the might kobold sent for Loquan via PM. |
| Dracazar03-30-06, 12:44 PM | @funnymanmike: Quesis's tactic sent @Turin: Drac's tactic sent @MysticMonk2005: Uilo's tactic sent @Argaud: Shaz's tactic sent @SauroGrenom: Kracknol's tactic received @Pittbull: Barthleby's tactic received |
| Turin03-30-06, 01:30 PM | @ lonewolf: tactics for Dr. Hexacious Pogboomer vs Sunstroke sent. |
| lonewolf03-30-06, 01:50 PM | @DSugui: Tactics for Finrod sent. Im hoping to break the streak of bad luck. |
| funnymanmike03-30-06, 02:01 PM | @Airwhale: need your tactics @tunagolem: tactics received @stonetree: tactics received, fight should be up later tonight @dracazar: tactics received, fight should be up later tonight |
| Book503-30-06, 02:23 PM | @ Usurpator - Team Tan's Tactics sent via PM. |
| Zevox03-30-06, 03:25 PM | @ SauroGrenom - Tactics for Archdevil Asran (vs The Harvester) have been sent via PM. Thanks for running it! Hope the dice are a lot more kind to the Half-Fiend than they were last week. Zevox |
| Ariel2303-30-06, 04:04 PM | @Turin @DSugui Tactics sent @MindwandererB @Caterane Thank you for the explanation. Yes, it makes sense. |
| funnymanmike03-30-06, 04:56 PM | so i was only expecting to finish the fight tomorow night, you know do a few rounds each night. but Quesis (Dracazar) vs Cornalius (StoneTree): Funnymanmike [ECL3] (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8810837&postcount=456) is up. please let me know if their are any issues so i can fix it right away (i tripple checked everything) |
| Dracazar03-30-06, 05:11 PM | so i was only expecting to finish the fight tomorow night, you know do a few rounds each night. but Quesis (Dracazar) vs Cornalius (StoneTree): Funnymanmike [ECL3] (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8810837&postcount=456) is up. please let me know if their are any issues so i can fix it right away (i tripple checked everything) Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems that you moved the horse for 200' or more, his speed is 50' and cannot run because it no straight line. |
| funnymanmike03-30-06, 05:14 PM | arn't these battle map squares only 1 ft? |
| Gonbow03-30-06, 05:22 PM | arn't these battle map squares only 1 ft? No, each square is 5 ft, as that is the size that a medium character occupies. So the majority of characters would not have to cover multiple squares, it is presented in this manner. (It is also the current D&D standard to have 5' squares on all tactical maps). |
| funnymanmike03-30-06, 05:47 PM | allright, i will get on fixing the fight properly. |
| Argaud03-30-06, 08:55 PM | The first 5 rounds of Shaz vs. TWH have been posted here. It looks a complicated one, if anyone can see mistakes, please let me know. |
| TheMagister03-30-06, 08:59 PM | The first 5 rounds of Shaz vs. TWH have been posted here. It looks a complicated one, if anyone can see mistakes, please let me know. no mistakes so far. I almost PM'd this, but it felt kinda "under-the-table" if I did. I'm glad I came here. When tactics break down, it is OK to improvise a little bit. An example of that right now would be to (just perhaps) draw and cast from TWH's spider-climb scroll. Just a thought, and you may disregard it if you feel like it. Seems to make quite a bit of common sense to me... TM |
| DSugui03-30-06, 10:11 PM | @lonewolf: Tactics for Finrod Received. The fight will be run tomorrow night. @Ariel23: Tactics for Riana received. @HuBBaBuBBa : Tactics for Kramer received. @barrel_master & DarthVegan: Tactics for Alathar and Micah received. |
| Zevox03-31-06, 12:53 AM | @ Usurpator - Tactics for Tezca recieved, thank you. Minor issue PMed - though I imagine I could run the fight without a response, I thought I'd let you know about it. @ Mal-2 - Still waiting for tactics for Donak. The sooner the better, please. Zevox |
| Argaud03-31-06, 08:42 AM | Some more rounds of Shaz vs. TWH have been posted. They have still to hit each other, crazy paladins! Please check for errors :-) TheMagister, I have not yet used any of TWH consumables but those that you specified. The reason is that although TWH can’t sneak attack Shaz, his ranged fight strategy was still pretty good (shooting from total concealment) and was foiled mostly by Shaz formidable total defense (and his decision to be conservative with his arrows). Spider Climb wasn’t a good idea, though, since at most that would have given TWH a single sneak attack before Shaz levitated down out of his reach. Remember spider-climbing requires both hands free, which would mean no bow and no scrolls while clinging to the ceiling. There are other options that TWH can and will use if his tactics keep failing, but first he will try what you wrote in the tactics section to his best ability. |
| Caterane03-31-06, 09:12 AM | Leif vs Unknown Monster is up here. That was close! |
| TheMagister03-31-06, 09:14 AM | Some more rounds of Shaz vs. TWH have been posted. They have still to hit each other, crazy paladins! Please check for errors :-) TheMagister, I have not yet used any of TWH consumables but those that you specified. The reason is that although TWH can’t sneak attack Shaz, his ranged fight strategy was still pretty good (shooting from total concealment) and was foiled mostly by Shaz formidable total defense (and his decision to be conservative with his arrows). Spider Climb wasn’t a good idea, though, since at most that would have given TWH a single sneak attack before Shaz levitated down out of his reach. Remember spider-climbing requires both hands free, which would mean no bow and no scrolls while clinging to the ceiling. There are other options that TWH can and will use if his tactics keep failing, but first he will try what you wrote in the tactics section to his best ability. That's fine. I was just...well, probing I guess. Making sure that you weren't running my character like a total buffoon. He's a pretty smart cookie (should be...I gimped the heck out of his strength for that purpose). Thanks for replying. Edit: If you (Shaz, in this case) are denied your Dex to AC, you are also denied any dodge boni to AC as well. Also (and someone correct me if I'm wrong): Invisibility = Total concealment Example: A character without darkvision fights against a Drow Fighter in a deep, unlighted cavern far beneath the earth. Although the Drow can't cast invisibility, he still gains a +2 to hit, and his opponent still has a 50% chance to miss him due to not being able to see (effectively blinded) and is still denied his Dexterity bonus to AC. If you want, I'll try to look up the relevant rules in the PHB. Since TWH is effectively totally concealed from Shaz (much like sniping from cover), Shaz shouldn't get his Dex to AC, or any dodge boni. TM |
| funnymanmike03-31-06, 09:22 AM | Quesis (Dracazar) vs Cornalius (StoneTree): Funnymanmike [ECL3] (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8810837&postcount=456) is fixed & up Far'gon (Airwhale) vs Shfifon (tunagolem): Funnymanmike [ECL3] (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8813522&postcount=457) is up let me know if anything else needs-a-fixing |
| Mal-203-31-06, 09:30 AM | @ Mal-2 - Still waiting for tactics for Donak. The sooner the better, please. Sent via PM. Sorry for the delay. |
| Argaud03-31-06, 10:07 AM | Also (and someone correct me if I'm wrong): Invisibility = Total concealment Example: A character without darkvision fights against a Drow Fighter in a deep, unlighted cavern far beneath the earth. Although the Drow can't cast invisibility, he still gains a +2 to hit, and his opponent still has a 50% chance to miss him due to not being able to see (effectively blinded) and is still denied his Dexterity bonus to AC. If you want, I'll try to look up the relevant rules in the PHB. Since TWH is effectively totally concealed from Shaz (much like sniping from cover), Shaz shouldn't get his Dex to AC, or any dodge boni.[/i] TM Invisibility = Total concealment, yes, I agree. But I am not convinced total concealment gives all the benefits of invisibility. If you can find the relevant quotes in the SRD I would be grateful. The guy facing the drow in the darkness is way worse than facing an invisible opponet, he is basically blind. Shaz is not blind. And snipping does not negate dodge bunus. It does not matter yet, since TWH rolled poorly in those atacks (and even without dodge bonus or Forcescreen Shaz AC is 19) but it might matter later on, that battle looks like will be pretty long. |
| Sunwolf03-31-06, 10:32 AM | @Lonewolf tactics for Telveran sent by PM |
| lonewolf03-31-06, 10:35 AM | All tactics recieved. I will try to do both fights tomorrow. |
| Zevox03-31-06, 10:35 AM | Sent via PM. Sorry for the delay. And recieved. I'll get to work on the fight today, hopefully it'll be up sometime this afternoon or tonight. Zevox |
| Caterane03-31-06, 11:17 AM | Lord Frost vs Vandelar can be found here. |
| funnymanmike03-31-06, 11:38 AM | Revsion #2 Quesis (Dracazar) vs Cornalius (StoneTree): Funnymanmike [ECL3] (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8810837&postcount=456) is up Pitlord Errors Original: Mount moved too far Revison #1: forgot to give Cornalius ride check to drop for cover (+4 ac) Revsion #2: current version, everything fixed Notes on revsion rolls - if an action no longer takes place in the same round as the dice rolled, that dice roll is invalid - if an action still takes place in that round, i will keep the original roll. @players, thank you for having the paitience in dealing with a new pitlord. if their are any issues with revison #2 please PM me and i will get them taken care of. |
| SoulLord03-31-06, 11:40 AM | Hi caterane thanks for running the fight. I don't want you to change anything from the fight but I have a doubt How did lord frost knew that the persistant image was an illusion? relevent rules Persistent Image Illusion (Figment) Level: Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 5 Duration: 1 min./level (D) This spell functions like silent image, except that the figment includes visual, auditory, olfactory, and thermal components, and the figment follows a script determined by you. The figment follows that script without your having to concentrate on it. The illusion can include intelligible speech if you wish. Blindsight And Blindsense Some creatures have blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a nonvisual sense (or a combination of such senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such sense may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This ability makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can’t see ethereal creatures and must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object). This ability operates out to a range specified in the creature description. The creature usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice creatures within range of its blindsight ability. Unless noted otherwise, blindsight is continuous, and the creature need do nothing to use it. Some forms of blindsight, however, must be triggered as a free action. If so, this is noted in the creature’s description. If a creature must trigger its blindsight ability, the creature gains the benefits of blindsight only during its turn. * Blindsight never allows a creature to distinguish color or visual contrast. A creature cannot read with blindsight. * Blindsight does not subject a creature to gaze attacks (even though darkvision does). * Blinding attacks do not penalize creatures using blindsight. * Deafening attacks thwart blindsight if it relies on hearing. * Blindsight works underwater but not in a vacuum. * Blindsight negates displacement and blur effects. Blindsense Other creatures have blindsense, a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see has total concealment (50% miss chance) against the creature with blindsense, and the blindsensing creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see. |
| StoneTree03-31-06, 11:41 AM | allright, i will get on fixing the fight properly. Narr, my bones! While this is exactly the result I saw coming, I'm a bit confused by the last page. Why is her attack listed first? Ride-By Attack means I don't provoke an AoO from the victim... so shouldn't that crit come second, when she marched after me and nailed me in the back of the head with her chain? Also, you say that I didn't have the speed to get away there--did you remember to spur my horse for aditional 10' movement (20' on the charge?) Would those extra twenty feet changed the situation from a gruesome, juicy death to yet more running away wetting myself? Also, even knocked out there's only a 25% chance I fall off my horse... which, uncontrolled, automatically books from the giant spiked chain wielding demon lady. So instead of being a victim of a CdG, I probably bled to death atop my horse. And if I do fall off then the horse defends me, so scary chain lady would have to spend a turn killing it, too. Lord, there has to be a hole in my character big enough to put a fist through. Her tactical mistake with the 10' range just wasn't enough. I should have run away whimpering more. |
| funnymanmike03-31-06, 11:56 AM | Narr, my bones! While this is exactly the result I saw coming, I'm a bit confused by the last page. Why is her attack listed first? Ride-By Attack means I don't provoke an AoO from the victim... so shouldn't that crit come second, when she marched after me and nailed me in the back of the head with her chain? Also, you say that I didn't have the speed to get away there--did you remember to spur my horse for aditional 10' movement (20' on the charge?) Would those extra twenty feet changed the situation from a gruesome, juicy death to yet more running away wetting myself? the attacks are listed as per the format, your attacks do happen first in the round. in revision 1 i spured you so you got close, but not enough to charge on the second round. Also, even knocked out there's only a 25% chance I fall off my horse... which, uncontrolled, automatically books from the giant spiked chain wielding demon lady. So instead of being a victim of a CdG, I probably bled to death atop my horse. yeah i hate that stupid hore rule myself, if your at -5, its game over imo. espeicaly if your horse isn't gonna cast cure light wounds on you. :) Lord, there has to be a hole in my character big enough to put a fist through. Her tactical mistake with the 10' range just wasn't enough. I should have run away whimpering more. check revison #2 as for the hole? if your talking about whitespace its beacuse windows xp notepad actuly sucks more than windows 2000 notepad. go figure. |
| CaptainStrong03-31-06, 12:05 PM | Hey guys. A few things. - I lol'ed at the thread name. '29nd'. :P -I feel like crap today, and have a wedding to go to tomorrow (Saturday). I'm going to be unable to finish my fight on time, as I'm going to be unavailable throughout the weekend. If someone wants to take it (it's ECL 3), PM me and I'll send you the tactics. First come first serve. :P |
| TheMagister03-31-06, 12:06 PM | Invisibility = Total concealment, yes, I agree. But I am not convinced total concealment gives all the benefits of invisibility. If you can find the relevant quotes in the SRD I would be grateful. The guy facing the drow in the darkness is way worse than facing an invisible opponet, he is basically blind. Shaz is not blind. And snipping does not negate dodge bunus. It does not matter yet, since TWH rolled poorly in those atacks (and even without dodge bonus or Forcescreen Shaz AC is 19) but it might matter later on, that battle looks like will be pretty long. Ask and ye shall receive. Please see the chart on the top left of page 151 of your PHB (this chart doesn't show up in the SRD, as far as I can find) that lists bonuses the attacker gains for being invisible. TWH is effectively invisible because Shaz can't see him to know when the attacks are coming (loss of Dex to AC) and where they're coming from (+2 to hit for the invisible attacker). Also, please see the definition of "dodge bonus" in the glossary at the end of your PHB. It specifically mentions that "any condition that causes you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC also causes you to lose any dodge bonus to AC as well" (I paraphrased). So, Shaz is denied his dex to AC, and his total defense to AC, and TWH gets a +2 bonus on his ranged attack rolls to hit Shaz (I think he might have hit ONCE...sigh). And when the blacklight runs out, TWH is in trouble. TM |
| StoneTree03-31-06, 12:10 PM | I think you misunderstood me on both cases. For the hole, I didn't mean whitespace in my character sheet. I mean there has to be a hole blown in the chest of my character from when a giant spikey whirling metal object was forcefully propelled through me. This was not criticism. This was flavor text, or possibly remorse. As for the spur, I didn't mean close enough to charge on round two. I mean on the round where I died, if I had spurred for additional speed then, would it have taken me far away enough from her so she couldn't reach me with a single move action? The rear square I'm in is 15' away from her. Moving forward 20 feet has me occupy the same space as her, 30 feet has me basing her far side, 50' has me outside her range on her other side. Then I keep moving 70', leaving me 70' outside of her range on a double move.... ooooh, right, she gets to charge me right back. Well, that answers that question. EDIT: How can I charge and not get countercharged in the future? The answer is simple! I must miniquest... FOR A PSIONIC HORSE! Wild Talent and that feat that lets me charge all funny! Only that feat has a prerequisite, another feat, and horses only get two feats and don't advance. Do Paladin mounts get extra feats? Are they customizable? How about druids? Can I quest for a templated psionic horse? |
| Argaud03-31-06, 12:29 PM | Ask and ye shall receive. Please see the chart on the top left of page 151 of your PHB (this chart doesn't show up in the SRD, as far as I can find) that lists bonuses the attacker gains for being invisible. TWH is effectively invisible because Shaz can't see him to know when the attacks are coming (loss of Dex to AC) and where they're coming from (+2 to hit for the invisible attacker). Also, please see the definition of "dodge bonus" in the glossary at the end of your PHB. It specifically mentions that "any condition that causes you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC also causes you to lose any dodge bonus to AC as well" (I paraphrased). So, Shaz is denied his dex to AC, and his total defense to AC, and TWH gets a +2 bonus on his ranged attack rolls to hit Shaz (I think he might have hit ONCE...sigh). And when the blacklight runs out, TWH is in trouble. TM I know about that table, and I am afraid I disagree with your conclusion. TWH has total concealment, but he is not invisible (except the first round). Those modifiers are for invisible characters. See, it reads 'invisible' not 'total concealment' in the table. If it read 'total concealment' it would include invisible too, since invisible characters always have total concealment. But total concealment =! invisible according to that wording. |
| Vecnoran03-31-06, 02:33 PM | @Usurpator: Tactics for Danidus sent...let me know if there are any problems. |
| Pitlords03-31-06, 02:48 PM | From : tunagolem To : funnymanmike Date : 2006-03-30 04:06 Title : Re: Far'gon (Airwhale) vs. Shfifon Hanegev (tunagolem) : funnymanmike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, my PC isn't ready, aouto lose. I don't knoew how I got into the mach of this week, my PC is titled is not ready. Anyway thanks for the efort. Your title line says: Will be ready for March 29th Shfifon Hanegev You set him ready; that's why he was paired. |
| MindWandererB03-31-06, 02:56 PM | I know about that table, and I am afraid I disagree with your conclusion. TWH has total concealment, but he is not invisible (except the first round). Those modifiers are for invisible characters. See, it reads 'invisible' not 'total concealment' in the table. If it read 'total concealment' it would include invisible too, since invisible characters always have total concealment. But total concealment =! invisible according to that wording.And it also says "this bonus doesn't apply if the target is blinded," and having a blinded target is one way to achieve total concealment. Weird. However, there is a reason: a blinded target takes a -2 penalty to AC, as well as losing Dex to armor class! So either way, there's effectively a +2 to hit them. Under Dexterity, and again under AC, it says that you lose your dexterity bonus whenever you can't react to a blow. I think the assumption is that you can't dodge it if you can't see it coming. |
| Zevox03-31-06, 03:27 PM | Tezca vs Donak (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8822731&postcount=462) is up. An archery duel between an Elf archer with lightning reflexes and a Were-Leopard with the eyes of a Hawk. Hope theres no major problems! Zevox |
| Usurpator03-31-06, 03:28 PM | @My gladiators: Tactics received for the FFA, will run it saturday/sunday. @Dsugui: Just sent you Solon's tactics for his FFA. |
| TheMagister03-31-06, 03:38 PM | And it also says "this bonus doesn't apply if the target is blinded," and having a blinded target is one way to achieve total concealment. Weird. However, there is a reason: a blinded target takes a -2 penalty to AC, as well as losing Dex to armor class! So either way, there's effectively a +2 to hit them. Under Dexterity, and again under AC, it says that you lose your dexterity bonus whenever you can't react to a blow. I think the assumption is that you can't dodge it if you can't see it coming. Right. The problem is that Shaz is outside the AoE of the blacklight spell. This results in the interesting situation of Shaz not being able to see TWH, but knowing (generally) where he is. So, TWH is totally concealed, but not invisible. I'm saying that there is no effective difference between being totally concealed (by magical darkness) and being invisible, since they both amount to the same thing. Consider this: -A character under the effect of greater invisibility that fires an arrow has the arrow become invisible as soon as it leaves his bow, and gets a +2 to his attack roll to hit a target that can see the arrow the whole way. -A caster of a BLACKLIGHT spell fires an arrow which becomes visible to a person outside the AoE of the spell (20' away! Even closer to the target than an arrow fired by an invisible person!), yet the person can somehow react faster to it, and negate the +2 bonus to hit. It doesn't make any sense, practically or game mechanically. (I'd like to take this moment to say that arrows travel really, really fast. I don't think that a person could dodge one at ALL unless he actually saw the action of the person working the bow, and even then, I'd acclaim him as a "bad mofo" for doing so.) TM |
| Mal-203-31-06, 03:41 PM | Tezca vs Donak (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8822731&postcount=462) is up. An archery duel between an Elf archer with lightning reflexes and a Were-Leopard with the eyes of a Hawk. Hope theres no major problems! Zevox Looks okay to me. I think you missed writing the damage roll for Tezca's bite attack on Round 18 (which looks like it must have done 7 damage?) before the grapple, but that's pretty minor. I don't think I could have done anything differently to really increase my chances against the were-leopard. He's got a better AC than me, a better ranged to-hit, and does more damage up close too. I suppose I should get around to buying that flying mount I've got my eye on, which would have dragged things out a bit longer, and given me more chances to get lucky. |
| Usurpator03-31-06, 04:01 PM | Tezca vs Donak (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8822731&postcount=462) is up. An archery duel between an Elf archer with lightning reflexes and a Were-Leopard with the eyes of a Hawk. Hope theres no major problems! Zevox Thanks for running it Zevox. Sure, I am glad with the win, especially since I didn't expect Donak to do little but skulk in his corner. He should be glad Tezca went out to search for him, so we avoided trouble with the delay rule. I was also lucky that the first shot didn't force Tezca into animal form already. The Force Screen tactics at that time worked perfectly though, I had maximum benefit from it. I really liked that it was largely an archery duel, and I am glad that +15 to hit with the longbow counted for something. We know now who the superior archer is. :) Yeah, AC 34 is crazy, but without it he would be quite a pincushion. Minor issues: Silver arrows have -1 on damage, so Donak's damage is slightly less. You mistakenly record Tezca's hp at the end as 29 while it should be 19 EDIT: scratch that! Forgot about the rage, good job!) |
| Dracazar03-31-06, 04:06 PM | Revsion #2 Quesis (Dracazar) vs Cornalius (StoneTree): Funnymanmike [ECL3] (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8810837&postcount=456) is up Pitlord Errors Original: Mount moved too far Revison #1: forgot to give Cornalius ride check to drop for cover (+4 ac) Revsion #2: current version, everything fixed Notes on revsion rolls - if an action no longer takes place in the same round as the dice rolled, that dice roll is invalid - if an action still takes place in that round, i will keep the original roll. @players, thank you for having the paitience in dealing with a new pitlord. if their are any issues with revison #2 please PM me and i will get them taken care of. Some comments about Quesis (Dracazar) vs Cornalius (StoneTree): Funnymanmike [ECL3] Read some of these as hints to improve your pitlording. 1) List actions in Initiative order. Cornelius got 22, Quesis 19, you should write the action of Cornelius before Quesis. It is very hard to read in inverse order. 2) Cornelius occupies the same space of Cinderhoof and is large size, not medium size http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Corn,M,1,-22,Cornelius;b=Cind,L,0,-22,Cinderhoof 3) Quesis' attack in round 3 IS a critical because after the charge attack Cornelius' AC is lowered by 2 The attack will kill Cornelius and change the fight result It would be fine if you could correct. |
| Mal-203-31-06, 04:12 PM | Silver arrows have -1 on damage, so Donak's damage is slightly less. I didn't check all of them, but on the damage rolls I spot checked, he did include it. For instance, on Donak's first attack he hit for "[3]+4+[3](electric)+[4]+[2]=16." His normal damage would be 1d8 (bow) + 4 (strength) + 1d6 (electric) + 2d6 (psionic shot) + 1 (enhancement). So it looks like the +1 enhancement from the bow and -1 from silver were cancelled out. |
| Dracazar03-31-06, 04:32 PM | Some more rounds of Shaz vs. TWH have been posted. They have still to hit each other, crazy paladins! I would like to thank you for your pitlording, I like very much your comments I'm a bit sorry that the fight is going very long and this steals your time. If The Magister agrees, you could use all the arrows of Shaz (30) and White-Hand (26) with fast rolls If nobody dies the fight proceeds with melee While firing remember that Shaz fires at -0, -1 and -2 and then lose a round to stabilize Also Shaz lose another round when Vigor goes off and he need to rebuff and lose another round if he got 12 or more wounds to use Lay on Hands About Invisibility and Total-Concealment I can only say that I rule that they are different things in my table top games. |
| funnymanmike03-31-06, 04:40 PM | 1) List actions in Initiative order. Cornelius got 22, Quesis 19, you should write the action of Cornelius before Quesis. It is very hard to read in inverse order. will roll initiave in the future before replacing play & cha, 2) Cornelius occupies the same space of Cinderhoof and is large size, not medium size will run mounted combat in the future to show that. 3) Quesis' attack in round 3 IS a critical because after the charge attack Cornelius' AC is lowered by 2 The attack will kill Cornelius and change the fight result It would be fine if you could correct. corrected, revison #3 is up |
| MindWandererB03-31-06, 05:05 PM | Sola Nicous (Erithmu) vs Alagar, Brother of Angosh (King Uther) is up. It was a pretty intense battle--mostly against the horse. Iazar the Swift apparently tried to win the fight all by himself, and did a credible job for a while. |
| StoneTree03-31-06, 05:42 PM | corrected, revison #3 is up Win/lose/win... argh! Have mercy on my frail, waif-like constitution and pick one! In related news, why is there a strikeout through my match in the character's thread? |
| Argaud03-31-06, 06:04 PM | It doesn't make any sense, practically or game mechanically. (I'd like to take this moment to say that arrows travel really, really fast. I don't think that a person could dodge one at ALL unless he actually saw the action of the person working the bow, and even then, I'd acclaim him as a "bad mofo" for doing so.) TM You are right, that would be logical. But this is D&D, and D&D is not a logical game. In absence of a rule in some official book or FAQ saying that total concealment gives the same benefits than the invisibility spell, I am not going to give to total concealment the same benefits the invisibility spell. Blame this illogic to the magic of invisibility, or something :-) |
| CaptainStrong03-31-06, 06:41 PM | It's been a few hours, and I haven't recieved any PMs for people willing to pick up my fight. Sending the tactics to pitlords and lettimg them deal with it from there. EDIT: Sending tactics to Erithmu. Haven't recieved one set, yet. Also, here are Dementia's tactics, becuase Huan's inbox is full. This is going to be a tough fight - spellcasters are always tough to fight. Plus I'm sick, so my tactics will be short. I'm expecting to be entangled pretty early on. As a result, I'm going to start at the back of whatever box I'm in, with my three skeletons to my left, right, and front. My left hand will have my shield. As my first action, I'm going to cast Produce flame, and subsequently ready an action to throw it when I first see/pinpoint Alana. My skeletons are ordered to move as fast as they can away from me (in a group), and to seek out Alana or her wolf. They are to attack either upon finding them. Once my ten rounds are up, I will be moving to join up with my skeletons, and readying an action to throw my flame should I see the enemy. If my HP drops below 12, disengage and cast CLW. Extrapolate if you need to, but don't use my scroll of Sp. Weapon. Thanks. |
| Vathelokai03-31-06, 08:06 PM | In related news, why is there a strikeout through my match in the character's thread? It means that your fight has been posted. It is just a reminder from pitlords to pitlords. Note: since the fight outcome was changed after the strikethrough was made, the pitlord of the fight needs to send a PM to Pitlords explaining the changes. |
| funnymanmike03-31-06, 08:46 PM | It means that your fight has been posted. It is just a reminder from pitlords to pitlords. Note: since the fight outcome was changed after the strikethrough was made, the pitlord of the fight needs to send a PM to Pitlords explaining the changes. opps, changes sent. |
| TheMagister03-31-06, 09:02 PM | You are right, that would be logical. But this is D&D, and D&D is not a logical game. In absence of a rule in some official book or FAQ saying that total concealment gives the same benefits than the invisibility spell, I am not going to give to total concealment the same benefits the invisibility spell. Blame this illogic to the magic of invisibility, or something :-) All right, then. I don't really enjoy "discussions" like this, but I do believe we're here to learn. Truth be told, I was kind've hoping for someone to jump in and voice an opinion one way or the other. Oh, well. Pitlord on, Argaud! TM |
| NiQil03-31-06, 10:45 PM | All right, then. I don't really enjoy "discussions" like this, but I do believe we're here to learn. Truth be told, I was kind've hoping for someone to jump in and voice an opinion one way or the other. Oh, well. Pitlord on, Argaud! TM Since you asked.... I agree with Argaud's assessment. You can be totally concealed without being invisible. Once does not equal the other. The effects might be similar, but they are different. You could even be totally concealed and then become invisible. They are two different "status'", so to speak. |
| Erithmu03-31-06, 11:18 PM | Sola Nicous (Erithmu) vs Alagar, Brother of Angosh (King Uther) is up. It was a pretty intense battle--mostly against the horse. Iazar the Swift apparently tried to win the fight all by himself, and did a credible job for a while. Ouch ..... Just a side note Mindwanderer .. Pearls do not have to be held to activate them, doesn't change the fight any but just for your knowledge. |
| Zevox03-31-06, 11:18 PM | @ Usurpator - Mal-2 is correct, I factored the reduced damage for the one silver arrow hit in just by reducing the bonus I put in for his strength and enhancement. I just forgot to mention that in the damage breakdown when I posted the link - sorry about that. Zevox |
| MysticMonk200504-01-06, 03:32 AM | @Gonbow&NiQil: Tactics recieved, I plan on running the fight sat. night hopefully. @Gonbow: Tactics (finaly) sent for Lissa. Sorry about the delay. |
| Argaud04-01-06, 07:39 AM | The neverending battle between Shaz and TWH continues here. If I have made any mistakes I rather know now, 'cause I am veeeery tired of that fight :-) |
| Dracazar04-01-06, 08:03 AM | The neverending battle between Shaz and TWH continues here. If I have made any mistakes I rather know now, 'cause I am veeeery tired of that fight :-) It seems ok at first glance even if I don't see this quite complex combo Invisibility +SpiderClimb +TrueStrike +Disarm in his tactic. Edit: Walls does not give penalties to listen check because It applies only to closed walls If the bow is on the ground Shaz could take it again, otherwise the only chance is melee (Vigor as soon as needed and Body Fuel when out of PP) |
| Argaud04-01-06, 09:17 AM | It seems ok at first glance even if I don't see this quite complex combo Invisibility +SpiderClimb +TrueStrike +Disarm in his tactic. Edit: Walls does not give penalties to listen check because It applies only to closed walls If the bow is on the ground Shaz could take it again, otherwise the only chance is melee (Vigor as soon as needed and Body Fuel when out of PP) It is improvisation since his tactic was obviously getting him killed. And TWH is not a stupid orc. I hate when a pitlord plays a smart character as an idiot by keeping him using a clearly suicidal tactic. For instance, at the start of the battle I had Shaz going total defense when TWH had total concealment because in your tactics you specified not to shot if he had cover. Technically, and playing Shaz like a moron, I should have him wasting arrows (and getting himself hit) because TWH had concealment, and no cover. That would be going by the letter of your tactics, yet completely violating its spirit. You didn’t specified using total defense either, but it was also a logical tactic, particularly considering how good is Shaz using total defense (I bet you put those skill points there thinking in situations like that!). Nevertheless, Shaz is still having the advantage thanks to his near infinite hps (and TWH has just 3 arrows left). You outmaneuvered him neatly denying TWH’s sneak attack with levitation (and then having superior AC and a better bow). As for the walls, well, the PHB doesn’t seem to differentiate between ‘closed’ or ‘open’ walls. I agree that logically it would be easier to hear someone behind and wall when the sound can transmit by going around the wall when the wall ends 5’ away (or even 30’ away, considering most walls in D&D are 5’ thick!) but... it is not in the rules :-( |
| TheMagister04-01-06, 10:04 AM | Wow. Well, uh...ok! Thanks for not playing him like a moron (although I must say that's much more than I expected!). I'd be tired of the fight, too. TM |
| Erithmu04-01-06, 11:27 AM | I have all the tactics for Raw vs Istma from Cpt. Strong ... I'll run the fight sometime this weekend. |
| Dracazar04-01-06, 11:42 AM | @Argaud: Totally agree with "I hate when a pitlord plays a smart character as an idiot by keeping him using a clearly suicidal tactic", but It is easy to see that you did a bit more than expected. And Shaz did even a INT check for a simple defense, and TWH did the 3 spell combo + 1 special attack in easy way. For the wall you can't apply the +15 modifier in open area, it is written somewhere but I have nothing at this time. However even if I'm pointing these things I'm 100% ok with you, your pitlording, the fight and the world :D |
| StoneTree04-01-06, 11:47 AM | THIS (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8822293&postcount=461) has been up for a bit now... KazzzAHM vs. Tuedor. The other fight goes on. Are fights that long normal arround here? A pair of bad archers plinking away at each other? |
| DSugui04-01-06, 11:56 AM | War (NiQil) vs. Finrod Felagund (Lonewolf) is up HERE As always, the lucky one wins. Please check for errors. Comments and constructive feedback are appreciated. |
| lonewolf04-01-06, 12:23 PM | War (NiQil) vs. Finrod Felagund (Lonewolf) is up HERE As always, the lucky one wins. Please check for errors. Comments and constructive feedback are appreciated. I gotta rename him Finrod the unlucky. :surrender |
| Argaud04-01-06, 02:08 PM | YOU thought it would never end. I THOUGHT it would never end!!! But it does end here! After 47 rounds of fighting, clever tricks, daring maneuvers and a bazillion dice rolls Shaz Greatheart vs. the White Hand has been completed! |
| DSugui04-01-06, 02:25 PM | I gotta rename him Finrod the unlucky. :surrender Hey, we can start the Clan of the Unlucky. I already have Valek... |
| Turin04-01-06, 03:38 PM | Evaine Dreamseeker (Ariel23) vs Korinel (Argaud) is up. I'm pretty confident there aren't any outcome-affecting errors. This fight was a lot closer than I think either gladiator thought it would be! |
| TheMagister04-01-06, 03:39 PM | YOU thought it would never end. I THOUGHT it would never end!!! But it does end here! After 47 rounds of fighting, clever tricks, daring maneuvers and a bazillion dice rolls Shaz Greatheart vs. the White Hand has been completed! I think I'm gonna retire him (TWH). He's just not viable. Thanks for the run. It was a very good job, I have to add. I'm glad you didn't play TWH like a moron, and appreciate that you stuck to your guns about that decision. Most fights aren't that drawn out (if Shaz had come down and fought like a MAN he would've been lucky to last TWENTY rounds! You'll rue the day, Greatheart!). You're a trooper for sticking with it. Good job! TM |
| Erithmu04-01-06, 04:30 PM | Question for the masses: When using the forgery skill can you make an ally effectively CR 0? While the rules do not state that you cannot do it... you would think that there would be some rule. This has no effect on my fight but rather the rewards that I haven't gotten to. Does the CR go to 1/2? I plan on running the fight and giving the rewards as a CR 0 ally but I would be interested in opinions. |
| Zevox04-01-06, 04:38 PM | Question for the masses: When using the forgery skill can you make an ally effectively CR 0? While the rules do not state that you cannot do it... you would think that there would be some rule. This has no effect on my fight but rather the rewards that I haven't gotten to. Does the CR go to 1/2? I plan on running the fight and giving the rewards as a CR 0 ally but I would be interested in opinions. Well I may be considered rather biased here since its my gladiator in question, I thought I'd chime in. As the skill is written, that would be the way it works. It says that you can decrease the CR/ECL of one ally by -1 per 5 forgery value you have, and that the result of this is that you can either bring in more allies, more powerful allies, or take less penalties for bringing them in. Ergo if you have a +5 Forgery and a CR 2 ally, you can reduce it CR 1 to bring it in when you normally could not, or if you have that same +5 and a CR 1 ally it is reduced to CR 0, so it is brought in for free. If it were meant to be otherwise, something would be mentioned in the skill description that reducing an ally to CR 0 was an exception, no? Zevox |
| Erithmu04-01-06, 04:58 PM | Well I may be considered rather biased here since its my gladiator in question, I thought I'd chime in. As the skill is written, that would be the way it works. It says that you can decrease the CR/ECL of one ally by -1 per 5 forgery value you have, and that the result of this is that you can either bring in more allies, more powerful allies, or take less penalties for bringing them in. Ergo if you have a +5 Forgery and a CR 2 ally, you can reduce it CR 1 to bring it in when you normally could not, or if you have that same +5 and a CR 1 ally it is reduced to CR 0, so it is brought in for free. If it were meant to be otherwise, something would be mentioned in the skill description that reducing an ally to CR 0 was an exception, no? Zevox In fairness this is the first time I have seen this tried, and since the rules are recent they may not have had this in mind when writing them. I fully intend to allow you to take it this week, but it is more for future battles. Since it is a house rule it is more of a RAI question. |
| Zevox04-01-06, 05:26 PM | In fairness this is the first time I have seen this tried, and since the rules are recent they may not have had this in mind when writing them. I fully intend to allow you to take it this week, but it is more for future battles. Since it is a house rule it is more of a RAI question. Well technically forgery has been used before (see Elzar the Amiable (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8367309)), though you're correct that its never been used to reduce an ally to CR 0 before. Personally I do think this is within the intention of the rule, since a reduction in penalties is specifically mentioned as being one of the purposes of it. Perhaps we could get Cat to chime in to know for sure? Zevox |
| Argaud04-01-06, 05:33 PM | @Turin A few concerns... well, actually quite a few of them. For what I see instead of hiding and ambushing Evaine, Korinel ran towards her. That is not really in my tactics. Actually it is pretty much against my tactics to make this a ranged fight. You see, since Evaine never activate Skate (and it wasn’t even part of her tactics!) Korinel was faster at all times. Even with both entangled, he is faster (27’ to 15’). So keeping distance and making the battle a ranged duel was easy, and would likely have lead to a victory for Korinel. Quoting my tactics: ‘Basic plan: try to make this a ranged duel.’ Frankly, I knew melee was suicide (only 2 lucky critical hits made by Korinel made it a close fight) and wanted to avoid it until there was no other option. Minor concerns: Round 4: The crawling tattoo is tiny, so it provokes an AoO when it attacks, and Korinel is armed with armor spikes. He can’t cause 15 hp to the tattoo unless he manages a critical hit, but it is worth noting. Round 6: I don’t understand the movement this round (the map is exactly the same than in round 5). Korinel withdrew and yet did it so badly Evaine was able to charge him? Why such a dumb move when there was cover? And then, instead of using his superior speed to fight at range (basic tactic) he went into melee :( Round 11 Weird move here: ‘Evaine takes a 5’step back and draws her sword, attacking and hitting for 26 damage!’ But if she steps back 5’ she is no longer in melee range and can’t attack. So... hmmm. Can you review that fight, please? |
| Erithmu04-01-06, 05:51 PM | Raw vs Istima Liberal use of the fastforward button used. |
| Zevox04-01-06, 06:23 PM | Raw vs Istima Liberal use of the fastforward button used. Perfectly understandable - that would've been a pain to pitlord the whole way through. No apparent errors either tactically or numerically, and things went pretty much as I planned - I'd call that a good fight for Istima. Thanks a lot for running it! Zevox |
| Dracazar04-01-06, 06:23 PM | YOU thought it would never end. I THOUGHT it would never end!!! But it does end here! After 47 rounds of fighting, clever tricks, daring maneuvers and a bazillion dice rolls Shaz Greatheart vs. the White Hand has been completed! I think firmly that this fight should be rewarded with extra credit for the great good job. I'll send a PM to Pitlords, thanks Argaud, it was really nice to read, even if Shaz would have losed :) . I think I'm gonna retire him (TWH). He's just not viable. Most fights aren't that drawn out (if Shaz had come down and fought like a MAN he would've been lucky to last TWENTY rounds! You'll rue the day, Greatheart!). You're a trooper for sticking with it. The Way of the Light! Dear Pavilon! Shaz would came down if TWH would have fight honestly without feinting :D Edit: Perhaps reward should be fixed, it is 1800 xp and 2000 gp instead of 2000 for both (same for TWH). Also you could add the 13% tax to CEF for Shaz. |
| Vathelokai04-01-06, 06:51 PM | Loquan Dar'ath vs unknown kobald is up. I love the quick and to the point fights. |
| Argaud04-01-06, 07:05 PM | Perhaps reward should be fixed, it is 1800 xp and 2000 gp instead of 2000 for both (same for TWH). Also you could add the 13% tax to CEF for Shaz. You are right. It is done, I think. Someone please check the numbers. And... hmm, is WTH part of any guild? |
| Abyssal Stalker04-02-06, 04:42 AM | Gaston has fought (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8828947&postcount=466) Perius. Please check for errors, since psionics aren't my speciality... |
| Ravashack04-02-06, 06:49 AM | Gaston has fought (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8828947&postcount=466) Perius. Please check for errors, since psionics aren't my speciality... I don't see anything wrong at first glance. Nice run. :) |
| Abyssal Stalker04-02-06, 07:15 AM | Yeah, it was quite straightforward. |
| Turin04-02-06, 10:25 AM | For what I see instead of hiding and ambushing Evaine, Korinel ran towards her. That is not really in my tactics. Actually it is pretty much against my tactics to make this a ranged fight.Your tactics specifically say "Once she is spotted, activate skate. Then try to ambush her with a tanglefoot bag. If she is hit, move to optimal bow range." You've both spotted each other at this point, so ambushing is pointless. You need to close within 50' at worst to hit her with the tanglefoot bag, but I decided to move you to a more optimal range (particularly as she's ducking around cover to avoid your attack while she buffs) for the tanglefoot bag and then move away. Note that if you'd merely ducked around the pillar to throw the tanglefoot bag, you would have missed and this fight would be over even more quickly. The problem you ran into as it was ran was that she entangled you as well. You see, since Evaine never activate Skate (and it wasn’t even part of her tactics!) Korinel was faster at all times. Even with both entangled, he is faster (27’ to 15’). So keeping distance and making the battle a ranged duel was easy, and would likely have lead to a victory for Korinel.Except that this extra 10' of movement per round wasn't enough to get away from Evaine and actually make it a ranged duel... if you took only a single move in order to shoot, she could charge you. You could simply run away entirely until the entanglement wore off... but by the time entanglement wore off, so would your skate power, even if you'd managed to avoid her long enough to avoid melee. Addressing the rest: Round 4: The crawling tattoo is tiny, so it provokes an AoO when it attacks, and Korinel is armed with armor spikes. He can’t cause 15 hp to the tattoo unless he manages a critical hit, but it is worth noting.You're right, I forgot about the AoO, but you can't critical a construct, so it doesn't matter in the end. Round 6: I don’t understand the movement this round (the map is exactly the same than in round 5). Korinel withdrew and yet did it so badly Evaine was able to charge him? Why such a dumb move when there was cover? And then, instead of using his superior speed to fight at range (basic tactic) he went into melee :(Some kind of copy-paste error caused me to screw up the map (maybe I forgot to reset the CoCo map or something). I'll look into this... but there's not really anywhere you can go to prevent her from charging you unless you forgoe an arrow shot (as I describe above). You go into melee in Round 7, not 6. But you prepare for melee in Round 6 (by activating your tattoo) because you can't get out of charge range without giving up your action entirely, which brings us back to my first point. Round 11 Weird move here: ‘Evaine takes a 5’step back and draws her sword, attacking and hitting for 26 damage!’ But if she steps back 5’ she is no longer in melee range and can’t attack.Copy-and-paste error from the previous round when she still had her guisarme, sorry. I'll fix that. I understand that the decision not to flee combat (which is essentially what you're asking me to do) was counter to your explicit tactics, but I feel it was a correct judgement call based on the understanding that you had to use your speed advantage to make it a ranged fight before the skate power ran out. I'll make the edit for the other issues involved when I can, but I don't think a re-run is warranted for the tactical issue. |
| Argaud04-02-06, 10:49 AM | Your tactics specifically say "Once she is spotted, activate skate. Then try to ambush her with a tanglefoot bag. If she is hit, move to optimal bow range." You've both spotted each other at this point, so ambushing is pointless. You need to close within 50' at worst to hit her with the tanglefoot bag, but I decided to move you to a more optimal range (particularly as she's ducking around cover to avoid your attack while she buffs) for the tanglefoot bag and then move away. Fair enough. Mind you, Korinel can hide and sneak very well, so the original tactis were still perfectly valid, but interrupting her buffing is also a good thing, so I am okay with this. Except that this extra 10' of movement per round wasn't enough to get away from Evaine and actually make it a ranged duel... if you took only a single move in order to shoot, she could charge you. You could simply run away entirely until the entanglement wore off... but by the time entanglement wore off, so would your skate power, even if you'd managed to avoid her long enough to avoid melee. 10' extra move is perfectly fine to make a battle a ranged fight. All Korinel needs to do is move/move one round and then shot/move the next one. Normal archer tactics. Addressing the rest: You're right, I forgot about the AoO, but you can't critical a construct, so it doesn't matter in the end. Damn constructs. You are quite right here. Some kind of copy-paste error caused me to screw up the map (maybe I forgot to reset the CoCo map or something). I'll look into this... but there's not really anywhere you can go to prevent her from charging you unless you forgoe an arrow shot (as I describe above). You go into melee in Round 7, not 6. But you prepare for melee in Round 6 (by activating your tattoo) because you can't get out of charge range without giving up your action entirely, which brings us back to my first point. As I said to make a fight a ranged duel, it is perfectly fine to alternate double moves with shot/moves each round. The basic arena is full of obstacles (rocks, columns, walls) that make very easy to prevent enemies from charging or even basing-by-running. I understand that the decision not to flee combat (which is essentially what you're asking me to do) was counter to your explicit tactics, but I feel it was a correct judgement call based on the understanding that you had to use your speed advantage to make it a ranged fight before the skate power ran out. I'll make the edit for the other issues involved when I can, but I don't think a re-run is warranted for the tactical issue. Even without Skate Korinel is faster (unless Evaine activates her own Skate, which is not in her tactics - but you, as Pitlord, can decide she does... if her original tactics fail). Meleeing with her was very dangerous and I wanted to avoid it as long as possible. It is near miraculous that Korinel came within an inch of winning considering how hard Evaine hits with Dissolving Weapon. Your judgment call to ignore my tactics set up my character in a disadvantageous fight when sticking to my tactics would have meant an advantageous fight. So I feel I am within right to ask for a rerun (after round 6 or so, when the tactics got changed, not from the start). |
| Turin04-02-06, 11:09 AM | Even without Skate Korinel is faster (unless Evaine activates her own Skate, which is not in her tactics - but you, as Pitlord, can decide she does... if her original tactics fail). Meleeing with her was very dangerous and I wanted to avoid it as long as possible. It is near miraculous that Korinel came within an inch of winning considering how hard Evaine hits with Dissolving Weapon. Your judgment call to ignore my tactics set up my character in a disadvantageous fight when sticking to my tactics would have meant an advantageous fight. So I feel I am within right to ask for a rerun (after round 6 or so, when the tactics got changed, not from the start).<shrug> Alright, I'll buy your argument. I can probably post up an edit around noon EST tomorrow... I've got another fight to run as well between now and then, but I suspect that one is going to be pretty quick. |
| Ariel2304-02-06, 02:40 PM | I obviously had no need to post, but if there's going to be an edit, here are my comments: Korinel's move is 40+15 = 55' /2 = 25' or 30' (if you round up) If it becomes necessary, Evaine will Skate (this is in the tactics) 30' + 15' = 45' /2 =20' or 25' (if you round up). Korinel Movex2 + Move/Shoot = 75' + shoot (or 90' + shoot rounding up) Evaine Movex2 + Movex2 = 80' (or 100' rounding up). Either Korinel would provoke an AoO to shoot, or would provoke an AoO to withdraw. I.e., Korinel attacks every other round, and Evaine attacks every other round. Also, Evaine's tactics say to Trip if using the Guisarme against the bow. That might be a factor in moving. If my math is wrong, and Evaine can never reach him, then she would seek cover according to her tactics. She won't chase Korinel around while getting shot round after round.If for some reason Evaine can't chase, seek cover instead of chasing. Seek cover every round she can't chase. When you're editing, please fix this: Round 6 Evaine charges Korinel with her guisarme and misses! {Full} r17+5=22 hit; r5+3= 8dmg It's the same att/dam roll re-pasted from Round 7. AFAICT it's actually a charge that missed by 1. Round 8 Evaine manifests Vigor for 4 PP but only received +10 HP (should be +20). Some things to keep in mind: 1) The 19 won't crit with the bow, but the 20 will. That's a big difference. 2) Overall, there will be a large reduction in damage going from +9 to hit/2d6+7 melee damage to +7 to hit/1d8+4 ranged vs DR 3/-. That is going from a 60% hit rate at 11 damage to a 50% hit rate at 5.5 damge. I don't see that as being a winning proposition. 3) Evaine attacked with the sword but didn't put 2 PP into it for +2d6 damage. Of course that may go out in the edit, but if she ends up with another sword attack and 2 PP, it will apply. 4) As soon as Evaine's Vigor goes down, she remanifests it. If Korinel has been hit 2 times, Evaine would also drink her potion at 15 HP or less. That's at the very bottom of the tactics. I think this fight looks a lot closer than it should because of the missing 10 HP from the first Vigor and she also either had 2 PP left (+10 HP) or did +2d6 damage with the sword. |
| Argaud04-02-06, 03:18 PM | If my math is wrong, and Evaine can never reach him, then she would seek cover according to her tactics. She won't chase Korinel around while getting shot round after round. Actually you have 'Use Skate if necessary, but in general it won't be. Ranged combat is fine as long as Argaud keeps moving and can't Rapid Shot.' Which I think it is a mistake, without Evaine Skate, Korinel is faster, and he can shot her every few rounds and slowly erode away her superior hps. And in an archery duel he has a clear advantage. Some things to keep in mind: 2) Overall, there will be a large reduction in damage going from +9 to hit/2d6+7 melee damage to +7 to hit/1d8+4 ranged vs DR 3/-. That is going from a 60% hit rate at 11 damage to a 50% hit rate at 5.5 damge. I don't see that as being a winning proposition. Korinel is +11 with bow, that means a 70% hit rate, 60% if he rapid shots (which probably won't happen if Evaine is chasing him around). Yes, damage dealt with be far less, but damage received will also be far less, which is the winning proposition. Nevertheless Evaine will probably win (even in a pure archery duel she might win just because she has so many hp) she is a formidable character about to raise to the ECL6 league and I am surprised she has not a better victory record. And Korinel is weak in the ECL5 league, he will be far more powerful as an ECL6 character, with an animal companion, spells (and scrolls of ranger spells) and maybe a cohort. But the ECL5 league is going to be painful :-) |
| Ariel2304-03-06, 12:57 AM | Korinel is +11 with bow, that means a 70% hit rate, 60% if he rapid shots (which probably won't happen if Evaine is chasing him around). I was factoring in Entangle: -2 attack and -4 DEX for the bow; the sword is only at -2 which can be countered with Rage. I appreciate you noticing her W/L record is so poor. I've noticed that myself. But, 5 of her 6 (non FFA) losses were to expanding/enlarging grapplers/chain-wielders. I will probably retire her once I can make it to ECL 7 or whatever it takes to be enshrined. And make an expanding chain wielding grappler. :) |
| MindWandererB04-03-06, 01:06 AM | I will probably retire her once I can make it to ECL 7 or whatever it takes to be enshrined. And make an expanding chain wielding grappler. :)You don't have to follow the popular character archetypes if you don't want to. There are other ways to win--and I am personally not sure how well the expanding tripping grapplers will work past ECL 6 or so. Or you could always try a new twist on an old archetype--maybe a tripping wereape or a grappling ghoul. Or something. Buck convention! |
| SauroGrenom04-03-06, 01:50 AM | Asran vs Harvester is up here. Over as quick as it began. I suppose the lesson is that you should never give the harvester all the time it wants to buff. Ans always have access to a shield spell. |
| Zevox04-03-06, 01:57 AM | Asran vs Harvester is up here. Over as quick as it began. Yep, that went pretty much as I expected. Using the elementals to block a diving charge was a pretty slick trick - took away essentially the only real hope Asran had of winning short of incredibly kind dice. Only thing to point out is that I'm pretty sure that the falling damage doesn't bypass Asran's DR - not that it matters, since the MMs kill him anyway, but as a point of future reference. Thanks for running the fight! Edit: Oh, and the tax rate on Asran's sheet is perfectly accurate. 12% for ECL 6 -2% for two animal allies and no stable means 10% tax rate. Zevox |
| MysticMonk200504-03-06, 03:55 AM | Lortavos Vs Uilo is up. |
| Argaud04-03-06, 07:13 AM | I will probably retire her once I can make it to ECL 7 or whatever it takes to be enshrined. And make an expanding chain wielding grappler. :) Expanding chain wielding grapplers... yet another good reason to have a potion of levitation in the sleeve :-) |
| Dracazar04-03-06, 07:25 AM | Kracknol (SauroGrenom) chllg. Barthleby (Pittbull): Dracazar [Challenge] [ECL8] is up! It tooks me many hours, I hope there are no major issues |
| Pittbull04-03-06, 07:43 AM | Kracknol (SauroGrenom) chllg. Barthleby (Pittbull): Dracazar [Challenge] [ECL8] is up! It tooks me many hours, I hope there are no major issues At the first glance, I'm little confused by Barthleby's hit-points, after he has polymorphed his hit-points should be 70, due to the increase of constitution, plus the 7 temporal hit-points from divine power. If I'm right, the fight isn't over yet. EDIT: I'm sure many would moan, that you didn't withdraw and heal Barthleby. I'll accept your ruling, no problem. Man, Kracknol has got unbelievable luck! |
| Dracazar04-03-06, 07:54 AM | At the first glance, I'm little confused by Barthleby's hit-points, after he has polymorphed his hit-points should be 70, due to the increase of constitution, plus the 7 temporal hit-points from divine power. If I'm right, the fight isn't over yet. OMG, you are right, I didn't added the HP for new constitution Back to fight... http://www.lowcarbbulletinboard.com/diet/images/smilies/smile_whip.gif Edit: Fight updated |
| Turin04-03-06, 08:52 AM | Evaine Dreamseeker (Ariel23) vs Korinel (Argaud): Turin [ECL5] has been edited... <whew!> That was a lot of work. At this point I'm going to have the gladiators to be happy with the results even if they see a problem, as I'm not going to be able to do another edit if I want to finish my other fight. I think you both should be reasonably happy with the results, however. |
| Argaud04-03-06, 09:06 AM | [post=8830874]Pitlord (edit): because I can already hear the complaint, yes Korinel provokes an AoO here. You can’t draw a weapon and take a 5’ step at the same time, and taking 5’ of movement within a threatened area provokes AoO if it is a normal move and not a 5’ step. Hear my complain: Korinel has the feat Quickdraw, he can draw a weapon as a free action... but it doesn't matter, since the AoO missed :-) Othewise the fight happened as I expected. Korinel superior archery wasn't enough to take Evaine's hp down enough before she cornered him. But many thanks for the edit, I had to try. |
| Zevox04-03-06, 09:15 AM | Hear my complain: Korinel has the feat Quickdraw, he can draw a weapon as a free action... but it doesn't matter, since the AoO missed :-) Actually, even the fact that he has quickdraw doesn't matter - drawing a weapon never provokes AoOs (draw non-weapon-like items does, but not weapons or weapon-like items). Zevox |
| SauroGrenom04-03-06, 09:59 AM | Kracknol (SauroGrenom) chllg. Barthleby (Pittbull): Dracazar [Challenge] [ECL8] is up! It tooks me many hours, I hope there are no major issues First I'm a bit miffed that Barthleby doesn't fall from the sky in round 13. I know he has the fly spell active and it grants protection vs falling due to dispelling. That is a very specific protection, and only should be invoked if it's conditions are met. It (and Hover) does not prevent a person from falling due to any cause. I think he should fall at this time. If he wanted the feather fall ability he should have cast that spell. The trample causes its victim to "Fall Prone". I don't know how to be more clear about it. If you look in the fly rules you'll see a section about falling and saving yourself if falling. Check it out, I think those rules should be used here. I disagree with your rulling. Also it won't change anything, but I asked that Padparadscha should use mounted combat to negate hits on Raknital. He can do that even on the AoO granted by Trample. I noticed that Kracknol is not using his extra move actions to regain focus. He should do that in round 15. If he is able to regain focus, then he'll expend it on his next attack (That misses). He'd also use his extra 2pp to charge up his flail with deep crystal damage that will go off on his hit in round 17. Also both of Kracknol's hits are on natural 20's The crit confirm should be rolled. I know there is only about a 10% chance that one of them will hit, but he may be able to confirm one of those crits and end the fight in his favor with the extra damage. Raknital roled a crit or two as well. Those crit confirm rolls should be made as well. If any of those crit confirm's hit, there is a decent chance of ending the fight earlier. |
| Pittbull04-03-06, 10:14 AM | First I'm a bit miffed that Barthleby doesn't fall from the sky in round 13. I know he has the fly spell active and it grants protection vs falling due to dispelling. That is a very specific protection, and only should be invoked if it's conditions are met. It (and Hover) does not prevent a person from falling due to any cause. I think he should fall at this time. If he wanted the feather fall ability he should have cast that spell. The trample causes its victim to "Fall Prone". I don't know how to be more clear about it. If you look in the fly rules you'll see a section about falling and saving yourself if falling. Check it out, I think those rules should be used here. I disagree with your rulling. Also it won't change anything, but I asked that Padparadscha should use mounted combat to negate hits on Raknital. He can do that even on the AoO granted by Trample. I noticed that Kracknol is not using his extra move actions to regain focus. He should do that in round 15. If he is able to regain focus, then he'll expend it on his next attack (That misses). He'd also use his extra 2pp to charge up his flail with deep crystal damage that will go off on his hit in round 17. Also both of Kracknol's hits are on natural 20's The crit confirm should be rolled. I know there is only about a 10% chance that one of them will hit, but he may be able to confirm one of those crits and end the fight in his favor with the extra damage. Raknital roled a crit or two as well. Those crit confirm rolls should be made as well. If any of those crit confirm's hit, there is a decent chance of ending the fight earlier. I'm not sure about falling during a fly-spell. If you are tripped with the spell up, you don't fall prone to the ground too. Why should overrun work? Why is a 10% chance? He hits on a 20! That's a 5% chance. These rolls should be made, of course. With his incredible luck, Kracknol's win is still possible! About boosting damage-rolls afterwards: I didn't ask for healing, after I read the fight, if Barthleby would act more clever and heal himself after the big hit, Kracknol's chances aren't very high for a win. I will accept Dracazar's ruling on this. |
| Dracazar04-03-06, 10:32 AM | @SauroGrenom about Fly: I'm sorry that you disagree with my rulling about the fly spell. In the past I had a very long discussion (on another board) about this issue, we endend (after really long thread) ruling that fly spell prevent you to fall down. I would have followed what you say if Barthleby was flyig as Avoral and not by magic. I'll change my ruling if Elders tell me to do so. about Padparadscha and Mounted Combat: You are right, I should have added the +4 AC to the griffon after the ride check (quite sure it is a success) about Kracknol and Regain Focus: I agree for round 15, because you have a move action not used I don't agree for round 17 because you did a full attack about Critical Hit confirmation: Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on the attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat, a possible critical hit (see the Critical Hits sidebar) When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target’s Armor Class, and you have scored a threat. The hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it’s a critical hit, you immediately make a critical roll another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the critical roll also results in a hit against the target’s AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit. It doesn’t need to come up 20 again.) If the critical roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit The issue is that even with 20 you don't hit his AC so I thought that you could never confirm, perhaps I'm wrong. I thought so because I read "If the critical roll also results in a hit against the target’s AC"... I'll roll these rolls, in the meantime it would be nice another voice on this rule. Edit: 4 Critical Confirmation (Crit only with natural 20 due to high AC) rolled, the higher was a 18 |
| SauroGrenom04-03-06, 10:48 AM | I'm not sure about falling during a fly-spell. If you are tripped with the spell up, you don't fall prone to the ground too. Why should overrun work? The feather falling like effect only engages if your spell ends. Why should it engage at any other time? You cannot be tripped because fly gives supernatural flight and you do not need support from your wings anymore. The way trip works is to deny you your support and you fall. With trample you are being knocked down by a 500 pound creature. Support is not the issue. Dracazar agrees that you are forced out of your square into something lower. He also makes the leap that you should get a featherfall effect to protect you from further falling. I dissagre. Why is a 10% chance? He hits on a 20! That's a 5% chance. These rolls should be made, of course. With his incredible luck, Kracknol's win is still possible! Well it's a 5% chance each time roll. When I looked I saw 4 crits that hit but were not rolled for confirmations (2 for kracknol and 2 for Raknital). Each has a 5% chance of confirming, so the chance that all miss is (.95)^x where x is the number of times a crit was rolled. If there are 4 crits there is only 81.5% chance that all will fail to confirm. If there are 2 crits it is about a 10% chance atleast one of them will hit. Using extra move actions to gain focus and spending it on further attacks is something I asked for in my tactics. Your tactics had conflicting instructions in the heal/attack question that was happening at that moment in the fight. |
| SauroGrenom04-03-06, 10:51 AM | There were 2 crits by Raknital as well those will have the same chance to hit. |
| Dracazar04-03-06, 10:57 AM | There were 2 crits by Raknital as well those will have the same chance to hit. Yes I know, both were rolled for a total of 4 critical confirmation as you can see here (http://www.hwx.it/wizards.com/dice.php?sid=137) |
| Pittbull04-03-06, 11:04 AM | The feather falling like effect only engages if your spell ends. Why should it engage at any other time? You cannot be tripped because fly gives supernatural flight and you do not need support from your wings anymore. The way trip works is to deny you your support and you fall. With trample you are being knocked down by a 500 pound creature. Support is not the issue. Dracazar agrees that you are forced out of your square into something lower. He also makes the leap that you should get a featherfall effect to protect you from further falling. I dissagre. Sorry, I don't believe this too. You cannot knock somebody down to ground if he has a fly-spell on. You just knock somebody off his feet and, if he has no fly-spell, he falls prone to the ground. |
| barrel_master04-03-06, 11:06 AM | I've sent out tactics to Huan but I haven't seen him around recently, is this cause for concern? Should I, like, mail him 20 more times!?!?! What if I don't have time to update my dudes! AHHHH!!!! The chaos! But seriously, when do fights usually get done now? Although I know the dead line is like Tuesday are most fights in beofre then? |
| TheMagister04-03-06, 11:41 AM | Yeah, I'm feeling the same way. Poor Sdentch! Poor Telveren! TM |
| Turin04-03-06, 12:04 PM | Actually, even the fact that he has quickdraw doesn't matter - drawing a weapon never provokes AoOs (draw non-weapon-like items does, but not weapons or weapon-like items). ZevoxThe AoO wasn't from drawing the weapon, Zevox. It was from taking a move within the threatened area of an opponent without that move being a 5' step. Not having Quickdraw forces you to draw your weapon as a move action unless you combine it with "a normal move." Normally nobody notices this problem because you are taking 5' of movement into a threatened area, not out of it. But against an opponent using a reach weapon, you can't draw a weapon and then base them without provoking an AoO, unless you have Quickdraw. Gearing up to finish my remaining fight... should be a quick one no matter which gladiator wins! |
| Usurpator04-03-06, 12:23 PM | Sorry, I don't believe this too. You cannot knock somebody down to ground if he has a fly-spell on. You just knock somebody off his feet and, if he has no fly-spell, he falls prone to the ground. We have had a big argument about the Fly spell some time(s) before and the consensus was reached was that Fly spells do not require any effort (physical or mental) to keep you aloft. This has the consequence that tripping, paralyzing, putting someone to sleep or brain locking him has absolutely no effect on their flying state. So Pitbull is correct. (I don't agree with this interpretation, since the spell text states that flying requires conscious effort equal to walking, suggesting a conscious component, while the fact that flying movement is reduced by wearing armor suggests that it has a physical component, so to use the fly spell you both need to be conscious and mobile, but my personal opinion hardly matters in this case. Best thing you can do Sauro is to ask to add the ruling to the judgements.) |
| SauroGrenom04-03-06, 12:47 PM | Arrrrggg! Well that was an expensive loss. Now I need to go and argue for a limit on expendibles, scrolls especially for those who cannot craft them. See you in the Council! :rant: |
| Turin04-03-06, 01:14 PM | Drac (Dracazar) vs. Ignatius, Vicar of Bahamut (Erithmu) : Turin [ECL5] is up. As predicted, a very quick fight! I can't imagine that there could be any complaints, as both gladiators had very straightforward tactics and it really all came down to a single saving throw. If that roll had gone the other way, the fight would have flipped the other way too, I think. Enjoy. |
| Dracazar04-03-06, 01:45 PM | So Pitbull is correct. Also Dracazar was correct... :D |
| Dracazar04-03-06, 01:55 PM | Drac (Dracazar) vs. Ignatius, Vicar of Bahamut (Erithmu) : Turin [ECL5] is up. As predicted, a very quick fight! I can't imagine that there could be any complaints, as both gladiators had very straightforward tactics and it really all came down to a single saving throw. If that roll had gone the other way, the fight would have flipped the other way too, I think. Enjoy. Thank you for the run, I like your narration inside the fight. There is minor thing that change nothing but It could be useful for future reference. I would say that the foe can't use Empty Mind while stunned and unconscious even if it is an immediate action (he can't do any type of action). Last thing: use a better dice roller! :D |
| Gonbow04-03-06, 02:19 PM | We have had a big argument about the Fly spell some time(s) before and the consensus was reached was that Fly spells do not require any effort (physical or mental) to keep you aloft. This has the consequence that tripping, paralyzing, putting someone to sleep or brain locking him has absolutely no effect on their flying state. So Pitbull is correct. (I don't agree with this interpretation, since the spell text states that flying requires conscious effort equal to walking, suggesting a conscious component, while the fact that flying movement is reduced by wearing armor suggests that it has a physical component, so to use the fly spell you both need to be conscious and mobile, but my personal opinion hardly matters in this case. Best thing you can do Sauro is to ask to add the ruling to the judgements.) There is a Rules of the Game post concerning tripping on the WOTC site. It speaks on tripping a flying creature. If a creature is flying by way of Wings and does not have a perfect maneuverability score, you may trip it. If you do, it immediately falls 150 feet, then can attempt a reflex save at DC 20 to start flying again. If the creature is not flying by way of wings or has perfect maneuverability, you cannot trip it. So you cant trip someone using a fly spell, but most dragons are fair game. |
| DSugui04-03-06, 02:29 PM | Eito (funnymanmike) vs. Riana (Ariel23) vs. Solon (Usurpator) is up HERE and HERE A fight full of unexpected events ends up in a contest of luck... Comments and constructive feedback are welcome. Complaints about tactics will be listened, but I hardly will chage the fight because of them. |
| funnymanmike04-03-06, 02:39 PM | thanks for running the fight imo 10round delay in ffa is horse crap. seriously if i knew that such a messed up rule existed, round 9 buff, round 10 attack. thats not anything i have control over so that is fine however my tactics were that while i was invisbile i would go out and look for them, would that not move me close to range? beacuse i wanted to be ready as soon as one droped? not asking for the fight to be re-run or anything, accepting it as is. just curious about some of the calls as for my tactics, this is like my 4th fight so far i am trying to find better ways to list it, but seriously what else would i do as my monk, wiat for someone to drop and punch the crap out of the winner. |
| Caterane04-03-06, 02:49 PM | Sorry, I don't believe this too. You cannot knock somebody down to ground if he has a fly-spell on. You just knock somebody off his feet and, if he has no fly-spell, he falls prone to the ground. I can confirm this. The very first thread of this board "Harvester vs a Cauchemar" has such a situation and Moherajikuyx (a GM at that time) and I came to the same conclusion. |
| Turin04-03-06, 04:09 PM | Thank you for the run, I like your narration inside the fight. There is minor thing that change nothing but It could be useful for future reference. I would say that the foe can't use Empty Mind while stunned and unconscious even if it is an immediate action (he can't do any type of action). Last thing: use a better dice roller! :DHe uses Empty Mind to avoid becoming stunned and unconscious... he just fails. And, yeah, I've been in a rush the last few weeks and haven't gotten around to figuring out the new roller. Next week for sure! :D |
| Erithmu04-03-06, 07:03 PM | Drac (Dracazar) vs. Ignatius, Vicar of Bahamut (Erithmu) : Turin [ECL5] is up. As predicted, a very quick fight! I can't imagine that there could be any complaints, as both gladiators had very straightforward tactics and it really all came down to a single saving throw. If that roll had gone the other way, the fight would have flipped the other way too, I think. Enjoy. No arguements just a request to add Ignatius' guild rewards. |
| Vecnoran04-03-06, 09:00 PM | @Usurpator: I cast shield as one of my spells instead of from a scroll. I don't have any scrolls of shield. Regularly wouldn't be too big of a deal, but using it as a scroll would give me an additional spell to cast in the fight that I wouldn't regularly have. |
| Ariel2304-03-06, 10:04 PM | You don't have to follow the popular character archetypes if you don't want to. There are other ways to win--and I am personally not sure how well the expanding tripping grapplers will work past ECL 6 or so. Or you could always try a new twist on an old archetype--maybe a tripping wereape or a grappling ghoul. Or something. Buck convention!Maybe a grappling ghost? :twitch: Evaine Dreamseeker (Ariel23) vs Korinel (Argaud): Turin [ECL5] has been edited... <whew!> That was a lot of work. At this point I'm going to have the gladiators to be happy with the results even if they see a problem, as I'm not going to be able to do another edit if I want to finish my other fight. I think you both should be reasonably happy with the results, however. Well, I had planned to accept it regardless. This fight was obviously ran in earnest, and with an attention to detail. There is no fight that gets posted without some mistakes. One thing I would mention for other fights is that Cover grants +4 AC if any line from any corner of Player A to any line of any corner of Player B crosses a barrier. I would generally assume there is cover if it looks like there is cover to the naked eye. There is the button to make the LOS lines if you are using the auto-mapper every round. I think it only draws from A1 to B1, so if A1 moves to A2, you'd have to re-map it to get the little lines for A2. Generally, as a player, I look for rolls that hit (or missed) by 1-3 in ranged combat for that reason. For example, in Round 11, Evaine has cover and was hit by 3, which would have been a miss by 1 with cover. It doesn't matter, I might be wrong: I'm just giving it as an example. P.S. I'm giving myself back 3 arrows. :P |
| MindWandererB04-03-06, 11:58 PM | @Skojar and Gonbow: I see the prefight for Aerryl up, and I need to make a comment: Druid animal companions do not need a quest. They are considered "acquired by other means" (i.e. a 24-hour ritual). This has been discussed a few weeks ago. Skojar, if this is in question in your mind, please resolve it before running the fight without the bat. Fortunately, Gonbow's tactics are not affected by this. |
| Ariel2304-03-06, 11:59 PM | @DSugui: Thanks for running. [Edit: Took out some incorrect stuff here] @Ariel23: it's more a opinion of mine, but I think that fight defensively hurt you more than make you good. You could've won this fight if you attacked normally in the last rounds.(You're right about the other comments you posted.) In this case, my opponent has an AC of 18 and an attack bonus of +4. He goes from hitting me 4 in 20 times to 1 in 20 (a 75% reduction in total hits, and an overall hit chance of 5%). I go from hitting him 8 times to 4 times in 20 (a 50% reduction in total hits, and an overall hit chance of 20%). I have 4x the chance to hit him as he does me. The horse makes things more complicated, but it has similar values. I am totally a geek, but I have a spreadsheet which tells me when to FD and when not to. (Although I think in an FFA you are probably better off being defensive at first and offensive once you know you aren't finishing in last place.) Solon and his horse would have hit me numerous times if I hadn't been FD. I'm not going to add it up, because it is a limited statistical sample, but it may very well be in this fight and every fight of Riana's life the dice do not favor her...but the probabilities do. The chances of a horse critting while Riana is FD is very very small. But it happened. |
| DSugui04-04-06, 12:12 AM | @DSugui: (and funnymanmike and Usurpator) Thanks for running. There needs to be some adjustment to the rewards. Eito 300 xp base. 325 w/ally [+8.33%] (loser award) Riana 600 xp base. 650 w/ally [+8.33%] (loser award + 1 loser award) Solon 1500 xp base. 1375 w/ally [-8.33%] (winner award + 2 loser awards) These numbers need to be checked for accuracy, but that's pretty close. Is not the penalty for a ECL3 to bring a CR1 ally 25%? That's what I used... I am totally a geek, but I have a spreadsheet which tells me when to FD and when not to. (Although I think in an FFA you are probably better off being defensive at first and offensive once you know you aren't finishing in last place.) Solon and his horse would have hit me numerous times if I hadn't been FD. I'm not going to add it up, because it is a limited statistical sample, but it may very well be in this fight and every fight of Riana's life the dice do not favor her...but the probabilities do. The chances of a horse critting while Riana is FD is very very small. But it happened. Yeah, you're probably right... statistically. I agree with you in this point, but I am a little more... agressive, and I usually prefer more offensive tactics. Styles of play, I think :D |
| Zevox04-04-06, 12:22 AM | Is not the penalty for a ECL3 to bring a CR1 ally 25%? That's what I used... You are correct. What I think Ariel's thinking of is the fact that the bonus for that ally should be split up between Solan's opponents rather than each getting the full 25% bonus (while Solan takes the full penalty). Riana and Eito each get +12.5% to thier rewards because of this. Zevox |
| Gonbow04-04-06, 12:38 AM | @Skojar and Gonbow: I see the prefight for Aerryl up, and I need to make a comment: Druid animal companions do not need a quest. They are considered "acquired by other means" (i.e. a 24-hour ritual). This has been discussed a few weeks ago. Skojar, if this is in question in your mind, please resolve it before running the fight without the bat. Fortunately, Gonbow's tactics are not affected by this. Well, if that is the way it is to be handled; that is fine, but the Rules of Gladius: Allies I says something else. Class Feature Allies: Druids/Rangers receive an animal companion, Paladins receive a special mount, Wizards/Sorcerers receive a familiar, and some Prestige Classes allow for class allies. These class feature allies do not require a share of the character's xp or gold, nor do they count against the ally power limit (see below for details on maximum allies allowed). The exceptions are Planar Cohorts (for Thaumaturgs) and Thralls (for Thrallherds). Both these ally types count against your capacity of how many allies you can bring in; they do, however, not require a share of xp or gold, just like all class allies. Unless otherwise noted the character must go on a Quest to acquire a class ally. Class feature allies use the 25 pt buy to determine ability scores if they have a LA listed (planar cohort, thrall), else, if the ally has no LA (paladin mount, wizard familiar, etc) it uses the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever bonus it gets from being a class ally. The bolding is mine, of course. Now I completely understanding waving this for the ECL 3 companion, but I do personally think that you should have to MQ to switch companions; which is why I raised the point. If this isn't the case, that's fine too. |
| NiQil04-04-06, 12:55 AM | Well, if that is the way it is to be handled; that is fine, but the Rules of Gladius: Allies I says something else. The bolding is mine, of course. Now I completely understanding waving this for the ECL 3 companion, but I do personally think that you should have to MQ to switch companions; which is why I raised the point. If this isn't the case, that's fine too. This is a subject that TelinArtho and I hashed out with Cat some time back...maybe I'll add it to the Court Decisions since it seems to come up every couple of months.... The "Unless otherwise noted" portion of the allies entry that Gonbow mentioned is referring to any class ability descriptions to acquire an ally. A familiar is acquired as per the wizard class description, but a summoning and 100 gp in components. A druid or ranger animal companion is obtained by a 24-hour ritual. A paladin mount is obtained by a summoning similar to a spell. A psi-crystal is obtained by taking a feat (this is the only exception to this ally entry, since we are treating psi-crystals like familiars in this instance). Any of the aforementioned class allies can be obtained without questing or miniquesting for them. None of them incur a gp/xp penalty of any kind. They are considered class allies. If someone has one of these class allies, they are free to replace one with another as per the rules of the class entry they come from (i.e. a new ritual for a druid, or the improved familiar feat for a wizard, etc). No quest or miniquest is required....though many do them anyway purely for roleplaying purposes. |
| Skojar04-04-06, 01:21 AM | Santos v Aerryl (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8848197&postcount=483) is up. I hope it isn't too upsetting. |
| Gonbow04-04-06, 01:35 AM | Santos v Aerryl (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8848197&postcount=483) is up. I hope it isn't too upsetting. Well, my tactics were rather expecting my foe to be on foot due to rules which I was mistaken on... so being upset would be a wee bit silly ;) That said; you could have used the potion of fly, but I can understand that it is a significant chunk of change and thus something a Pitlord wouldn't want to use unless specifically told to do so, and my carte blanche to use expendables isn't very explicit. Regarding ammuntion, it has been ruled that one can pick up stones off of the gladius floor and throw them, providing infinite simple ammunition even if it doesn't do much damage; I imagine it could be used a sling easily enough. I'll have to find the fight where I saw this though, as I believe it was back when I first started in CoCo, so this may be innacurate or overturned later. However, the tanglefoot bags have a better shot at actually doing something, even with the range penalties, they could snag either the rider or the bat out of the air on a lucky hit. And they arn't exactly expensive. But the moral of the story... Write tactics earlier in the week so you have more time to do them! In any case, if nothing is changed, would you mind adding Santos' profession income and the amount of gold he earns for WAR in the rewards section of the fight for bookkeeping? 132 gold and 79,9,2 (79.92) gold, silver, copper respectively. Well, another loss for Lortavos and Santos this week. The 'os' team has met with significant setback of late. Meanwhile, Terminus-Est's fight still isn't up, so there is a good chance he could emerge victorious! It would be a pleasant turn. @MysticMonk2005, Myrrdin, Vathelokai Your hunter fight is coming to a close, with a lengthy section of rolling back and forth between two people having a hell of a time hurting each-other. Endurance match at the moment, which as we all know, is bloody well tedious to roll out ;) |
| MindWandererB04-04-06, 01:41 AM | Santos v Aerryl (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8848197&postcount=483) is up. I hope it isn't too upsetting.There is one problem that I can see: Santos' potion is Resist Energy, not Protection from Energy. I also don't know if Gonbow will accept the ending. After Force Screen runs out, Aerryl hits Santos on a roll of 16 or higher, and has to hit twice in a round to beat Deflect Arrows. A run of bad luck (okay, bad for me, good for him) could result in all the arrows being used up, and the fight having to go to melee. Also, his tactics did say to "feel free to use additional expendables as required," so the potion of Fly might be appropriate--although he would never be able to attack, since Aerryl has the option of double-moving and attacking in the same round, he could force her to take a -2 to her attack rolls for shooting and moving at the same time--and as a side effect, he could take some AoOs because of the way my own tactics were phrased. Of course, this may be a fairly advanced tactic to give him credit for. I will hold off on updating the character until Gonbow has had a chance to respond. Edit: Due to my slowness, he already did! Cool beans. |
| StoneTree04-04-06, 02:07 AM | Ba'al, Sir Alboreth, your fight is done. It was pointed out that I COMPLETELY FORGOT to give the boy force screen (When he cast it, I gave him skate for some reason... and when he cast skate, I didn't do much of anything) and that Ba'al was critted, which moved things along nicely. Next time... I do better! FIGHT! (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8828796&postcount=465) Also. I notice that Clavis "Bohemian Dragon" Farrier didn't get his full week action (Making himself more PSP!) listed in the weekly actions section. Shouldn't he? |
| Abyssal Stalker04-04-06, 02:17 AM | One thing I would mention for other fights is that Cover grants +4 AC if any line from any corner of Player A to any line of any corner of Player B crosses a barrier. I would generally assume there is cover if it looks like there is cover to the naked eye. There is the button to make the LOS lines if you are using the auto-mapper every round. I think it only draws from A1 to B1, so if A1 moves to A2, you'd have to re-map it to get the little lines for A2. I don't think this is quite right. I have understood the rule a little differently. Does A have cover from B? -Yes, if you can't draw a line from any corner of B's square to all corners of A's square so that it doesn't cross an obstacle that would give cover. -No, if you can draw a line from one (or more) corner(s) of B's square to all corners of A's square so that it doesn't cross an obstacle. -It's enough if B has LoE from even one of his square's corners to all corners of A's square. Am I being enough complicated? :) Or did I just misunderstand your explanation? Or maybe I'm just plain wrong... |
| Zevox04-04-06, 02:18 AM | Ba'al, Sir Alboreth, your fight is done. It was pointed out that I COMPLETELY FORGOT to give the boy force screen (When he cast it, I gave him skate for some reason... and when he cast skate, I didn't do much of anything) and that Ba'al was critted, which moved things along nicely. Next time... I do better! FIGHT! (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8828796&postcount=465) Nice - first crit didn't finish it, yet the Good Knight gets another to boot? At least one of my characters is getting some luck this week :cool: . Glad I could help make the fight easier on you there! And to the question in the wrap-up there, powerstones at a higher ML can be augmented so as to affect things other than duration, but at the appropriate MLs they then cost the same as a power of the next level higher (i.e. an augmented powerstone of Vigor at ML 3 costs 150 gp, just like a 2nd level power would). Alboreth's stone just happens to be an ML 2 augmented one, so it costs the same as an unaugmented ML 2 one and has the benefit of the extra hp from the augmentation :) . Also. I notice that Clavis "Bohemian Dragon" Farrier didn't get his full week action (Making himself more PSP!) listed in the weekly actions section. Shouldn't he? Looking at the roster, it looks like hes in prison, thus incapable of doing such a thing until whatever violation put him there is fixed. You'd best check the prison thread to see what needs to be fixed on him, or he'll have to sit out next week too. Zevox |
| waywreth04-04-06, 08:24 AM | The "Unless otherwise noted" portion of the allies entry that Gonbow mentioned is referring to any class ability descriptions to acquire an ally... If someone has one of these class allies, they are free to replace one with another as per the rules of the class entry they come from (i.e. a new ritual for a druid, or the improved familiar feat for a wizard, etc). No quest or miniquest is required....though many do them anyway purely for roleplaying purposes. So to become a Thrallherd, one must go on a quest (or miniquest) to get their Thrall and followers? Although the class description says the Thrall/followers just show up. If that's true, anyone want to run a MQ for Loquan (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8581507&postcount=709)? |
| Turin04-04-06, 08:47 AM | No arguements just a request to add Ignatius' guild rewards.Done! |
| Macbrea04-04-06, 08:51 AM | Is this FAQ answer not valid in CoCo? Being tripped makes you prone. Who can be tripped? Beholders? Gelatinous cubes? What effect does tripping have on these creatures? Can a prone character be tripped again? What about flying and swimming creatures? Many creatures have neither legs nor any relationship to the ground or gravity. How does tripping affect them? Anything using limbs for locomotion can be tripped. Things that don’t need limbs for locomotion can’t be tripped. You can’t trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won’t find this in the rules, but then it really doesn’t need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM’s common sense. A creature flying with wings can be “tripped,” in which case the creature stalls (see Tactical Aerial Movement on page 20 of the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide). You can’t make an incorporeal creature fall down. You also can’t trip a prone creature. Creatures can’t be tripped when they’re swimming (the water holds them up). Likewise, a burrowing creature is driving its body through a fairly solid medium that serves to hold it up. |
| SauroGrenom04-04-06, 09:31 AM | Is this FAQ answer not valid in CoCo? Being tripped makes you prone. Who can be tripped? Beholders? Gelatinous cubes? What effect does tripping have on these creatures? Can a prone character be tripped again? What about flying and swimming creatures? Many creatures have neither legs nor any relationship to the ground or gravity. How does tripping affect them? Anything using limbs for locomotion can be tripped. Things that don’t need limbs for locomotion can’t be tripped. You can’t trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won’t find this in the rules, but then it really doesn’t need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM’s common sense. A creature flying with wings can be “tripped,” in which case the creature stalls (see Tactical Aerial Movement on page 20 of the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide). You can’t make an incorporeal creature fall down. You also can’t trip a prone creature. Creatures can’t be tripped when they’re swimming (the water holds them up). Likewise, a burrowing creature is driving its body through a fairly solid medium that serves to hold it up.Yes it is a valid ruling. In my opinion it only addresses the issue of tripping. It does not talk about trampling, and in my opinion the basic trampling rules should be used for flying characters regardless of the type of flight. Trampling happens by a different mechanism than tripping. You get slammed into the ground by an opponent running over you. Tripping is where an opponent disrupts your support by knocking aside your wings or leggs. However both Cat and Pittbull came down on the other side and there opinions carry far more weight. |
| lonewolf04-04-06, 01:30 PM | Hexacious vs. Sunstroke is up. Pretty simple one. Even if you find a few minor mistakes, I highly doubt that the reult will change. |
| DSugui04-04-06, 01:37 PM | Kramer (HuBBaBuBBa) & Mizay (Katana) vs. Alathar (barrel_master) & Micah (DarthVegan) [Team] is up HERE Please check for errors. Also, please check the rewards, I am not sure if they're right. Comments and constructive feedback are welcome. |
| Turin04-04-06, 01:43 PM | Hexacious vs. Sunstroke is up. Pretty simple one. Even if you find a few minor mistakes, I highly doubt that the reult will change.Aw, crap... well, I totally neglected to take into account protection from evil, which pretty much nerfs any summoning strategy. By the way, from the SRD: Monstrous spiders come in two general types: hunters and web-spinners. Hunters rove about, while web-spinners usually attempt to trap prey. Hunting spiders can spin webs to use as lairs, but cannot use their webs as weapons the way web-spinners can. A hunting spider has a base land speed 10 feet faster than the figures given in the statistics blocks.The summon monster spell doesn't indicate whether "hunters" or "web-spinners" will be summoned, which is why I assumed I could choose to summon hunters. I screwed up anyway, because the hunters wouldn't be able to throw their webs... not that they worked anyway. :( |
| barrel_master04-04-06, 01:49 PM | Kramer (HuBBaBuBBa) & Mizay (Katana) vs. Alathar (barrel_master) & Micah (DarthVegan) [Team] is up HERE Please check for errors. Also, please check the rewards, I am not sure if they're right. Comments and constructive feedback are welcome. If it's okay I forgot that I got some +2 mtwrk tool for my profession skill. If possible could I get the (12+10)x3=66gp instead of the 60? Although I may of course be wrong, if so please correct me. |
| MindWandererB04-04-06, 01:59 PM | Hexacious vs. Sunstroke is up. Pretty simple one. Even if you find a few minor mistakes, I highly doubt that the reult will change.I see no problems--a major strategic error decided this one. I'd like to bring the question before the general public: does Synesthete protect against Color Spray? Synesthete makes you immune to gaze attacks, presumably because you don't actually have to "see." It follows that you are effectively "sightless" per Color Spray, and thus unaffected. I think this may be one of those cases where logic says one thing, but a literal interpretation of the rules says something else. |
| DSugui04-04-06, 02:13 PM | If it's okay I forgot that I got some +2 mtwrk tool for my profession skill. If possible could I get the (12+10)x3=66gp instead of the 60? Although I may of course be wrong, if so please correct me. You don't have any mw profession tools: Equipment: (Free weightless outfit) Armor: none [0 lbs][0 gp] Shield: [0 lbs][0 gp] spiked chain [10 lbs][25 gp] composite +2 longbow [3 lbs][270 gp] Quiver with 17 arrows [3 lbs][1 gp] Headband of none [0 lbs][0 gp] Ring of none [0 lbs][0 gp] Ring of none [0 lbs][0 gp] Boots of none [0 lbs][0 gp] Other magic item none [0 lbs][0 gp] Expendable Items: [CL] Potion of none [(CL)] [0 lbs][0 gp] Scroll of none [(CL)] [0 lbs][0 gp] Stone of none [(ML)] [0 lbs][0 gp] Tattoo of none [(ML)] [0 lbs][0 gp] Equipment at Home: Gold: 3034 Smith tools [0 lbs][0 gp] Candessa central poster of the collectors' edition (Other item) By the way, please remove the entries for items that you do not possess, it's really confusing to the pitlord to read this sheet. |
| NiQil04-04-06, 02:15 PM | So to become a Thrallherd, one must go on a quest (or miniquest) to get their Thrall and followers? Although the class description says the Thrall/followers just show up. If that's true, anyone want to run a MQ for Loquan (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8581507&postcount=709)? Yes, to the best of my knowledge, Thrallherds must quest or miniquest to gain their Thrall and followers...this class is an exception in most ways to the class ally rules in this forum...they fall more in line with the leadership rules than the class ally rules in most places. |
| waywreth04-04-06, 02:33 PM | Yes, to the best of my knowledge, Thrallherds must quest or miniquest to gain their Thrall and followers...this class is an exception in most ways to the class ally rules in this forum...they fall more in line with the leadership rules than the class ally rules in most places. Thanks much NiQil. I'll request a MQ for this week and then design the cohort/thrall and followers next week, and he should be active as a Thrallherd in 2 or 3 weeks. |
| barrel_master04-04-06, 02:34 PM | You don't have any mw profession tools: By the way, please remove the entries for items that you do not possess, it's really confusing to the pitlord to read this sheet. Oh, my sorry. Mistake man. |
| Usurpator04-04-06, 05:28 PM | Death vs. Tan vs. Loddick vs. Danidus Still running it! Into round 32 now, 3 out of 4 gladiators (and two dogs) still alive and kicking. |
| Erithmu04-04-06, 05:34 PM | Death vs. Tan vs. Loddick vs. Danidus Still running it! Into round 32 now, 3 out of 4 gladiators (and two dogs) still alive and kicking. If it wasn't for the fact that Death is Evil, I would say he owes me one. so ... @Niqil: You owe me one. Acutally Death has +4 AC due to being prone .. which means I would miss .. and the CDG would happen Then I remember he has no dex so it hits anyways .... |
| Usurpator04-04-06, 06:15 PM | Death vs. Tan vs. Loddick vs. Danidus is finished! A surprise winner presents itself! Fight lasted 50 rounds in all. |
| Caterane04-04-06, 06:17 PM | Is this FAQ answer not valid in CoCo? Being tripped makes you prone. Who can be tripped? Beholders? Gelatinous cubes? What effect does tripping have on these creatures? Can a prone character be tripped again? What about flying and swimming creatures? Many creatures have neither legs nor any relationship to the ground or gravity. How does tripping affect them? Anything using limbs for locomotion can be tripped. Things that don’t need limbs for locomotion can’t be tripped. You can’t trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won’t find this in the rules, but then it really doesn’t need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM’s common sense. A creature flying with wings can be “tripped,” in which case the creature stalls (see Tactical Aerial Movement on page 20 of the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide). You can’t make an incorporeal creature fall down. You also can’t trip a prone creature. Creatures can’t be tripped when they’re swimming (the water holds them up). Likewise, a burrowing creature is driving its body through a fairly solid medium that serves to hold it up. Okay, that speaks for itself. @NiQil: Can you please add that to the FAQ? |
| Erithmu04-04-06, 06:23 PM | Death vs. Tan vs. Loddick vs. Danidus is finished! A surprise winner presents itself! Fight lasted 50 rounds in all. I have no words .... Good fight I think Book5 should be required to write a story toget his rewards. EDIT: could you add in Death's, Loddick's, and Tan's earnings for craft/profession as well as Tan and Death's guild taxes |
| TheMagister04-04-06, 06:41 PM | Death vs. Tan vs. Loddick vs. Danidus is finished! A surprise winner presents itself! Fight lasted 50 rounds in all. My vote goes to this match for Fight of the Week! What a show! {Sdentch knocks over a little old lady when she jumps out of her Arena seat at the surprise conclusion of the intricate match. Popcorn and wrinkles fly everywhere. The old lady tackles Sdentch when she rises. A little old lady rides a barking Sdentch around the Arena's stands imitating Tan's fart jokes (translated by the Arena's magic) to the delight of the crowd.} TM |
| lonewolf04-04-06, 08:03 PM | Telveran Trueblade vs. Sdentch is finally up! sorry for the delay. |
| NiQil04-04-06, 08:04 PM | Death vs. Tan vs. Loddick vs. Danidus is finished! A surprise winner presents itself! Fight lasted 50 rounds in all. Some things that need to be corrected... First and foremost, you have my AC incorrect the entire battle. You have it listed as a 21, and it should be a 22. A bow can be used at no penalty with a buckler, which is where I think you are subtracting that 1 point of AC from. In round 33, both dogs hit Death at AC 21, but would not connect at AC 22, which is the correct AC, since I should be using my waraxe one-handed as written on my sheet (it's written that way for this exact reason...so I do not lose the buckler AC). This would wipe away the 14 points of damage done by the dogs in that round. In round 26, Death fired a shot at Tan that missed just before getting put to sleep. There is a -2 modifier on that shot, which I am assuming is due to a range penalty (if this is incorrect, please let me know). That means Tan was at least 110 ft away. I need to know the distance he was away in that round, as I can't tell for sure by the map. The reason is that Tan's sleep spell only has a range of 130 ft, so depending on the range, I may not have been affected by the spell at all. This would drastically alter the fight if the range is too far for the spell. It would appear that this fight will need to be altered from round 33 on, and possibly from round 26 on, depending on the range between Death and Tan at the time (I can't tell from the map). But either way, Death is still alive, so to speak LOL. Edit: After getting a better look at the map, I believe that the sleep range was at 110 ft...if that is correct, then that issue is moot (unless I am wrong, so please double-check). However the fight will still need an edit from round 33 on due to the error in my AC and the resulting hits that round that should have been misses. |
| TheMagister04-04-06, 09:28 PM | Telveran Trueblade vs. Sdentch is finally up! sorry for the delay. Sdentch is a chick, not a dude (she just looks like one). Please tell me that you didn't give Telveren the +20 insight bonus to hit Sdentch on all three of his attacks in the death round (I can't access IC from work). Round6: Telveren provokes an AoO from Sdentch AND the bear when he tries to sunder Sdentch's net because he's in a threatened area when he tries to do it. Also, it's not an automatic success because there are opposed attack rolls involved when trying to sunder an opponent's weapon (see the Sunder option description on pg. 158 of the PHB). Telveren will take a -4 penalty on his attempt because he's using a light weapon, coupled with a -5 penalty for using his bite, which is listed as a secondary natural weapon, and a -2 from PA, for a total penalty of -11 on the attempt. Edit: Sdentch still "owns" the net because she is controlling via the control rope attached to the net. On round 7, Telveren is going to need a concentration check to cast while entangled (DC 20) in addition to his concentration check to cast on the defensive. That's all I can see so far. TM |
| lonewolf04-04-06, 09:46 PM | Sdentch is a chick, not a dude (she just looks like one). :embarrass I missed that. sorry Please tell me that you didn't give Telveren the +20 insight bonus to hit Sdentch on all three of his attacks in the death round (I can't access IC from work). No I did not, he just rolled lucky on the other two attacks.(btw: I didnt use IC, but the CoCo roller) Round6: Telveren provokes an AoO from Sdentch AND the bear when he tries to sunder Sdentch's net because he's in a threatened area when he tries to do it. Sunder attacks only provoke an AoO from the defender and not not from everyone. Just like Grapple attacks. Also, it's not an automatic success because there are opposed attack rolls involved when trying to sunder an opponent's weapon (see the Sunder option description on pg. 158 of the PHB). Telveren will take a -4 penalty on his attempt because he's using a light weapon, coupled with a -5 penalty for using his bite, which is listed as a secondary natural weapon, and a -2 from PA, for a total penalty of -11 on the attempt. I did the roll, and while I did miss one of these modifiers(light weapon), its still enough. On round 7, Telveren is going to need a concentration check to cast while entangled (DC 20) in addition to his concentration check to cast on the defensive. since the net is destroyed, he is no longer entangled. |
| TheMagister04-04-06, 11:05 PM | Okay. There's some miscalculations somewhere here: Telveran opposed Attack 1d20+13=24 Sdentch opposed Attack 1d20+6=17 Telveran bite damage 1d6+3=6 Telveran Greatsword attack 1d20+15=28 and 1d20+10=21 13/20;11/20 Telveran damage 3d6+11=25 3d6+11=26 6/6;6/6;2/6;4/6;6/6;5/6 Sdentch AoO 1d20+15=33 Sdentch AoO damage 2d8+7=19 4/8;8/8 Alright. First, There's no way Telveren's opposed bonus is that high when he takes all those penalties: Telveren buffed: +7(bab) +5(enlarged) +4(str) +2(bull'sstr) +1(bless) -4(lightweapon)-2(secondary/multiattack)-2(entangled)-2(powerattack)= +9 Vs. Sdentch buffed: +9(bab) +5(enlarged) +3(dex) -4(non-prof) = +13 Telveren clearly lost and is still entangled in the net. A large net also has more HP than normal. You double it (making it 10 hp). I would also like to point out that it (should be) very difficult to cut your way out of a net with a greatsword, but that's your decision. Further, Sdentch deals 3d6+7 damage with a shield bash (before rage). The shield does 2d6 while medium, and (just like a greatsword) goes up to 3d6 when enlarged. Telveren melee buffed: +7(bab) +4(str) +1(enlarge) +2(bulls) +1(bless) -1(large) -2(entangled) -2(powerattack) = +10/+5 melee with greatsword and +8 melee bite So, Telveren rolls a 13+10 = 23 (HIT) and 11+10 = 21 (MISS) vs. Sdentch's AC of 22. So the second attack misses, buying Sdentch 26 hp. And that's the errors in round 6. Round 7: Telveren's Entangled AC is: 10+ 1(dex) +9(armor) +6(natural/troglodyte) +1(deflection) +2(natural/DD) -1(size) -1(enlarged) -2(entangleddexpenalty) = 25. So the bear hit him with two claw attacks. Sdentch rolled so poorly that it didn't matter. Would it be out of the ordinary to ask to have Sdentch 5' step to the south to flank Telveren? It would seem to be the obvious thing to do (that's up to you as a pitlord). Sdentch's attack boni while raging and TWF are: +9(bab) +5(str) +2(rage) +1(enlarged) -1(size) -2(twf) = +15. So she needs a 10 or better to hit him (8 or better if he's flanked). Telveren's concentration check to cast truestrike is 15(base) +1(level 1 spell) = 16. He rolled a 5(d20) +10(skill) = 15. True Strike never got cast. Round 8: 1d20+15=20 5/20 1d20+10=21 11/20 1d20+15=26 11/20 And so she hits him with the shortsword for 1d8+5 damage [1d8(largess) +4 (1/2 of 26 str) +1(enh)] even if he's not flanked. The bear hits him with a claw attack (on a 26). Telveren's probably casting true strike at this time, OR, all his attacks miss. edit: Telveren's bite damage is wrong. It should be a 1d4 for being a troglodyte. Since he's still entangled, keeping the thematic rolls, he should miss Sdentch on the two secondary attacks (he takes a -2 to attacks from the net). End round 8. That's what I could find. Thanks for your patience as we work through this! TM |
| Gonbow04-05-06, 01:22 AM | The complete version of Saffron vs Morgan vs Lissa is up. Sheets and tactics are here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8850440&postcount=484). The fight proper (with colorful commentary) is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8858465&postcount=489). |
| Usurpator04-05-06, 03:44 AM | Some things that need to be corrected... First and foremost, you have my AC incorrect the entire battle. You have it listed as a 21, and it should be a 22. You are absolutely right of course! Mentioning the buckler somewhere within your sheet in the combat statistics would do wonders for me next time. Edit: After getting a better look at the map, I believe that the sleep range was at 110 ft...if that is correct, then that issue is moot (unless I am wrong, so please double-check). I counted the squares twice when I ran it, no need to count it again. It was just within 120 ft. sleep range, and thus just out of short bow range. Some things that need to be corrected... Starting of with a 'thank you' would do wonders here NiQil. As you well know I do not 'need' to correct anything. If the one point of AC is your only complaint in a 40 round fight for Death, then I guess I did pretty good with Death. |
| Vathelokai04-05-06, 07:55 AM | The complete version of Saffron vs Morgan vs Lissa is up. Sheets and tactics are here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8850440&postcount=484). The fight proper (with colorful commentary) is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8858465&postcount=489). LOVE the commentary... Sorry to put you through that. |
| lonewolf04-05-06, 08:03 AM | Okay. There's some miscalculations somewhere here: Alright. First, There's no way Telveren's opposed bonus is that high when he takes all those penalties: Telveren buffed: +7(bab) +5(enlarged) +4(str) +2(bull'sstr) +1(bless) -4(lightweapon)-2(secondary/multiattack)-2(entangled)-2(powerattack)= +9 Vs. Sdentch buffed: +9(bab) +5(enlarged) +3(dex) -4(non-prof) = +13 Telveren clearly lost and is still entangled in the net. both our calculations are off here. the correct modifiers are: Telveren buffed: +7(bab) +7(buffed str) +1(bless) -2(secondary/multiattack) -2(entangled) -2(powerattack) -1(size)= +8 Vs. Sdentch buffed: +9(bab) +2(dex) -4(non-prof) -1 (size)= +6 I dont know where your +5 bonus to size comes from. You only get +4 if you are larger than your enemy. Sdentchs Dex is only +2 while enlarged. I find nothing in the rules that the bite counts as a light weapon. If you can show me the rule that it does, you have won this opposed roll and he is still entangled. In that case I will try to correct the fight, if there is still enough time. A large net also has more HP than normal. You double it (making it 10 hp). I would also like to point out that it (should be) very difficult to cut your way out of a net with a greatsword, but that's your decision. Again I find no rule that an enlarged net should have more hitpoints than a normal. Under the entry in the PHB it says "The net has 5hp" and not "a medium net has 5hp". Further, Sdentch deals 3d6+7 damage with a shield bash (before rage). The shield does 2d6 while medium, and (just like a greatsword) goes up to 3d6 when enlarged. Actually the next step from 2d6 is 2d8 and not 3d6. And Sdentch DOES 2d8+7 damage with his shield. Telveren melee buffed: +7(bab) +4(str) +1(enlarge) +2(bulls) +1(bless) -1(large) -2(entangled) -2(powerattack) = +12/+7 melee with greatsword and +10 melee bite So, Telveren rolls a 13+10 = 23 (HIT) and 11+10 = 21 (MISS) vs. Sdentch's AC of 22. So the second attack misses, buying Sdentch 26 hp. Actually If you look at the hitpoints, you will see that the second attack didnt cost Sdentch any hitpoints. I noticed this mistake in time and didnt use the second damage roll. Telveren's Entangled AC is: 10+ 1(dex) +9(armor) +6(natural/troglodyte) +1(deflection) +2(natural/DD) -1(size) -1(enlarged) -2(entangleddexpenalty) = 25. Assuming he is still entangled, you are still missing the shield which brings his AC to 29 again. Actually I made a mistake here, since I didnt let Telverans natural armor from DD stack with those from beeing a Troglodyte. Thus his AC is actually 31 when not entangled. So the bear hit him with two claw attacks. Sdentch rolled so poorly that it didn't matter. Would it be out of the ordinary to ask to have Sdentch 5' step to the south to flank Telveren? It would seem to be the obvious thing to do (that's up to you as a pitlord). The bear misses, and Telveran could have avoided beeing flanked by a 5ft step himself, so that cancels it out. Telveren's concentration check to cast truestrike is 15(base) +1(level 1 spell) = 16. He rolled a 5(d20) +10(skill) = 15. True Strike never got cast. Youre correct here. I am going to correct this ASAP. And so she hits him with the shortsword for 1d8+5 damage [1d8(largess) +4 (1/2 of 26 str) +1(enh)] even if he's not flanked. The bear hits him with a claw attack (on a 26). Due to the increased AC, all of these miss. [i]edit: Telveren's bite damage is wrong. It should be a 1d4 for being a troglodyte. 1d4 from beeing a Troglodyte, which becomes 1d6 while enlarged. Thanks for your patience as we work through this! TM I will correct the issue with True Strike ASAP, but once Telveran is able to use this great rolls from his power attacking full attack, Sdentch will be down. EDIT:True Strike Issue and gender confusion fixed. It only took one more round. |
| NiQil04-05-06, 08:16 AM | You are absolutely right of course! Mentioning the buckler somewhere within your sheet in the combat statistics would do wonders for me next time. I'm not sure what you mean by this...I have the buckler listed as a shield bonus to my AC, and all of my attack routines are listed with the stats for fighting one-handed. There's not really anything else that I should be doing, as far as I can tell. I have them listed this way so that pitlords don't have to change anything...just use what's there ;) I counted the squares twice when I ran it, no need to count it again. It was just within 120 ft. sleep range, and thus just out of short bow range. I only asked for a double-check because I have a hard time seeing the maps sometimes with my poor vision and would rather ask for a double-check than not :) Starting of with a 'thank you' would do wonders here NiQil. As you well know I do not 'need' to correct anything. If the one point of AC is your only complaint in a 40 round fight for Death, then I guess I did pretty good with Death. This is true, and I do thank you. In my defense, however, I did have a death in the family yesterday, and was only even here for something to take my mind off things....I wasn't exactly thinking clearly. I don't know if you are planning on making this adjustment to the fight or not...if you are, great...hopefully it will be done before pairings...if not, then I will pm Pitlords to have the fight held over and rerun, as this is a fairly significant issue that could very easily be fight altering. |
| Myrridin04-05-06, 09:15 AM | The complete version of Saffron vs Morgan vs Lissa is up. Sheets and tactics are here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8850440&postcount=484). The fight proper (with colorful commentary) is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8858465&postcount=489). Yeah, sorry to put you through that. I'm guessing that you had Morgan surrender because I was running out of arrows? Otherwise I'm not sure why. But hey, honestly, I just wanted to level, and that goal was accomplished. :) |
| Abyssal Stalker04-05-06, 09:19 AM | My vote goes to this match for Fight of the Week! What a show! I Second that! |
| Macbrea04-05-06, 09:30 AM | Yeah, sorry to put you through that. I'm guessing that you had Morgan surrender because I was running out of arrows? Otherwise I'm not sure why. But hey, honestly, I just wanted to level, and that goal was accomplished. :) Just for the record, to Gonbow, you cannot ready to rapid shot a bow. That would be a full round action. |
| Sunwolf04-05-06, 09:35 AM | Actually the next step from 2d6 is 2d8 and not 3d6. And Sdentch DOES 2d8+7 damage with his shield. @Lonewolf Thanks for running the fight. Lots of seldom used rules to deal with. The next step in a weapon size increase from 2d6 *is* 3d6. That's how Telveran's great sword progresses. I don't believe the difference in damage matters in this particular case. Also Telverans guild tax is correct at 10% == 9% from ECL +1% structure(nunnery) so CEF should get 450gp. @TheMagister FYI - As I listed in my tactics, I thought that this fight could go either way. Telveran got some really good dice rolls in this fight. |
| Usurpator04-05-06, 10:43 AM | This is true, and I do thank you. In my defense, however, I did have a death in the family yesterday, and was only even here for something to take my mind off things....I wasn't exactly thinking clearly. I am sorry to hear that, my condolances. I don't know if you are planning on making this adjustment to the fight or not...if you are, great...hopefully it will be done before pairings...if not, then I will pm Pitlords to have the fight held over and rerun, as this is a fairly significant issue that could very easily be fight altering. I always try to correct errors before the pairings, and I don't mind people pointing them out. I will do my best for this error too. I don't think rerunning it entirely would do the fight justice, an edit will most probably suffice. |
| MindWandererB04-05-06, 11:47 AM | both our calculations are off here. the correct modifiers are: Telveren buffed: +7(bab) +7(buffed str) +1(bless) -2(secondary/multiattack) -2(entangled) -2(powerattack) -1(size)= +8 Vs. Sdentch buffed: +9(bab) +2(dex) -4(non-prof) -1 (size)= +6 I dont know where your +5 bonus to size comes from. You only get +4 if you are larger than your enemy. Sdentchs Dex is only +2 while enlarged.That's a convention--+4 size plus +1 Enlargement bonus to Str. I find nothing in the rules that the bite counts as a light weapon. If you can show me the rule that it does, you have won this opposed roll and he is still entangled. In that case I will try to correct the fight, if there is still enough time."Natural weapons are always considered light weapons." (Under Feats: Weapon Finesse. It must be somewhere else, too, but I can't find it.) Again I find no rule that an enlarged net should have more hitpoints than a normal. Under the entry in the PHB it says "The net has 5hp" and not "a medium net has 5hp". "1 The hp value given is for Medium armor, weapons, and shields. Divide by 2 for each size category of the item smaller than Medium, or multiply it by 2 for each size category larger than Medium." (under Combat: Attack an Object.) Actually the next step from 2d6 is 2d8 and not 3d6. And Sdentch DOES 2d8+7 damage with his shield.As Sunwolf pointed out, this is wrong. Find a table, any table, and remember to read across, not down. |
| Gonbow04-05-06, 12:29 PM | Yeah, sorry to put you through that. I'm guessing that you had Morgan surrender because I was running out of arrows? Otherwise I'm not sure why. But hey, honestly, I just wanted to level, and that goal was accomplished. :) Well, essentially, Morgan's tactics weren't willing to expend anything else on healing, wheras Saffron was. You were gonna lose on that basis alone and as Macbrea points out, you cant ready to rapid-shot, so I was giving you more attacks than I should have. Essentially, when you missed with both attacks when Saffron was low on HP, I felt you missed your only chance to win in the battle, as that string of luck wasn't likely to come along again. And getting the fight finished so you guys could edit was important to me. @Niqil Well, you may have won, but I damn well made you pay for it! Though, I really should have just shot with the bow, I didn't think you'd run away! Cowardly dwarf. Just wait till I have a level of barbarian. |
| TheMagister04-05-06, 12:34 PM | Man, I'm truly sorry to put you through this, but we're all here to learn. As MindWandererB reaffirmed (thanks MWB!), some of my concerns should be addressed and upheld. In addition, these remain: both our calculations are off here. the correct modifiers are: Telveren buffed: +7(bab) +7(buffed str) +1(bless) -2(secondary/multiattack) -2(entangled) -2(powerattack) -1(size)= +8 Vs. Sdentch buffed: +9(bab) +2(dex) -4(non-prof) -1 (size)= +6 I dont know where your +5 bonus to size comes from. You only get +4 if you are larger than your enemy. Sdentchs Dex is only +2 while enlarged. I find nothing in the rules that the bite counts as a light weapon. If you can show me the rule that it does, you have won this opposed roll and he is still entangled. In that case I will try to correct the fight, if there is still enough time. I included the +4 to size for both combatants so that it was clear that it was taken into consideration that we were both large. Unfortunately, you're right, I forgot the -1 (size) modifier (DRAT). Either way, Telveren DOES take the -4 penalty for using a light weapon, so he never hits the net and is still entangled. Edit: Don't forget Telveren's extra concentration check for being entangled!! It's DC 20. Actually If you look at the hitpoints, you will see that the second attack didnt cost Sdentch any hitpoints. I noticed this mistake in time and didnt use the second damage roll. Oh. Sorry to bring it up, then. My apologies! Assuming he is still entangled, you are still missing the shield which brings his AC to 29 again. Actually I made a mistake here, since I didnt let Telverans natural armor from DD stack with those from beeing a Troglodyte. Thus his AC is actually 31 when not entangled. The only mistake you make here is allowing Telveren's shield to count toward his AC while he's wielding a greatsword. Besides, he's got a shield spell active, and the two boni wouldn't stack. IMO, reading over the alter self spell, I would not allow Telveren to keep his (Ex) +2 to natural armor because alter self specifically states that you gain the natural armor bonus of whatever you're altering yourself into. Basically, it says that you don't keep your old skin. I only included it because I thought you had, and that was your decision and I wasn't going to rag on you about it. If your first instinct was to NOT let it stack (which is, I think, the right decision), they Telveren's AC will drop by another 2 points because of that miscalculation. The bear misses, and Telveran could have avoided beeing flanked by a 5ft step himself, so that cancels it out. Telveren goes after Sdentch, so she'll flank him before he can 5 ft. step out of the way. It's your decision. Also, it's EASY to flank large creatures because they have more squares through which you can draw a line that enters/exits on opposite sides of their space. Something to consider. Due to the increased AC, all of these miss. As above, simply not true. And rats on the bite damage. You're perfectly right. Darned size increase "bit" me again. Thanks for sticking with it! TM |
| Usurpator04-05-06, 12:42 PM | Death vs. Danidus vs. Loddick vs. Tan has been edited. Net result: 'Death' managed to postpone his death for a few more rounds, and is now put down by Mario instead of Popper. I used existing rolls for Loddick, Tan didn't need any existing rolls, and Mario and Popper required new rolls. This added three more chances for Loddick to score a critical against Tan, but he didn't roll a 20 anymore.... results are unchanged. |
| Usurpator04-05-06, 12:52 PM | could you add in Death's, Loddick's, and Tan's earnings for craft/profession as well as Tan and Death's guild taxes Erm.... I have a new policy: if players detail their free activity on their character sheet, it will be automatically recorded because a copy of the sheet goes into the fight. I gather that you don't forget to process your free activity, so its only purpose is really to help a narc check the bookkeeping. Listing it twice wouldn't help a narc to do that. I think Death didn't make a note inside his sheet, so I probably have to add that to satisfy possible narcs, but otherwise the rest is are fine. As for the Guild taxes, with all the rules changes, and possible poor updating of sheet as results, I think it would be better if I sent a PM to the respective guildmasters so that they can sort out the winnings. |
| lonewolf04-05-06, 01:34 PM | @TM: Im incredibly sorry, but I wont have the time fixing the fight before pairings. If you want it to be held over I would gladly correct it next week. |
| Sunwolf04-05-06, 01:46 PM | Man, I'm truly sorry to put you through this, but we're all here to learn. As MindWandererB reaffirmed (thanks MWB!), some of my concerns should be addressed and upheld. In addition, these remain: I included the +4 to size for both combatants so that it was clear that it was taken into consideration that we were both large. Unfortunately, you're right, I forgot the -1 (size) modifier (DRAT). Either way, Telveren DOES take the -4 penalty for using a light weapon, so he never hits the net and is still entangled. Edit: Don't forget Telveren's extra concentration check for being entangled!! It's DC 20. The only mistake you make here is allowing Telveren's shield to count toward his AC while he's wielding a greatsword. Besides, he's got a shield spell active, and the two boni wouldn't stack. IMO, reading over the alter self spell, I would not allow Telveren to keep his (Ex) +2 to natural armor because alter self specifically states that you gain the natural armor bonus of whatever you're altering yourself into. Basically, it says that you don't keep your old skin. I only included it because I thought you had, and that was your decision and I wasn't going to rag on you about it. If your first instinct was to NOT let it stack (which is, I think, the right decision), they Telveren's AC will drop by another 2 points because of that miscalculation. TM Telveran only uses the shield *spell* not an actual shield no stacking required. As I noted in my tactics either ruling on the alterself nat armor stacking is okay with me. As the fight reads, lonewolf did not have it stacking thus Telveran has an AC of 29. If he did the stacking the AC would be 31. (AC = 10 +9 armor +1dex -1dex(enlarge) -1size(enlarge) +1deflection +6 nat armor(from trog form) +4 shield spell = 29) Entangled The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Concentration check to cast a spell while entangled is the same as casting defensively ie 15+spell level. @lonewolf Holding the fight over to address TMs concerns is fine w/me. |
| TheMagister04-05-06, 03:31 PM | Telveran only uses the shield *spell* not an actual shield no stacking required. As I noted in my tactics either ruling on the alterself nat armor stacking is okay with me. As the fight reads, lonewolf did not have it stacking thus Telveran has an AC of 29. If he did the stacking the AC would be 31. (AC = 10 +9 armor +1dex -1dex(enlarge) -1size(enlarge) +1deflection +6 nat armor(from trog form) +4 shield spell = 29) Concentration check to cast a spell while entangled is the same as casting defensively ie 15+spell level. @lonewolf Holding the fight over to address TMs concerns is fine w/me. Well I be go to hell. I could've sworn it was DC 20. I'll look later (and it's not important, as you failed the first one anyhow and made the first try of the second casting). It's only needed for one more concentration check (come on, 25% chance of failure!). Thanks for helping, Sunwolf, and thanks to you, lonewolf, for being easy to get along with for all of this stuff. TM |
| lonewolf04-05-06, 03:51 PM | @TM: I just need a decision from you if the fight should be held over or not, so that I can PM pitlords. |
| Sunwolf04-05-06, 04:45 PM | @lonewolf It appears that TM will let the fight stand as is since he has set Sdentch ready for April 5. |
| TheMagister04-05-06, 06:14 PM | @TM: I just need a decision from you if the fight should be held over or not, so that I can PM pitlords. I'm sorry, I didn't make it clear. Yes. I think Sdentch has a definite chance at pulling this one out. Please continue to edit the fight until it is correct. Thanks! TM |
| lonewolf04-05-06, 06:46 PM | I'm sorry, I didn't make it clear. Yes. I think Sdentch has a definite chance at pulling this one out. Please continue to edit the fight until it is correct. Thanks! TM I PM´d Pitlords, but unfortunately it was already too late. really sorry |
| TheMagister04-05-06, 06:51 PM | I PM´d Pitlords, but unfortunately it was already too late. really sorry Too late? How can there be a "too late"? The fight is wrong as it stands. Both Sunwolf and I are agreeable that the fight can be held over for a week. If you don't have the time to pitlord it, can you please pass it on to someone who can? I don't mean to be rude, but this fight was majorly flawed from the OP, and it's not my fault that it was posted so late in the fight week. I would much rather have a rerun than just let it slide. Sunwolf, would you be amenable to a rerun with a new pitlord using the same tactics? TM |
| TheMagister04-05-06, 06:53 PM | @lonewolf It appears that TM will let the fight stand as is since he has set Sdentch ready for April 5. I only set her as ready to hedge my bets in case the fight was completed in time for her to compete again. I want this win. She needs the cash for her upcoming quest. =) TM |
| TheMagister04-05-06, 06:57 PM | I petitioned Pitlords (via PM) for a re-pairing of Sdentch vs. Telveren with same tactics, pending Sunwolf's agreement. Sorry lonewolf. TM |
| lonewolf04-05-06, 07:02 PM | sorry TM, but this wasnt my decision. If you can convince Cat to repair I will gladly correct it, but without his "ok" I cannot do a thing. |
| TheMagister04-05-06, 07:29 PM | sorry TM, but this wasnt my decision. If you can convince Cat to repair I will gladly correct it, but without his "ok" I cannot do a thing. I understand. I'm disappointed, but I understand. I'd rather the fight hadn't happened than this result be accepted. TM |
| NiQil04-05-06, 08:58 PM | Erm.... I have a new policy: if players detail their free activity on their character sheet, it will be automatically recorded because a copy of the sheet goes into the fight. I gather that you don't forget to process your free activity, so its only purpose is really to help a narc check the bookkeeping. Listing it twice wouldn't help a narc to do that. I think Death didn't make a note inside his sheet, so I probably have to add that to satisfy possible narcs, but otherwise the rest is are fine. As for the Guild taxes, with all the rules changes, and possible poor updating of sheet as results, I think it would be better if I sent a PM to the respective guildmasters so that they can sort out the winnings. As an FYI...all free activities are supposed to be posted in the summary results of the fight...primarily because free activities are supposed to be listed in your subject header. Listing them inside your character sheet is not required, nor even called for in the Rules thread. It's not necessarily a bad idea to do it...just not something that anyone is required to do. |
| Sunwolf04-05-06, 11:11 PM | I petitioned Pitlords (via PM) for a re-pairing of Sdentch vs. Telveren with same tactics, pending Sunwolf's agreement. Sorry lonewolf. TM @TM, lonewolf I am okay with this. I went ahead and set Telveran ready for 5 Apr at 8:50pm GMT when I saw that Sdentch had been set ready. Didn't want to miss the pairings since it didn't look like the fight would be held over. Note the Sdentch won't be able to start her quest this week if the fight is held over. |
| TheMagister04-05-06, 11:23 PM | @TM, lonewolf I am okay with this. I went ahead and set Telveran ready for 5 Apr at 8:50pm GMT when I saw that Sdentch had been set ready. Didn't want to miss the pairings since it didn't look like the fight would be held over. Note the Sdentch won't be able to start her quest this week if the fight is held over. Nah, forget it. I'm over it. I'll take a rematch though. Your luck can't hold like that through TWO fights. Sdentch out-swung you nearly 2-1. =) Grats on a deadly character, though. TM |