Post/Author/DateTime	Post
McJarvis 10-24-07, 03:37 PM	Fights of the Week: October 24th Please don't edit the sheet after the deadline or you will lose the match. Rules of Gladius All that you need to know is written in the Rules of Gladius. It could be useful also to give a look to the Court Decisions Part 1 and Part 2. Please do not make fake accounts or insult the Elders. Pairings GM MindwandererB will pair the active Characters of Gladius after the deadline. Link to pairings. Make sure that your character is not in prison. Pitlording You should use the CoCo Dice Roller (http://www.hwx.it/wizards.com) for the fight. If you need it, there is a nice template ready to use that will help. You could find the Battle Map Tag Generator (http://www.hwx.it/coco) for dynamic Maps very useful. You must post a link to your fight in this thread when it is complete. If you need a quick and dirty tool to calculate distances between two points (in 2-D or 3-D), this tool (http://wormhole.ath.cx/coco/coco_dist.php) should suffice. Another useful link is the Quick Access tables for XP and Gold. If a fight needs to be rerun, the Pitlord has to inform the Pitlords account. He cannot react to requests from Players because the other player and the pitlord might disagree. He has no time to read the fight and the discussion. Please keep that in mind. PMs from players with rerun requests won't have an impact. Comments & Concerns Post any comments or concerns for this weeks fights in this thread. Be kind and courteous to your fellow posters, and don't feed the pitlords. Please remember that they do hard work and consume a lot of time to let you play. Above all, have FUN! If you have questions or comments on any of the changes, please make your posts be heard in the Council of Gladius!
Rauul 10-24-07, 03:48 PM	u need some links in yea post McJarvis.. LOL
McJarvis 10-24-07, 03:53 PM	You know, I'm surprised so many people caught onto that. I never really read the FotW initial post unless I post it myself. @Pitlords: If any gladiators need to be cropped this week, feel free to drop Marius. I don't mind getting my gladiators on equal footing 3FC wise.
Rauul 10-24-07, 03:57 PM	You know, I'm surprised so many people caught onto that. I never really read the FotW initial post unless I post it myself. @Pitlords: If any gladiators need to be cropped this week, feel free to drop Marius. I don't mind getting my gladiators on equal footing 3FC wise. I always save the FoTw page for the week... allows me to easily axcess everything...
whitebaron 10-24-07, 04:00 PM	if it is an issue, feel free to drop verren too. he's not about to break any success records, so we don't need a speed record. (fastest gladiator to reach 50 losses, would be nice, do i get any special tag for this? :D)
Nurlithion 10-24-07, 04:05 PM	I'd just like to point out, before the pairings are done, that my character Nemion is set as Ready for October 31st, and not for today, because I want to use Ssassetar and my new character today. Also, I don't know if there is any formal way of asking for this, but I'd really like a monster fight for my ranger Quavein please. :)
Erithmu 10-24-07, 04:08 PM	I'd just like to point out, before the pairings are done, that my character Nemion is set as Ready for October 31st, and not for today, because I want to use Ssassetar and my new character today. Also, I don't know if there is any formal way of asking for this, but I'd really like a monster fight for my ranger Quavein please. :) Very rarely do errors happen, but they do. And monster fights are only done when there isn't enough competitors to fight each other ... mostly because it uses 1 pitlord for 1 fighter ...
whitebaron 10-24-07, 04:11 PM	well, maybe one could ask for a monster fight, with the usual 2 credit fee as for requesting a special pairing... but usually you are paired against a pc as long as its possible... hmm, this time, definitely the forum ninja'd me. and erithmu, of course, but that seems to be the minor reason. ;)
Nurlithion 10-24-07, 04:15 PM	Yeah, I know they don't happen very often, that's why I'm asking please :P.
MindWandererB 10-24-07, 04:33 PM	Yeah, I know they don't happen very often, that's why I'm asking please :P. Unless you shell out credits, this sort of thing is on a (mostly) strictly random basis. I get a little nonrandom when I need to pare the number of fights down, but that's it--I'll never intentionally create a monster fight.
TelinArtho 10-24-07, 05:04 PM	Figures that I forgot to reset Aquin's ready date after agreeing to remove him from active last week... Just as well with the apparent shortage of pitlords though. Good luck to people in their fights this week.
Vathelokai 10-24-07, 05:23 PM	I can take an extra fight this week.
MindWandererB 10-24-07, 06:09 PM	Pairings are done. Few pitlords, but few gladiators as well. Credits: Eamane F2 Erithmu F2 C3 lonewolf F1 McJarvis F2 Rauul F1 Q2 Taureus_Drakken F2 templer10 F4 Vathelokai F2 whitebaron F4 Q-1 MindWandererB A2 SauroGrenom A1 Sjiggie Q2 TelinArtho C3 Q-2 Key: F=Fight, Q=Quest, C=Campaign, A=Admin
lonewolf 10-24-07, 06:16 PM	a monster fight-only week for me... :tantrum: @Vath & Eamane: If possible I´d like early monster info to get the tactics out asap. ty
Erithmu 10-24-07, 06:20 PM	hrum ... I have a small/large problem ... in the matter of 500xp ... Kracknol is still ECL 11 in terms of XP (break is 66000) yet he has leveled to 12.
Nurlithion 10-24-07, 06:25 PM	Oh balls. I didn't get Nemion active becuase I wanted to use my new character... and then I forgot to ask to put him in the roster. I hate it when things like that happen. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
whitebaron 10-24-07, 06:29 PM	Pairings are done. Few pitlords, but few gladiators as well. obviously not enough pitlords to keep verren in the roster though. better rehaul that credit system fast. :)
Erithmu 10-24-07, 06:30 PM	obviously not enough pitlords to keep verren in the roster though. better rehaul that credit system fast. :) That is a user error ... not Pitlords error :)
MindWandererB 10-24-07, 06:31 PM	obviously not enough pitlords to keep verren in the roster though. better rehaul that credit system fast. :) Could have squeezed another fight in there... but it would help if Verren were set to ready. I only see the title lines, and you forgot to update that.
whitebaron 10-24-07, 06:34 PM	well. now i am really angry on the forum, as i realized that at about 5pm gmt when i edited it, changed it, and somehow it's not there. well, never mind then.
Taureus_Drakken 10-24-07, 06:42 PM	Pairings are done. Few pitlords, but few gladiators as well. Did you notice that Ackbar Stormsword has been rematched against Kai Engel? I am curious as to whether this happens often... ¬Taureus¬
MindWandererB 10-24-07, 06:44 PM	well. now i am really angry on the forum, as i realized that at about 5pm gmt when i edited it, changed it, and somehow it's not there. well, never mind then. I'd be willing to match Quavein (Nurlithion) against Verren (whitebaron) if I can get another volunteer to pick it up. Did you notice that Ackbar Stormsword has been rematched against Kai Engel? I am curious as to whether this happens often...I try to notice those (although I miss them a lot), and I did spot this one. Since the map was so different from the last time they fought, I decided not to re-pair them.
Erithmu 10-24-07, 06:50 PM	hrum ... I have a small/large problem ... in the matter of 500xp ... Kracknol is still ECL 11 in terms of XP (break is 66000) yet he has leveled to 12. bumpeth
lonewolf 10-24-07, 06:57 PM	@MWB: give it to me. That one should be relatively simple.
Taureus_Drakken 10-24-07, 06:58 PM	I figured there must have been a reason. I don't have a problem with a rematch, and I figured you had been vigilant as there rarely are rematches without challenging another player. And you are most correct, a rematch on the plains is going to be quite different from the cavern match last week... Off to figure out tactics!!! ¬Taureus¬
Taureus_Drakken 10-24-07, 06:59 PM	If you need someone to run that Verren fight, I have plenty of time this weekend, and would be more than willing to offer my services. edit: Ninja'd!! Curse you lonewolf!!! ;) (JK) ¬Taureus¬
hogarth 10-24-07, 07:11 PM	Rauul -- Did you mean for The Shadow to bring his cohort along to his fight? It looks like you might have forgotten to list it in his prefight actions.
MindWandererB 10-24-07, 07:19 PM	I figured there must have been a reason. I don't have a problem with a rematch, and I figured you had been vigilant as there rarely are rematches without challenging another player. And you are most correct, a rematch on the plains is going to be quite different from the cavern match last week... Off to figure out tactics!!! ¬Taureus¬ Heh... you give me too much credit. There are rarely rematches just because of the sheer number of permutations available at the lower ECLs. @lonewolf: all yours; it's in the arena, of course. If it matters, the attacker is <rolls die> Quavein, and the defender is Verren. Although I still need a request and a link to put Quavein on the roster.... @Rith: Unless Sauro comes up with a solution, that one may have to be a forfeit. The loss XP will put him up to the right level....
Rauul 10-24-07, 07:26 PM	Rauul -- Did you mean for The Shadow to bring his cohort along to his fight? It looks like you might have forgotten to list it in his prefight actions. yes... sorry hope he can still bring his new cohort... last minute updating
Erithmu 10-24-07, 07:29 PM	@Rith: Unless Sauro comes up with a solution, that one may have to be a forfeit. The loss XP will put him up to the right level.... Well can he just drop from the fight since it is a FFA. But I'll let Sauro post what he wants to do.
whitebaron 10-24-07, 07:29 PM	@Rith: Unless Sauro comes up with a solution, that one may have to be a forfeit. The loss XP will put him up to the right level.... well, have it run for him a level lower than his opponent. ;)
hogarth 10-24-07, 07:31 PM	@Rith: Unless Sauro comes up with a solution, that one may have to be a forfeit. The loss XP will put him up to the right level.... Actually, don't be so sure of that -- I believe Telin gave Kracknol the wrong XP in his fights with Longshot and Lord Lorian. It looks like Telin missed the -20% penalty for multiclassing. I was going to post this earlier in the Prison thread, but I forgot about it. I'll do it now. Rauul -- I'm fine with The Shadow bringing his cohort if templer10's fine with it. Note that I just posted some violations (minor) in the Prison thread.
Vathelokai 10-24-07, 08:32 PM	a monster fight-only week for me... :tantrum: @Vath & Eamane: If possible I´d like early monster info to get the tactics out asap. ty I think McJarvis has your fight, and I'm running Raskos' monster fight.
Vathelokai 10-24-07, 08:34 PM	@sauro/pitlords: If Kracknol is bumped down to ecl11, then It could be easy for me and Sauro to run a 'kracknol and raskos vs ecl13 (or two ecl11) monster' fight. Edit: will wait for that to get resolved before rolling the monster for Raskos.
McJarvis 10-24-07, 08:36 PM	I think McJarvis has your fight, and I'm running Raskos' monster fight. I'll be getting this info up within an hour or so
lonewolf 10-24-07, 08:39 PM	@sauro/pitlords: If Kracknol is bumped down to ecl11, then It could be easy for me and Sauro to run a 'kracknol and raskos vs ecl13 (or two ecl11) monster' fight. Edit: will wait for that to get resolved before rolling the monster for Raskos. or Raskos & Kracknol vs Samuel. I only didnt activate him because there were no enemies. :P
Vathelokai 10-24-07, 08:43 PM	That would be fine with me as well.
Rauul 10-24-07, 08:44 PM	Actually, don't be so sure of that -- I believe Telin gave Kracknol the wrong XP in his fights with Longshot and Lord Lorian. It looks like Telin missed the -20% penalty for multiclassing. I was going to post this earlier in the Prison thread, but I forgot about it. I'll do it now. Rauul -- I'm fine with The Shadow bringing his cohort if templer10's fine with it. Note that I just posted some violations (minor) in the Prison thread. Set a PM to find out if it's ok before i write tactics..
McJarvis 10-24-07, 08:56 PM	All monster info posted.
SauroGrenom 10-24-07, 08:57 PM	@sauro/pitlords: If Kracknol is bumped down to ecl11, then It could be easy for me and Sauro to run a 'kracknol and raskos vs ecl13 (or two ecl11) monster' fight. Edit: will wait for that to get resolved before rolling the monster for Raskos. ****... I need to get a secretary. Someone who can look up values in tables while I think about pulmonary hypertension and occasionally find time to play CoCo. My head is filling with cardiac physiology and crowding out the xp tables and such. OK. I like Vath's suggestion. It works well for me, but I suppose I should go look at the ECL13 monsters... If Pitlords is OK with this suggestion, I'd prefer that as the way to go. Thanks.
Eluria 10-24-07, 09:08 PM	@T10: Tactics for Wroth sent; good luck!
Eamane 10-24-07, 10:58 PM	Setep for Unknown Monster vs Darian Thorne is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14163591&postcount=1421).
Rauul 10-25-07, 03:40 AM	@whitebaron Shadows tactics sent... good luck.. Pm me with any problems @lonewolf... Graashnak's tactics sent good luck and Pm me with any questions
lonewolf 10-25-07, 05:02 AM	@McJarvis: Is Theradors ambush tactic effective against the monster? => does he get the prebuff round?
whitebaron 10-25-07, 06:17 AM	@lonewolf: all yours; it's in the arena, of course. If it matters, the attacker is <rolls die> Quavein, and the defender is Verren. Although I still need a request and a link to put Quavein on the roster.... as there is no fight in the pairings yet. will there be one or not? i believe its up to nurlithion writing a pm to pitlords, right?
Callix 10-25-07, 06:39 AM	@Eamane, Taureus_Drakken: Tactics sent.
templer10 10-25-07, 07:20 AM	@McJarvis: Is Theradors ambush tactic effective against the monster? => does he get the prebuff round? Attack/defend packages never work in monsetr fights.
Vathelokai 10-25-07, 08:57 AM	@Whitebaron/Taurenson: Tactics for Zodiac vs Mineau sent, with burglary info.
lonewolf 10-25-07, 09:13 AM	@McJarvis/Eamane: tactics for both monster killers are out.
Hirumajoe 10-25-07, 09:29 AM	Attack/defend packages never work in monsetr fights. You sure about that? I could have sworn Valen Sky has benefited from attack/defend packages agaisnt single monsters before.
McJarvis 10-25-07, 09:37 AM	You sure about that? I could have sworn Valen Sky has benefited from attack/defend packages agaisnt single monsters before. I've always been told they don't work.
McJarvis 10-25-07, 09:40 AM	@Raul: tactics sent for marius.
McJarvis 10-25-07, 10:00 AM	@templer: tactics for Thorell sent.
Taureus_Drakken 10-25-07, 12:41 PM	@ Vath and whitebaron: Tactics sent!! ¬Taureus¬
Nurlithion 10-25-07, 03:48 PM	Sorry whitebaron, I only got home a little while ago. I'll send the PM right away!
MindWandererB 10-25-07, 05:40 PM	****... I need to get a secretary. Someone who can look up values in tables while I think about pulmonary hypertension and occasionally find time to play CoCo. My head is filling with cardiac physiology and crowding out the xp tables and such. OK. I like Vath's suggestion. It works well for me, but I suppose I should go look at the ECL13 monsters... If Pitlords is OK with this suggestion, I'd prefer that as the way to go. Thanks. If you can de-level the character somehow, to everyone's satisfaction, it's fine with me. I'll let Vath be the final authority on that--make sure to check his sheet copy from his last fight. I'll update the pairings later (just had something come up); Quavein is on the roster where he can be found.
Vathelokai 10-25-07, 09:14 PM	It seems the Kracknol sheet is already fixed.,,, as of 5 minutes ago. Hows it going Sauro? EDIT: let me know if you'd rather do 2 el11s or 1 el13.
SauroGrenom 10-25-07, 09:29 PM	It seems the Kracknol sheet is already fixed.,,, as of 5 minutes ago. Hows it going Sauro? EDIT: let me know if you'd rather do 2 el11s or 1 el13. I think it's done. As for ECL13 or 2x ECL11... That's a tough call. I think 2xECL11 will do.
Vathelokai 10-25-07, 09:41 PM	I think it's done. As for ECL13 or 2x ECL11... That's a tough call. I think 2xECL11 will do. Raskos identifies 3 huge humanoid skeletons and one half brass dragon medium humanoid with a holy symbol that appears to be in control of the skeletons. Notes: on the plains (as per the Raskos fight). Also, your know:local is high enough that you know the humanoid is not actually humanoid type (think know nature). Not sure how to interpret the race against the know skills, since the bulk of the ecl is class levels.
SauroGrenom 10-25-07, 10:11 PM	Hmm. I think I get to know a bit more info. Huge skeleton is not the same as 7 headed hydra. I know I have enough knowledge to meet the CL8 of these creatures. So I think I should know what the base creature is. I would know if this is a titan skeleton or an umberhulk skeleton. I think that I know what the cleric is given the description and what I see on the list. Regardless, Raskos has Knowledge Arcane (dragon type) sufficient to know the class levels for any CR11 Dragon. And this guy is a dragon type if he has the half dragon template. Anyway I think this the half dragon cleric and big ugly skeletons to go along with him. I wonder how the cleric has managed to control 60HD worth of undead @CL8. ;)
Vathelokai 10-25-07, 10:29 PM	I wonder how the cleric has managed to control 60HD worth of undead @CL8. ;)Ummm... magic :D . Okay... Raskos +17 Knowledge: Arcana[6 Wiz, +11 Int][6 Ranks] +16 Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering[5 Wiz, +11 Int][5 Ranks] +12 Knowledge: Dungeoneering[1 Wiz, +11 Int][1 Ranks] +12 Knowledge: Geography[1 Wiz, +11 Int][1 Ranks] +16 Knowledge: Local[5 Wiz, +11 Int][5 Ranks] +13 Knowledge: Nature[2 Wiz, +11 Int][2 Ranks] +19 Knowledge: Psionics[6 Wiz, +11 Int, +2 Synergy (Autohypnosis)][6 Ranks] +12 Knowledge: Religion[1 Wiz, +11 Int][1 Ranks] +19 Knowledge: The Planes[5 Wiz, +3 Psi, +11 Int][8 Ranks] Kraknol +06 Knowlege Dungeonering [4 rnks, +2int] [4rgr] +14 Knowlege Psionics [12 rnks, +2int] [12psw] Count 1, we have a creature with the skeleton template. Know religion vs CR8 of the skeleton gives you the race (but not subtypes or class levels). The base creature is beyond your ability to discern, but you do have one rank in planes; you get size, type and description, which is huge humanoid shaped outsider. {note, in my opinion you probably couldn't tell the difference between an outsider skeleton and a giant skeleton, but that's the rules, and since you could definitely tell the differnce between an uber hulk exo-skelton and a giant's endo-skeleton, I can't really argue} Count 2, we have a creature with 2 arms and 2 legs, with the half dragon template. It is CR 11. I forgot that the template changes the type; with that you gain Race, Subtypes, Class levels - which is dragon (brass/fire), with 8 cleric levels. You have one rank in know nature, which tells you that the base creature was a giant of some sort. It is medium size, so I bet you can guess it. Templates sure do complicate this rule.
Vathelokai 10-25-07, 10:51 PM	Some questions about this cleric... Can 'monsters' with class levels take the leadership feat? Can 'monster' clerics have undead allies? Can they have allies at all? Can they prebuff long lasting spells as players can? EDIT: more questions... Can the cleric give equipment to his allies pre-fight? Can he craft things in advance as though they were a team?
SauroGrenom 10-25-07, 11:50 PM	Some questions about this cleric... Can 'monsters' with class levels take the leadership feat? Can 'monster' clerics have undead allies? Can they have allies at all? Can they prebuff long lasting spells as players can? EDIT: more questions... Can the cleric give equipment to his allies pre-fight? Can he craft things in advance as though they were a team? A cohort would modify the CR of the battle. I don't think you can increase the CR of the battle beyond what it already is. Umm... More allies would modify the CR of the battle. I don't think you can do that. Sure they can prebuff. Are you talking the skeletons or the possible cohort/controlled undead... As far as the CoCo rules are concerned this is a 2vs 2 team battle. So the cleric cannot give things to the skeletons before initiative.
Vathelokai 10-26-07, 12:28 AM	Next round of questions... The skeletons have no treasure, but do they keep the equipment from their base creature (the 'free' equipment from the stat block)? It seems that the skeleton warriors do, so I thought I'd ask.
TelinArtho 10-26-07, 12:30 AM	Next round of questions... The skeletons have no treasure, but do they keep the equipment from their base creature (the 'free' equipment from the stat block)? It seems that the skeleton warriors do, so I thought I'd ask. Yes they keep the items listed in their entry.
whitebaron 10-26-07, 06:56 AM	@mwb: will lonewolf still get to hold our fight? i believe nurlithion wrote you/pitlords a pm to have him on the roster. as it is not on the pairings yet, i don't know whether i'll have to do tactics for it or not.
Turanson 10-26-07, 09:34 AM	@ whitebaron tactic for Mineau vs. Zodiac II, has been sent
whitebaron 10-26-07, 09:40 AM	tactics for all my fighters except the eternal dreamless sleep received. @t10: tactics for gwerdan sent.
templer10 10-26-07, 10:00 AM	tactics for all my fighters except the eternal dreamless sleep received. @t10: tactics for gwerdan sent. Just sent them- hate bloody sneaks (and i got 2 of them this week sigh).
Luni 10-26-07, 11:34 AM	@Templar10: Tactics sent! I hope you have fun.
McJarvis 10-26-07, 01:44 PM	@Templar10: Tactics sent! I hope you have fun. ut oh. :( ps- revision of a line of my tactics sent.
Rauul 10-26-07, 04:05 PM	Just sent them- hate bloody sneaks (and i got 2 of them this week sigh). Thats Mr Bloody Sneak to you... and we will see who gets bloody this week :)
Nurlithion 10-26-07, 04:58 PM	@whitebaron Well, I sent my tactics to lonewolf, so I'll just wait and see what happens.
templer10 10-26-07, 04:59 PM	Thats Mr Bloody Sneak to you... and we will see who gets bloody this week :) Well at least it was the sewers and not something bloody awfull like the forest. on another note Valen vs kervan is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14177382&postcount=1423) - Suppression is just Broken....
whitebaron 10-26-07, 05:17 PM	@whitebaron Well, I sent my tactics to lonewolf, so I'll just wait and see what happens. he said he'll run the fight on monday. i sent my tactics about 5 minutes ago. good luck to you - ah, and please forget those scrolls of shield *pray* . ;)
Nurlithion 10-26-07, 05:27 PM	"Sh'yeah right."/"As if." moment. It was, like, totally the first thing on my tactics, dude.
whitebaron 10-26-07, 05:31 PM	shoot. i kinda knew you'd say that. well. i'll need to get burglary, *g*
Nurlithion 10-26-07, 05:36 PM	On a psion/wizard? :P
whitebaron 10-26-07, 05:43 PM	On a psion/wizard? :P sure. he can't become a bigger failure than he already is. once hit lvl 20 (after a gazillion of lost fights) he'll be the richest of them all, though. crafting for money and losing all the time...
lonewolf 10-26-07, 05:49 PM	sure. he can't become a bigger failure than he already is. once hit lvl 20 (after a gazillion of lost fights) he'll be the richest of them all, though. crafting for money and losing all the time... problem is, until that happens you will have to convert him to 5e. ;)
Taureus_Drakken 10-26-07, 06:09 PM	If a character rolls a Natural 1 on a UMD check to activate a scroll, how do I determine the random "mishap"? I know they already suffer 2d6 damage, as per the UMD entry in the PHB. But the DMG says they suffer a mishap, but I don't want to just 'pick' one of the ones on the list... I split the mishaps up to roll a d100: 0-14: Damage 15-29: Different Target 30-44: Random Location 45-59: Opposite Effect 60-74: Bizarre Effect 75-89: Innocuous Item 90-100: Delayed Effect Does that make sense to do? Thanks in advance! ¬Taureus¬
MindWandererB 10-26-07, 06:21 PM	If a character rolls a Natural 1 on a UMD check to activate a scroll, how do I determine the random "mishap"? I know they already suffer 2d6 damage, as per the UMD entry in the PHB. But the DMG says they suffer a mishap, but I don't want to just 'pick' one of the ones on the list... Thanks in advance! ¬Taureus¬ You misread it... if a natural 1 is a failure by more than 9, they get a mishap; the default mishap is 2d6 damage (and on a natural 1, they can't try again for 24 hours--make sure to put that in the fight summary). Go with the default.
McJarvis 10-26-07, 06:22 PM	Well at least it was the sewers and not something bloody awfull like the forest. on another note Valen vs kervan is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14177382&postcount=1423) - Suppression is just Broken.... /me *whistles* Now that was a sexy fight, if I may say so. I'm not sure I would call it broken- since it seems to take down casters I'd just call that an "Equalizer"
Taureus_Drakken 10-26-07, 06:27 PM	The target DC was 21, the character got a 10 rolling a 1... Missed the target by 11. ¬Taureus¬
McJarvis 10-26-07, 06:31 PM	What MWB meant is you misread what a mishap does. The default is the dice damage: so that's all we use. [any extra would be DM discretion, and we don't do that]
MindWandererB 10-26-07, 06:32 PM	@mwb: will lonewolf still get to hold our fight? i believe nurlithion wrote you/pitlords a pm to have him on the roster. as it is not on the pairings yet, i don't know whether i'll have to do tactics for it or not.Yes, I've finally had a chance to add it to the roster. Sauro's team monster fight, too. lonewolf and Vath +1 credit, Erithmu -1 credit. on another note Valen vs kervan is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14177382&postcount=1423) - Suppression is just Broken....I was hoping for a smidge more luck than that (dispelling everything at 6 below my caster level?), but I didn't have a decent chance there anyway.
Taureus_Drakken 10-26-07, 06:33 PM	Okay, I see. I just wanted to be clear. I didn't want to hit the character with 3d6 damage for failing, as none of the other mishaps really fit "the circumstances of the encounter"... Thanks! ¬Taureus¬
McJarvis 10-26-07, 06:35 PM	Why is it 6 below your caster level? Suppression: An opponent or object struck by this kind of weapon is subject to a targeted dispel psionics power. The wielder makes a dispel check (1d20 + 5 + manifester level, maximum +15) against a DC of 11 + the manifester level of the power to be dispelled. Bows, crossbows, and slings bestow this ability upon their ammunition, but can do so only three times per day. Moderate psychokinesis ML 10th; Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, dispel psionics; Price +2 bonus. So it's 1d20+5+7= 1d20+12 vs a DC of 11+11=22. Seems like he had pretty good chances to take down multiple buffs...?
templer10 10-26-07, 07:17 PM	Why is it 6 below your caster level? So it's 1d20+5+7= 1d20+12 vs a DC of 11+11=22. Seems like he had pretty good chances to take down multiple buffs...? Hence why i consider it Broken for just a +2 Weapon enchntment, now if it was +4 or +5...
MindWandererB 10-26-07, 07:25 PM	Why is it 6 below your caster level? So it's 1d20+5+7= 1d20+12 vs a DC of 11+11=22. Seems like he had pretty good chances to take down multiple buffs...? Oh, I misread that. That's ridiculous--items almost never use the stats of their wielders. Bah.
whitebaron 10-26-07, 08:04 PM	Ackbar vs. Kai rematch is up.
Taureus_Drakken 10-26-07, 08:13 PM	Thanks for the run, whitebaron!! Can't hold it against you for the 'shaken' status. His rolls weren't enough to sunder anything. If he had sundered something, I would have had you edit it. ¬Taureus¬
Taureus_Drakken 10-26-07, 08:45 PM	Khaz vs Vaernya is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14178742&postcount=1425). It doesn't seem that I made any mistakes, but feel free to point out anything glaring. ¬Taureus¬
Taureus_Drakken 10-26-07, 09:04 PM	@ whitebaron: I just noticed, you forgot the used charges from my wand of CLW. I remembered to record them. 2 charges used!! ¬Taureus¬
templer10 10-26-07, 09:35 PM	Khaz vs Vaernya is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14178742&postcount=1425). It doesn't seem that I made any mistakes, but feel free to point out anything glaring. ¬Taureus¬ i dont Know if it makes a diffrence in this fight - But fascinate Can't Be used in the arena just on MQ's/Quests/campaigns. check the court.
Taureus_Drakken 10-26-07, 11:39 PM	i dont Know if it makes a diffrence in this fight - But fascinate Can't Be used in the arena just on MQ's/Quests/campaigns. check the court. I will say it right now: I was unaware of that ruling going into this fight. Otherwise, I don't see that it would make a difference in this case. I would edit if the use of Fascinate had been the source of winning the match. All it really does is draw out the inevitable melee. I could go back and edit in 'wasting' however many arrows as Vaernya has. But I think it would still come down to the same scenario: the luck of the dice in melee. I know it's banned in the arena now; but IMHO, editing it out wouldn't change how the fight panned out. Thanks for pointing that out for me!! ¬Taureus¬
Eamane 10-27-07, 12:13 AM	Khaz vs Vaernya is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14178742&postcount=1425). It doesn't seem that I made any mistakes, but feel free to point out anything glaring. ¬Taureus¬ What-what-what!?! You cant flurry in plate-mail? DAMNATION! That was pretty much the point of the character -_-
Rauul 10-27-07, 03:05 AM	I will say it right now: I was unaware of that ruling going into this fight. Otherwise, I don't see that it would make a difference in this case. I would edit if the use of Fascinate had been the source of winning the match. All it really does is draw out the inevitable melee. I could go back and edit in 'wasting' however many arrows as Vaernya has. But I think it would still come down to the same scenario: the luck of the dice in melee. I know it's banned in the arena now; but IMHO, editing it out wouldn't change how the fight panned out. Thanks for pointing that out for me!! ¬Taureus¬ Actually it isn't ban.. it is just 100% useless.. because as soon as they step in the arena they know someone is out to kill them... Now if for some reason they got hit with it BEFORE entering the arena...
Hirumajoe 10-27-07, 06:26 AM	Ackbar vs. Kai rematch is up. Thank you for the run. And the suggestion to add the free activity to the sheet itself is a good idea. Will do that for both Valen and Kai. In regards to scrolls, Verbal only (and also Verbal + Material Component since scrolls subsume the material component) scrolls do not require a free hand to cast, just a hand to hold it since they don't require somatic components. Thus, as far as I know, Kai Engel is in fact capable of holding a bow in his left hand, a scroll of true strike in his right, and casting said scroll. I probably should note that True strike has no somatic components on my tactics sheet, just to make it easier on future pitlords. Sorry about that. However for the other scrolls, you were absolutely correct in your interpretation. I also do know that scrolls can't be drawn while moving. I suppose I wasn't clear enough that the movement was to take place when I was shooting rather than drawing. :) Now for some numerical mistakes. Kai Engel has both improved trip and improved sunder, as noted by the bonus values in his tactics and on his sheet. Please note that you're missing the +4 to sunder opposed rolls that he gets from the improved sunder feat and also the +1 he gets from Strength for being Enlarged (forgot this countered by being Large). This makes the first sunder succeed. With 3d6+6 damage (for +4 Strength mod x 1.5 and enlarged greatsword) ignoring hardness, it is quite likely the halberd is sundered. In the second sunder attempt, its presumably against a backup weapon, which will be lacking the weapon focus modifier. With the extra +4 from the feat and assuming he stands up after sundering the Halberd, even with the -2 from Shaken, Kai should have succeeded with second sunder as well. With 3d6+6 damage ignoring hardness, it is again quite likely he destroyed a backup weapon. If he doesn't stand up, then it looks like it'll be a tie roll, requiring a re-roll after the tied roll to determine success or failure (per the opposed roll rules). The ranged attacks after round 5 (in which Kai casts Enlarge Person) should be dealing 2d6+3 damage, not 1d8+3 damage, because he's using a Large bow in that case. (Which probably will result in less damage when you re-roll them, but oh well. :) ) Also, the attack in round 12 by Ackbar doesn't look like it should hit, being a rolled 8 + 9 = 17 vs AC 18. Kai seems to be missing an attack in round 9. Kai should have attacked from a charge in round 9 (as indicated in his tactics under modifications). If you could correct the above, or at least comment on it, I'd be most appreciative. Again, thanks for doing the pitlording in a complex fight.
Hirumajoe 10-27-07, 06:32 AM	on another note Valen vs kervan is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14177382&postcount=1423) - Suppression is just Broken.... Thank you for the run. And against mid level casters and in the hands of a psionic Gish, yes, Suppression is very powerful. I think I may have been the one to convince Sauro's Krackanol to go down the same path. However, now re-reading my tactics, if I'd had more time (as opposed to dashing them off in 10 minutes in between talks at a conference in Hannover, Germany) I might have looked at the hit points statues have... And done something a little more useful with Valen's time, like hide in shadows waiting for him to come out. :)
whitebaron 10-27-07, 09:26 AM	missed the true strike having no somatic components, so the dropping of bow was not necessary. Please note that you're missing the +4 to sunder opposed rolls that he gets from the improved sunder feat This makes the first sunder succeed. [...] it is quite likely the halberd is sundered. correct, will redo this for damage. In the second sunder attempt, its presumably against a backup weapon, which will be lacking the weapon focus modifier. With the extra +4 from the feat and assuming he stands up after sundering the Halberd, even with the -2 from Shaken, Kai should have succeeded with second sunder as well. nope, no sunder on backup weapon, second sunder on wand as specified in the tactics. will change accordingly if you managed to sunder the halberd. The ranged attacks after round 5 (in which Kai casts Enlarge Person) should be dealing 2d6+3 damage, not 1d8+3 damage, because he's using a Large bow in that case. ) rerolled round 8, same damage result. Also, the attack in round 12 by Ackbar doesn't look like it should hit, being a rolled 8 + 9 = 17 vs AC 18. you're still prone. -4 AC to melee. i decided not to stand up if you don't manage to sunder. Kai seems to be missing an attack in round 9. Kai should have attacked from a charge in round 9 (as indicated in his tactics under modifications). you can't draw a weapon AND charge. so you can't attack in round 9 already, as you specified to draw your sword and then move/run/charge. @taureus: critical hits are NOT rolled once, then multiplied. they are rolled seperately. thus a longbow crit is not 1d8, x3, but really 3d8 rolled you should redo that in the vaernya fight.
templer10 10-27-07, 09:33 AM	you can't draw a weapon AND charge. so you can't attack in round 9 already, as you specified to draw your sword and then move/run/charge. Don't know if that's the situation here - But you can actually draw a weapon as part of movement (as a free action) so you can actually start the charge drawing a weapon as part of said charge.
lonewolf 10-27-07, 09:41 AM	Don't know if that's the situation here - But you can actually draw a weapon as part of movement (as a free action) so you can actually start the charge drawing a weapon as part of said charge. not correct: If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one. a charge is not a regular move
Taureus_Drakken 10-27-07, 09:45 AM	@taureus: critical hits are NOT rolled once, then multiplied. they are rolled seperately. thus a longbow crit is not 1d8, x3, but really 3d8 rolled you should redo that in the vaernya fight. Crap...And rerolling the damage changes the outcome... Edit is done. Knocks off round 14, and Khaz ends up losing... ¬Taureus¬
whitebaron 10-27-07, 10:25 AM	@ackbar vs. kai: fight changed, but result didn't. it was far closer than before. 1 hp left to the victor, and an unarmed strike decided the fight!
Hirumajoe 10-27-07, 10:56 AM	@whitebaron: Thank you very much for going through my concerns (and also taking the time to tell me why my other ones were wrong.) Looking over the rolls, its looks like it was very close in certain places (missing by 1 AC several times.) However, this brings me to one last concern I just noticed in reading over the fight post. Ackbar is a Chaotic Good Cleric casting an [Evil] descriptor spell from a scroll: is this legal? I certainly know he wouldn't be able to cast it from memory, but I admit to being fuzzy on whether he can cast it from a scroll. Could an elder chime in on this? Probably wouldn't chance the outcome as it just means Ackbar exchanges the round of buffing with an extra ranged attack later on (I think), which has 50/50 odds of killing Kai even earlier. But it would be good to know for future fights for Ackbar. Also on a side note, I also just realized in a similar vein, he should have rolled for Arcane spell failure in the last fight on the shield spell. Since he was wearing armor. Just something for you to consider in future fights, Taureus. A wand of shield [CL 2] might be worth considering given that the wands don't entail such failure chances. Anyways, good close fight. Can't ask for much more. :D
Luni 10-27-07, 11:08 AM	@whitebaron: Thank you very much for going through my concerns (and also taking the time to tell me why my other ones were wrong.) However, this brings me to one last concern I just noticed in reading over the fight post. Ackbar is a Chaotic Good Cleric casting an [Evil] descriptor spell from a scroll: is this legal? I certainly know he wouldn't be able to cast it from memory, but I admit to being fuzzy on whether he can cast it from a scroll. I'm not an elder, but I assure you, Chaotic Good Clerics can't cast evil spells. Using a scroll is the same as casting a spell from memory. Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Hirumajoe 10-27-07, 11:15 AM	I'm not an elder, but I assure you, Chaotic Good Clerics can't cast evil spells. Using a scroll is the same as casting a spell from memory. Ok, good to know. In which case it probably should be considered a shield of faith scroll, since it has the same net effect on the fight. And Ackbar may want to ditch the protection from good scrolls at his earliest convinience.
Erithmu 10-27-07, 01:00 PM	Baelin vs Lorian Much more entertaining fight if it was the FFA ...
whitebaron 10-27-07, 01:33 PM	@joe: i'll leave it to you to decide whether you want to win on violation, or call it a close fight with a similar scroll used.
Eamane 10-27-07, 01:34 PM	Crap...And rerolling the damage changes the outcome... Edit is done. Knocks off round 14, and Khaz ends up losing... ¬Taureus¬ Well, I suppose now I have to counter point out things eh? Vaernya cant attack twice in round 13. Attacking with two weapons requires a full-round action; which cant be done on the turn you draw a weapon unless you have quick draw. Plus, she would have to draw two weapons to attack with both of them, making it even harder to attack with two weapons without quick draw. She couldn't have drawn a weapon earlier because she had a scroll out and using a scroll requires both hands free (exception: Buckler). EDIT: Though, she might be able to draw two weapons at once because of TWF. I dimly recall there being a rule like that. Still cant attack with both of them though.
whitebaron 10-27-07, 01:35 PM	@eamane: you can draw both weapons for two-weapon fighting at once, but still, you need a move action.
Hirumajoe 10-27-07, 01:55 PM	@joe: i'll leave it to you to decide whether you want to win on violation, or call it a close fight with a similar scroll used. It was an honest mistake. Believe me, if people lost for simply asking for impossible things in their tactics, there would be *alot* more auto-losses. I'm quite happy to let Ackbar's victory stand and just use a scroll of Shield of Faith rather than protection from Good. Besides, Kai has kept the fights fairly close and interesting (when people remember his feats :D ) with Ackbar. I'll get him fairly one of these days. Probably once Kai hits his stride in the ECL7+ range.
Nurlithion 10-27-07, 01:55 PM	Even so, she doesn't have two shortswords. Can you use rapiers in a grapple?
Eamane 10-27-07, 02:04 PM	Re: Nurlithion She isn't being grappled at that point, so it's fine. @Taureus_Drakken Also, I noticed you completely rerolled the critical damage for round 1; this is incorrect. In the case of edits, you keep thematic rolls (i.e: if you rolled damage of a specific type before, you don't roll it again, you just change the modifiers or roll new things as needed) So she would keep the original 1 damage, then get two additional d8's of damage, which would be 7 and 6 from the r0 roll (since it was made before the r1 roll, time wise). It's okay to use rolls you accidentally put in the wrong round, by the way ;). So the total damage from r1 should be 14, putting Khaz at 11. Now comes the bad part; because thematic rolls are kept, even though she doesn't crit me in r13, if that attack still happens, she will crit me in r14. However, the damage stays the same, putting me at 1 hp when I finish the fight.
whitebaron 10-27-07, 02:19 PM	In the case of edits, you keep thematic rolls (i.e: if you rolled damage of a specific type before, you don't roll it again, you just change the modifiers or roll new things as needed) this is, as usual, at pitlords discretion. i only keep rolls in between - if i have to redo entire parts with different options, i won't reuse the rolls. while i agree that you have to be careful when you reroll things, it is nothing that is wrong by the rules. @nurlithion: you can use any light weapon in a grapple. @joe: i'll edit it to shield of faith, and add it to the comments. you're a fair sport. as ackbar has this scroll, he will have to do with his invalid scrolls for the 3fc or change them via training hall.
Vathelokai 10-27-07, 02:22 PM	Psori vs Ssassetar is up. An actual arena battle with 2 people running up and fighting each other... who would have thought :D
whitebaron 10-27-07, 05:08 PM	the battle of familiars (aka zodiac vs mineau) is up. actually, it was more interesting to watch them two birds fight, than the so-called wizards. ;)
Vathelokai 10-27-07, 05:54 PM	the battle of familiars (aka zodiac vs mineau) is up. actually, it was more interesting to watch them two birds fight, than the so-called wizards. ;) I actually had an idea once to have a quest with all the TAO familiars... :) My tactics were not explicit, but I intended to use the magic missile on the familiar only if I knew shield was up. No need to fix it unless Taurenson wants things fixed. Funny that my wizard hardly used any spells this whole cycle.
Turanson 10-27-07, 05:57 PM	hehe I liked this fight (the battle of the FAMILIARS) I just assumed that Zodiac would be using his broch so I din't bother with MM Doh.
Vathelokai 10-27-07, 06:02 PM	I thought I was using my brooch...
Turanson 10-27-07, 06:11 PM	My tactics were not explicit, but I intended to use the magic missile on the familiar only if I knew shield was up. No need to fix it unless Taurenson wants things fixed. No no fix never did think I had a chance in Sweden, I just hoped to get you with Hideous Laughter but I gues i'm not much of a comedian.
whitebaron 10-27-07, 06:13 PM	according to his will save, you did the old "hey you - laugh already!" joke. i missed the brooch of shielding, so ignore my comment on the wand.
Turanson 10-27-07, 06:20 PM	Well Just trying to live up too my profesion as an economist, as we are renown for our sence of humor. :)
Taureus_Drakken 10-27-07, 07:51 PM	Well, I suppose now I have to counter point out things eh? Vaernya cant attack twice in round 13. Attacking with two weapons requires a full-round action; which cant be done on the turn you draw a weapon unless you have quick draw. Plus, she would have to draw two weapons to attack with both of them, making it even harder to attack with two weapons without quick draw. She couldn't have drawn a weapon earlier because she had a scroll out and using a scroll requires both hands free (exception: Buckler). EDIT: Though, she might be able to draw two weapons at once because of TWF. I dimly recall there being a rule like that. Still cant attack with both of them though. She already had one weapon out, the scroll itself is the material component. This was brought up in another fight recently. I can just edit her to draw the second weapon while she escapes the grapple in round 12. You are correct that you can draw two weapons at once. Addressing your second post. IMHO rerolling the damage entirely is better. A flubbed (as in mis-rolled) roll should be discarded. If someone else thinks the thematic rolls should be kept, and just moved around, I would be more than willing to change things again. ¬Taureus¬
Taureus_Drakken 10-27-07, 07:52 PM	Psori vs Ssassetar is up. An actual arena battle with 2 people running up and fighting each other... who would have thought :D I didn't really think he would close that fast...I was hoping to get at least 3 rounds of ranged attacks. Meh, I will remember that for the future. And invest in expendables after this 3FC. ¬Taureus¬
Taureus_Drakken 10-28-07, 12:29 AM	Ralein vs Snaga is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14186493&postcount=1431). I don't think I made any errors...But I am sure someone will find something...:embarrass ¬Taureus¬
Vathelokai 10-28-07, 03:48 AM	Link to Setup for Raskos and Kracknol vs Cleric and 80 HD of undead. I should get this one going sunday... it's gonna be an ugly one.
Callix 10-28-07, 04:48 AM	Ralein vs Snaga is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14186493&postcount=1431). I don't think I made any errors...But I am sure someone will find something...:embarrass ¬Taureus¬ Thanks for the run, and for remembering the Sleep immunity. Nothing looks wrong to me, and I'm not complaining about the result.
Eamane 10-28-07, 06:31 AM	She already had one weapon out, the scroll itself is the material component. This was brought up in another fight recently. I can just edit her to draw the second weapon while she escapes the grapple in round 12. You are correct that you can draw two weapons at once. Addressing your second post. IMHO rerolling the damage entirely is better. A flubbed (as in mis-rolled) roll should be discarded. If someone else thinks the thematic rolls should be kept, and just moved around, I would be more than willing to change things again. ¬Taureus¬ I was under the quite firm impression that using a scroll requires both hands free. You can hold it in one hand, but using it requires two hands. Having a scroll and a weapon out at the same time makes little sense unless directly called for in some strange tactic. She already had the main weapon out? When? In r1 she started with just her bow out (if she was holding the bow and anything else, she wouldn't be able to use the bow, thus negating the r1 crit). She put said bow away in r9 and was quite busy after that (see end of post for more details on r9) The first time the fight mentions drawing any weapons is r13. Drawing weapons when escaping from a grapple? Well, I suppose. But that's improvisation on your part, to maintain a certain sequence of events. I'm not very keen on that, obviously. As far as rolls go... I disagree with both you and whitebaron. The reason why you keep all rolls that you can is to avoid just this; someone suggests changing a small thing early on in a fight, then you have to reroll everything that would happen in one round or another. Or if you do it haphazardly; like letting someone reroll a critical damage but not rerolling anything else in the battle, it clearly favors the person who got to reroll their bad roll, while not having to reroll anything else. Thus, my suggestion to keep the original damage as it would be entirely fair to both sides. My opponent gets the extra damage they should have gotten, but doesn't get to ignore the bad roll that is quite clearly fight changing. If those extra damage had done one or two more points of damage it could have gone either way. So I feel this is pretty important. Also I notice that in r9 you had her start bardic music (standard), stow her bow (move) and move away (move); this is incorrect. You can combine drawing a weapon with a movement move action, but not stowing one. It's easier to get something out than to put it away.
whitebaron 10-28-07, 07:19 AM	I was under the quite firm impression that using a scroll requires both hands free. You can hold it in one hand, but using it requires two hands. Having a scroll and a weapon out at the same time makes little sense unless directly called for in some strange tactic. if the scroll has somatic components, you need one hand free in addition to the hand holding the scroll. else, you don't need it, as was pointed out just this week to me with scrolls of true strike. Drawing weapons when escaping from a grapple? Well, I suppose. But that's improvisation on your part, to maintain a certain sequence of events. I'm not very keen on that, obviously. if it is a melee combattant, and wants to go to melee, this is the only real thing to do. since escaping the grapple is no full round action, you can obviously do this. As far as rolls go... I disagree with both you and whitebaron. The reason why you keep all rolls that you can is to avoid just this; someone suggests changing a small thing early on in a fight, then you have to reroll everything that would happen in one round or another. Or if you do it haphazardly; like letting someone reroll a critical damage but not rerolling anything else in the battle, it clearly favors the person who got to reroll their bad roll, while not having to reroll anything else. Thus, my suggestion to keep the original damage as it would be entirely fair to both sides. My opponent gets the extra damage they should have gotten, but doesn't get to ignore the bad roll that is quite clearly fight changing. If those extra damage had done one or two more points of damage it could have gone either way. So I feel this is pretty important. you seem to be pretty heated on that subject. it is as fair to reroll as it is to roll in the first place. it would not be fair to reroll things without reason to do so. what would you do, if you misread the damage of something? let's say d8 instead of d6. the roller got a 1 on the d8, reroll, 6 on the d6. there is nothing you can do about this. it's just like arguing "why did my familiar attack before me, i would have hit with that roll" - you have to put some trust into pitlords not wanting one side to win. if you' ve got a problem with that, tell mwb that you want the fight rerun next week. but pls, don't scare a pitlord away by arguing hard like that.
Taureus_Drakken 10-28-07, 11:16 AM	I was under the quite firm impression that using a scroll requires both hands free. You can hold it in one hand, but using it requires two hands. Having a scroll and a weapon out at the same time makes little sense unless directly called for in some strange tactic. She already had the main weapon out? When? In r1 she started with just her bow out (if she was holding the bow and anything else, she wouldn't be able to use the bow, thus negating the r1 crit). She put said bow away in r9 and was quite busy after that (see end of post for more details on r9) The first time the fight mentions drawing any weapons is r13. Drawing weapons when escaping from a grapple? Well, I suppose. But that's improvisation on your part, to maintain a certain sequence of events. I'm not very keen on that, obviously. As far as rolls go... I disagree with both you and whitebaron. The reason why you keep all rolls that you can is to avoid just this; someone suggests changing a small thing early on in a fight, then you have to reroll everything that would happen in one round or another. Or if you do it haphazardly; like letting someone reroll a critical damage but not rerolling anything else in the battle, it clearly favors the person who got to reroll their bad roll, while not having to reroll anything else. Thus, my suggestion to keep the original damage as it would be entirely fair to both sides. My opponent gets the extra damage they should have gotten, but doesn't get to ignore the bad roll that is quite clearly fight changing. If those extra damage had done one or two more points of damage it could have gone either way. So I feel this is pretty important. Also I notice that in r9 you had her start bardic music (standard), stow her bow (move) and move away (move); this is incorrect. You can combine drawing a weapon with a movement move action, but not stowing one. It's easier to get something out than to put it away. I will admit, she shouldn't have had anything else in her hands while trying to use the scroll. And by your logic, she didn't anyway. The only mention of drawing any weapons was the short sword. How is drawing a weapon while escaping a grapple improvisation? So because the tactics didn't specifically state "if grappled, draw a weapon if I escape", that's imporvisation? They did say to have both weapons out to attack as soon as possible. Since you are pointing out that there's too many actions in the round where she uses Inspire Courage, should I do what every other pitlord does with a weapon that's no longer needed, and drop it? Or in any round afterwards? It wouldn't be fair to you, but it would eliminate the extra, illegal action. Should I just redo the entire fight, the use of Fascinate should be dropped...If I am going to be fair for everyone, she should get more rounds of shooting at you (possibly hitting you), instead of using Fascinate. It's not like I don't have time to do a rerun. I just think that as it stands, the edits I have made though they change the outcome from what it originally had been, they aren't favoring one person or another. I hope we can move past this.. ¬Taureus¬
Taureus_Drakken 10-28-07, 01:42 PM	@ackbar vs. kai: fight changed, but result didn't. it was far closer than before. 1 hp left to the victor, and an unarmed strike decided the fight! I just checked this over, and you make an attack against the AC of a worn object (a gauntlet counts a such). You can't specifically sunder something worn by a character. I don't think it will change the outcome, but if he can't hit the AC of the object, he can't destroy it. At least not as easily as attempting to sunder it. I don't want you to go back and edit things. I just wanted to point something out to remember in the future. ¬Taureus¬
Vathelokai 10-28-07, 01:43 PM	Is there a maximum height on the plains map (when flying)? Raskos would love to find that there isn't.
Rauul 10-28-07, 01:51 PM	Is there a maximum height on the plains map (when flying)? Raskos would love to find that there isn't. unlike the city map... the Plains i see no max height... hmmm
whitebaron 10-28-07, 01:52 PM	I just checked this over, and you make an attack against the AC of a worn object (a gauntlet counts a such). You can't specifically sunder something worn by a character. I don't think it will change the outcome, but if he can't hit the AC of the object, he can't destroy it. At least not as easily as attempting to sunder it. I don't want you to go back and edit things. I just wanted to point something out to remember in the future. ¬Taureus¬ Please reference the passage of the SRD, where it says that a gauntlet is not a weapon. As it is listed under weapons, i handled it as weapon. as you can see with the wand, is sundered it using its ac. you can specifically sunder something worn by a character.
Vathelokai 10-28-07, 02:25 PM	Question: Kracknol is listed as having a fly speed of 60 (boots of fly). He's a dwarf in medium armor. The description of fly says that medium armor slows you to 40. I was under the impression that the dwarf 'no encumbered speed' ability would not effect the fly spell. So what is Kracknol's fly speed and why? And if your interested, check out the first 3 rounds, here.
Hirumajoe 10-28-07, 02:27 PM	I just checked this over, and you make an attack against the AC of a worn object (a gauntlet counts a such). You can't specifically sunder something worn by a character. I don't think it will change the outcome, but if he can't hit the AC of the object, he can't destroy it. At least not as easily as attempting to sunder it. I don't want you to go back and edit things. I just wanted to point something out to remember in the future. ¬Taureus¬ Actually, the restriction is against sundering *armor*. Not worn items. I point you to the combat section, sundering. Sundering a Carried or Worn Object You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character. As you can see, worn objects can explicitly be sundered. And in this case, since gauntlets, spiked gauntlets and armor spikes are listed under the weapons table I presume they count as wielded weapons in any case. Otherwise you could attack them with the eaiser fixed AC. The restriction on armor (I believe) is there to prevent sundering the easier to hit armor and then proceeding to attack the now undefended target. Since armor spikes, gauntlets, and spiked gauntlets don't actually provide AC, it seems reasonable that they should be valid targets for sundering.
Rauul 10-28-07, 02:30 PM	Question: Kracknol is listed as having a fly speed of 60 (boots of fly). He's a dwarf in medium armor. The description of fly says that medium armor slows you to 40. I was under the impression that the dwarf 'no encumbered speed' ability would not effect the fly spell. So what is Kracknol's fly speed and why? And if your interested, check out the first 3 rounds, here. we always considered dwarf's racial to override the fly spell (as it was wrote generic).. that may need a court ruling.. as i believe it was a house rule..
Hirumajoe 10-28-07, 02:51 PM	Woops, wrong thread. Nothing to see here. :)
SauroGrenom 10-28-07, 03:01 PM	Question: Kracknol is listed as having a fly speed of 60 (boots of fly). He's a dwarf in medium armor. The description of fly says that medium armor slows you to 40. I was under the impression that the dwarf 'no encumbered speed' ability would not effect the fly spell. So what is Kracknol's fly speed and why? And if your interested, check out the first 3 rounds, here. Ummm... I thought there were only 3 titan skeletons. Not 4. Where did the other guy come from? The monster table has only 3titan skeletons listed. I thought that the dwarf's racial ability was general and applied to all movement types. Oh, and Kracknol's speed of through +10 movement bonus applies to all movement equally as well.
Taureus_Drakken 10-28-07, 03:02 PM	Please reference the passage of the SRD, where it says that a gauntlet is not a weapon. As it is listed under weapons, i handled it as weapon. as you can see with the wand, is sundered it using its ac. you can specifically sunder something worn by a character. The SRD doesn't say that a gauntlet isn't a weapon. But there is not listing for anything besides blades and hafted weapons...Unfortunate. Meh, I guess I was mistaken. Like I said, I wasn't looking for an edit, given the outcome. I just wanted to point something out that might come up in the future. Seeing that I was mistaken, there's nothing more to see here... ¬Taureus¬
Eamane 10-28-07, 04:04 PM	if the scroll has somatic components, you need one hand free in addition to the hand holding the scroll. else, you don't need it, as was pointed out just this week to me with scrolls of true strike. if it is a melee combattant, and wants to go to melee, this is the only real thing to do. since escaping the grapple is no full round action, you can obviously do this. you seem to be pretty heated on that subject. it is as fair to reroll as it is to roll in the first place. it would not be fair to reroll things without reason to do so. what would you do, if you misread the damage of something? let's say d8 instead of d6. the roller got a 1 on the d8, reroll, 6 on the d6. there is nothing you can do about this. it's just like arguing "why did my familiar attack before me, i would have hit with that roll" - you have to put some trust into pitlords not wanting one side to win. if you' ve got a problem with that, tell mwb that you want the fight rerun next week. but pls, don't scare a pitlord away by arguing hard like that. If the roll was entirely wrong, of course it makes sense to reroll it. I.E: a d6 instead of a d8; that's fine. But that's not the situation here. We have a perfect good roll that needs to be augmented, not rerolled. Like if I accidentally roll a hide check as 1d20+10 instead of 1d20+15; I don't do another roll, I just alter the result of the original roll by 5. A more extreme example would be a unnamed mis-placed 1d20 roll; that is the 'line' for me where rerolls are necessary. If the roll is properly marked and uses the correct die size, rerolls arn't needed. Even if it's in the wrong round, with the COCO dice roller, establishing what was rolled in what order is very easy due to the automatic time stamping feature. The reason why I'm heated about it is a long time ago in a board not too far away (boards1 vs gleemax) there were multiple fights that hammered out the reroll policy as I see it. Most of these fights did not go my way. There was lengthy discussion and the system that I described was settled on as being the best as it 1. prevents complete reruns by pointing out small changes and 2. has flexibility to allow for the rearranging of sequences/events without losing 'important' rolls. These are both good things in my mind, even if I didn't appreciate them when they were decided. The last thing I want to do is scare a pitlord (and a decent one at that) away, so my apologizes if I came/am coming off that way, I just feel this is an important issue to anyone that wants to pitlord, something that should be handled consistently. And no, I'm not going to ask for a rerun, the outcome of this fight isn't as important to me as how it's handled. I will admit, she shouldn't have had anything else in her hands while trying to use the scroll. And by your logic, she didn't anyway. The only mention of drawing any weapons was the short sword. How is drawing a weapon while escaping a grapple improvisation? So because the tactics didn't specifically state "if grappled, draw a weapon if I escape", that's imporvisation? They did say to have both weapons out to attack as soon as possible. Since you are pointing out that there's too many actions in the round where she uses Inspire Courage, should I do what every other pitlord does with a weapon that's no longer needed, and drop it? Or in any round afterwards? It wouldn't be fair to you, but it would eliminate the extra, illegal action. Should I just redo the entire fight, the use of Fascinate should be dropped...If I am going to be fair for everyone, she should get more rounds of shooting at you (possibly hitting you), instead of using Fascinate. It's not like I don't have time to do a rerun. I just think that as it stands, the edits I have made though they change the outcome from what it originally had been, they aren't favoring one person or another. I hope we can move past this.. ¬Taureus¬ As far as drawing weapons go, yeah, you are right. I was just a bit excited, it's a completely logical action to take. As far as the bow goes; I would look at her tactics to see if she would want to re-establish ranged combat at any time after the initial barrage. If so, it would be important not to drop the bow. If not, then dropping it should be fine with the player. Some players have restrictions on dropping items in combat, but most don't. Given that you didn't know about the status of fascinate and it didn't seem to change the fight (She needs several high=ish rolls in a row to successfully hide from me and then get a shot-off while I'm flat-footed), I wasn't going to request a rerun on those grounds. If you want to redo from the start and remove all the rounds relating to fascinate, you certainly have my permission to do so however. There is a possibility that she snipes me to death, but I rather doubt it'll turn out that way. (Or I would have written about it more in my tactics, neh?) Well, I feel that rerolling the damage as you did is anything but fair, which is more or less the whole point of all my posts. If I've been able to communicate to you why that is so, great. If not, then I hope someone else can explain it at another time. As a note; sharp eye with the flurry rules, I appreciate your commitment to running everything correctly.
Vathelokai 10-28-07, 04:13 PM	Ummm... I thought there were only 3 titan skeletons. Not 4. Where did the other guy come from? The monster table has only 3titan skeletons listed. Ummm... Entirely from my Imagination :eek: . I thought that the dwarf's racial ability was general and applied to all movement types. Oh, and Kracknol's speed of through +10 movement bonus applies to all movement equally as well. Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves can move at this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load (unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations).Since it is in a paragraph referencing land speed, I thought it was a land speed thing (it uses the wording 'this speed'). But as Rauul says, it has always applied to all movement modes before (aquatic dwarves can swim full speed carrying a heavy load??), so for this fight I'll go with it. Only makes a round of difference. Will edit in speed of thought in a bit. EDIT: fixed.
Eamane 10-28-07, 05:49 PM	So I have a question that is a bit odd, but here goes. Character B is in a position where he has cover at all times. Character A current does not have LOS to character B or vice-versa. Character A has initiative and moves through a square where he has LOS to character B, but ends his turn in a square where he does not. According to the Skill rules, Character A is autospotted by character B, because he is in a square that doesn't have cover relative to character B. Here is the tricky part, if I'm reading this right, Character A doesn't get any chance to notice Character B, because he only gets his reactive check on Character B's turn, whereupon he will not have LOS and thus not be able to make the spot check; correct? Continuing on, if Character B then (after all that) moved to a location where he still has cover relative to character A, but had LOS again, if Character A now had cover, Character B would have no chance to spot Character A, but Character A would now get his chance to spot character B. This is all assuming no one is spending actions to gain checks on their turn. The reason why this is odd is that... well, it's normally not run this way. (Generally, I see people roll opposed hide/spot/etc as soon as either person establishes LOS, with both people checking at the same time/modifiers) But as my latest fight had alot of cover involved, I thought it worth it double-check how I ran hiding.
Luni 10-28-07, 06:05 PM	So I have a question that is a bit odd, but here goes. Character B is in a position where he has cover at all times. Character A current does not have LOS to character B or vice-versa. Character A has initiative and moves through a square where he has LOS to character B, but ends his turn in a square where he does not. According to the Skill rules, Character A is autospotted by character B, because he is in a square that doesn't have cover relative to character B. Here is the tricky part, if I'm reading this right, Character A doesn't get any chance to notice Character B, because he only gets his reactive check on Character B's turn, whereupon he will not have LOS and thus not be able to make the spot check; correct? Continuing on, if Character B then (after all that) moved to a location where he still has cover relative to character A, but had LOS again, if Character A now had cover, Character B would have no chance to spot Character A, but Character A would now get his chance to spot character B. This is all assuming no one is spending actions to gain checks on their turn. The reason why this is odd is that... well, it's normally not run this way. (Generally, I see people roll opposed hide/spot/etc as soon as either person establishes LOS, with both people checking at the same time/modifiers) But as my latest fight had alot of cover involved, I thought it worth it double-check how I ran hiding. After reading the rules, Character A won't be able to make a roll on Character B because he isn't allowed the reactive roll on his own turn. That said, stealthy fights are a real annoyance to run. You appear to be doing it correctly, Eamane.
whitebaron 10-28-07, 07:11 PM	shadow vs team is up. this fight took a hell lot longer to start than i expected it to be... once i got going, it was over soon. oh, how i hate the lots of buffing. *reallyhopesfor4etoreducethatcrap*
Rauul 10-28-07, 08:01 PM	shadow vs team is up. this fight took a hell lot longer to start than i expected it to be... once i got going, it was over soon. oh, how i hate the lots of buffing. *reallyhopesfor4etoreducethatcrap* how do you grapple when on a horse.. why did shadow stop beside Demarcos, and not push past to get into flanking (he had the movement) and why didn't DeMarcos get an AOO when Snake-eyes moved to him...
Eamane 10-28-07, 08:30 PM	how do you grapple when on a horse.. why did shadow stop beside Demarcos, and not push past to get into flanking (he had the movement) and why didn't DeMarcos get an AOO when Snake-eyes moved to him... Strangely enough, we do have rules for grappling on a horse. It's come up more often than you'd think. Addendum: How deep does water have to be to Swim with the swim speed in? In particular, would the 5-deep stream in the Forest map be swimmable?
Erithmu 10-28-07, 09:58 PM	@T10: thanks for the Torel/Malik fight ... I don't have any fight issues, Mal76 might. I have rewards issues in that I think I should be over 3000xp gained due to slain giving me adjustments. 3000 +25%-9.375 = 3468(.75)xp same sort of thing w/ the gp, but I'll wait for mal to say something if he has issues w/ the fight.
McJarvis 10-28-07, 10:33 PM	@MWB: I might have messed up. Your rolled monster was 3 vamp spawns, but I was assuming that "normal light" meant "no advantage/disadvantage" light. If it means the vampires succumb to their exposure to the sun, LMK & I'll reroll [though I suspect you won't care.]
Vathelokai 10-29-07, 01:57 AM	And a bit more of 'clash of the titan'skeletons over here.
whitebaron 10-29-07, 07:33 AM	how do you grapple when on a horse.. why did shadow stop beside Demarcos, and not push past to get into flanking (he had the movement) and why didn't DeMarcos get an AOO when Snake-eyes moved to him... you leave the horse, because you have to move into the square of your opponent. else, everything else is as normal grappling rules. if you are not content with this, snake eyes could dismount next to raul, (move, no AoO) and then grapple. the horse only had to do a 5ftp step. and - and you only get AoOs when someone leaves a threatened square. - which brings me to - do you get an AoO when you start a grapple, are successful and have to move into the opponents square? checking it over, the srd says: yes. so DeMarcos will get an AoO to drop SnakeEyes. if he does, i will rerun from then. if not, result stands. about the pushing past: the 2d6 acid damage from the center of the sewers said no to do this. you'd need a tumbled 20 to go through the horse. -- edit-- i added the AoO for DeMarcos, which misses by 2 points (12 vs AC 14 (no dex since grappling already started)
McJarvis 10-29-07, 10:47 AM	Gak vs the three Vampire Spawns is up (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14162503&postcount=1418). Setup can be found here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14162482&postcount=1417) Known issues: Ran out of stuff for the cohort to do. Forgot to have Gak rage when he dipped below 18 hp. I don't think this will change the outcome - When I combed through the battle I re-did this Three monsters with a effective save-or-die at-will effect is pretty nasty. Especially for ones that are survivors like vampys are. edit-> forgot to count in bless. When I get home from work I'll take a looksie and see if this changes anything. edit2-> ALSO forgot to account for the armor/natural armor/tower shield not contributing to AC while the third vamp was gaseous. I'll look over this, because it definately could change the fight. Edit's taken care of. He managed to take out one of the vampys, but the others still took him down.
lonewolf 10-29-07, 01:58 PM	Quavein Siannodel vs. Verren FireStarter is up. It was over before it really started.
whitebaron 10-29-07, 02:14 PM	Quavein Siannodel vs. Verren FireStarter is up. It was over before it really started. average d20 rolls: d20: 4 rolls, 16.8 average - what can is say.
MindWandererB 10-29-07, 03:31 PM	Gak vs the three Vampire Spawns is up (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14162503&postcount=1418). Setup can be found here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14162482&postcount=1417) Known issues: Ran out of stuff for the cohort to do. Forgot to have Gak rage when he dipped below 18 hp. I don't think this will change the outcome Three monsters with a effective save-or-die at-will effect is pretty nasty. Especially for ones that are survivors like vampys are. edit-> forgot to count in bless. When I get home from work I'll take a looksie and see if this changes anything. edit2-> ALSO forgot to account for the armor/natural armor/tower shield not contributing to AC while the third vamp was gaseous. I'll look over this, because it definately could change the fight. Edit's taken care of. He managed to take out one of the vampys, but the others still took him down. Yeah, the lack of foresight in using Prot. Evil, or staying out of range of the Dominate (I only had to fly a bit higher!) is what killed me here. Any of the other humanoid-shaped opponents and I would have been fine, I think. You were pretty reasonable about the Dominate, I thought. Just one mistake, you have Gak using True Strike from a scroll in r4, which I'm sure is just a typo.
templer10 10-29-07, 03:32 PM	Wroth vs gwerdan is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14197653&postcount=1439) - nothing 2 unpredictable (exepet it taking more then 10 rounds...)
whitebaron 10-29-07, 04:04 PM	well, it was really save and maybe die or win. (or get poisoned and maybe die) - as i had already quite some bad luck on verrens fight (not that he is very lucky in the first place) i guess that will save was the revenge of the dice gods. ;)
McJarvis 10-29-07, 04:34 PM	Yeah, the lack of foresight in using Prot. Evil, or staying out of range of the Dominate (I only had to fly a bit higher!) is what killed me here. I *really* wished they could fly when I realized we were on the city map. Somehow the idea of grappling a grappler & moving him to the kill-zone was appealing. Any of the other humanoid-shaped opponents and I would have been fine, I think. You were pretty reasonable about the Dominate, I thought. Yeah, I bet you would have. Vamps are pretty nasty from the start. Thanks for saying that about the dominate- I really thought long and hard on exactly how I was going to approach that. I figured you might have objected if the command was to lay prone & very still while my two buddies here just wail on you. ;). So I eventually came up with this as a way to not shut you down complately for a failed save, but significantly help out the vampys. Just one mistake, you have Gak using True Strike from a scroll in r4, which I'm sure is just a typo. Well, I was envisioning TIM when I wrote it- so it's sort of a typo :). PS- rewards are complete. Thanks for not picking it all apart- I realize it was semi-sloppy since I forgot so many things. PPS- I'm glad it didn't come up, but I'm pretty sure you need a heal check to determine if a creature is resisting attacks with DR. LMK if I'm wrong on that for future reference.
SauroGrenom 10-29-07, 04:53 PM	And a bit more of 'clash of the titan'skeletons over here. I'm not totally sure about the dive attack damage thing... I know that mounted characters don't get increased damage on a flying dive. But I thought that flying characters can dive themselves and get increased damage on slashing or piercing weapons they wield. I cannot find the rule right now, but I'm fairly sure that this is the case. Zevox had a character based on the idea, and I know Gareth has used it recently on the campaign. Also I'm almost 100% sure you jilted Kracknol on damage and attack bonus in the first round. Two handed weapons get a double bonus to damage due to power attack. Also he gets a bonus on damage from the opponent being a favored enemy. I think that given the rolls, he should be causing 74hp damage on that first round. As the fight is going there's no need to edit it, but I want to get that resolved or future reference. I think dive attacks by flying characters does double slashing weapon damage... That would double the above damage total.
Hirumajoe 10-29-07, 05:03 PM	I know that mounted characters don't get increased damage on a flying dive. But I thought that flying characters can dive themselves and get increased damage on slashing or piercing weapons they wield. I cannot find the rule right now, but I'm fairly sure that this is the case. Zevox had a character based on the idea, and I know Gareth has used it recently on the campaign. Try rules of the game, all about movement, part 5: Charge Flying creatures can use the charge action. A flying charge must be in straight line and most cover at least 10 feet (2 squares). A flyer can charge while diving, but not while gaining more than 5 feet altitude (unless the flyer has perfect maneuverability and can climb without losing speed). If a flyer makes a diving charge of at least 30 feet (6 squares) and also loses 10 feet of altitude or more, it can attack only with a claw or with a piercing or slashing weapon. These attacks, however, deal double damage.
Eluria 10-29-07, 05:11 PM	Wroth vs gwerdan is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14197653&postcount=1439) - nothing 2 unpredictable (exepet it taking more then 10 rounds...) Thanks for the run; I see no errors; if touch of madness succeeded it may have turned out differently, but oh well. Thanks! -e
Luni 10-29-07, 05:32 PM	Try rules of the game, all about movement, part 5: That directly contradicts the SRD. A creature that flies can make dive attacks. A dive attack works just like a charge, but the diving creature must move a minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet. It can make only claw or talon attacks, but these deal double damage. A creature can use the run action while flying, provided it flies in a straight line.
hogarth 10-29-07, 05:57 PM	@whitebaron: The rewards for The Eternal Dreamless Sleep are wrong; since Shadow brought his cohort, they should get 1200 * (1 - 12.5% + 25%) = 1350 gp/xp. I'm not sure what this comment means: @hogarth: please include your freetime activites in your sheet. i don't want to have to go to the roster again after i'm done with the fight. For a simple activity (like "Guard" in the case of Snake-Eyes), listing it in the subject line is adequate, I think.
whitebaron 10-29-07, 06:08 PM	@whitebaron: The rewards for The Eternal Dreamless Sleep are wrong; since Shadow brought his cohort, they should get 1200 * (1 - 12.5% + 25%) = 1350 gp/xp. I'm not sure what this comment means: For a simple activity (like "Guard" in the case of Snake-Eyes), listing it in the subject line is adequate, I think. yeah, missed the cohort. but will wait for edit until rauul has further comments. about the guard: well, i didn't see it there, so i didn't know what you where doing. @t10: you missed gwerdans used pp. :) oh, and i just realised you didn't give gwerdan a bonus to grapple for being enlarged. added this to my sheet for future pitlords.
Vathelokai 10-29-07, 06:46 PM	I'm not totally sure about the dive attack damage thing... I know that mounted characters don't get increased damage on a flying dive. But I thought that flying characters can dive themselves and get increased damage on slashing or piercing weapons they wield. I cannot find the rule right now, but I'm fairly sure that this is the case. Zevox had a character based on the idea, and I know Gareth has used it recently on the campaign. As Luni has pointed out, the rules of the game that allows it contradicts the SRD. I went to look that up and after finding the rule in the SRD, stopped looking for more evidence. If we have a house rule that I'm unaware of, then we can change it. I know this one has gone back and forth a couple times in the last few years.Also I'm almost 100% sure you jilted Kracknol on damage and attack bonus in the first round. Two handed weapons get a double bonus to damage due to power attack.I was not aware of that (I almost never play fighters - If I knew that, I would have changed the weapons on this sunder-cleric, but oh well). I'll fix it.Also he gets a bonus on damage from the opponent being a favored enemy.However, this cleric is a dragon. When we were doing monster info at the begining, you specificly stated that it wasn't a giant, but a dragon, so your monster lore was for a dragon. Despite the strain on reasonability, templated creatures still only have one type.I think dive attacks by flying characters does double slashing weapon damage... That would double the above damage total.Double for any weapon seems reasonable to me, but I'm warry of using Rules of the Game when they contradict the SRD.
McJarvis 10-29-07, 10:14 PM	I'm going to have to admit: I really hate doing monks for monster fights. Preliminary of my creation can be found here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14162526&postcount=1419). I'll run the fight in the morning. edit after reading gladiators char sheet- I suppose this is more or less proof that I never read opponents char sheets before making the monster. I've successfully made two monsters whose claim to fame are grappling & speed: yet they can do neither as good as the PC they are facing. Heh.
SauroGrenom 10-29-07, 11:28 PM	Double for any weapon seems reasonable to me, but I'm warry of using Rules of the Game when they contradict the SRD.I forgot about the template thing. One of my fatal flaws is that I usually look for ways that things work, instead of ways that they don't work. Anyway, we've been using the RoTG rule on this one for a while now. I'm OK with you making your ruling sine that's the pitlord's authority. But I'd also be disappointed if Kracknol lost due to that. But I can deal.
Vathelokai 10-30-07, 12:46 AM	I forgot about the template thing. One of my fatal flaws is that I usually look for ways that things work, instead of ways that they don't work.I think physicians shouldn't have fatal flaws... maybe it's just me. :) Anyway, we've been using the RoTG rule on this one for a while now. I'm OK with you making your ruling sine that's the pitlord's authority. But I'd also be disappointed if Kracknol lost due to that. But I can deal. No worries. The fight is completed and things turned out better than you expected in the tactics. All that's left is calculating rewards.
templer10 10-30-07, 02:47 AM	yeah, missed the cohort. but will wait for edit until rauul has further comments. about the guard: well, i didn't see it there, so i didn't know what you where doing. @t10: you missed gwerdans used pp. :) oh, and i just realised you didn't give gwerdan a bonus to grapple for being enlarged. added this to my sheet for future pitlords. What pps used? you just used items, and i did give the bonus, check the roller.
whitebaron 10-30-07, 03:03 AM	What pps used? you just used items, and i did give the bonus, check the roller. grip of iron?
templer10 10-30-07, 06:31 AM	grip of iron? Forgot to use it (and you said "use iron fist"?), you won anyway, enjoy the free pps.
whitebaron 10-30-07, 06:58 AM	haha, well, i won't need to much of them. with only one power and 3 pps, i'd likely use it every fight once. and for the roller: now i know what you missed - not the additional size, but the grip of iron. i kinda mistell the name of the power every time... i read somewhere that you can manifest from powerstone by paying the pps and the powerstone stays intact? if so, can anyone point me to the rules of this?
lonewolf 10-30-07, 07:20 AM	haha, well, i won't need to much of them. with only one power and 3 pps, i'd likely use it every fight once. and for the roller: now i know what you missed - not the additional size, but the grip of iron. i kinda mistell the name of the power every time... i read somewhere that you can manifest from powerstone by paying the pps and the powerstone stays intact? if so, can anyone point me to the rules of this? Manifest an Unknown Power from Another’s Powers Known A psionic character can attempt to manifest a power from a source other than his own knowledge (usually a power stone or another willing psionic character). To do so, the character must first make contact (a process similar to addressing a power stone, requiring a Psicraft check against a DC of 15+ the highest level power in the power stone or repertorie). A psionic character can make contact with only a willing psionic character or creature (unconscious creatures are considered willing, but not psionic characters under the effects of other immobilizing conditions). Characters who can’t use power stones for any reason are also banned from attempting to manifest powers from the knowledge of other psionic characters. Mental contact requires 1 full round of physical contact, which can provoke attacks of opportunity. Once contact is achieved, the character becomes aware of all the powers stored in the power stone or all the powers the other character knows up to the highest level of power the contactor knows himself. Next, the psionic character must choose one of the powers and make a second Psicraft check (DC 15 + the power’s level) to see if he understands it. If the power is not on his class list, he automatically fails this check. Upon successfully making contact with another willing psionic character or creature and learning what he can of one power in particular, the character can immediately attempt to manifest that power even if he doesn’t know it (and assuming he has power points left for the day). He can attempt to manifest the power normally on his next turn, and he succeeds if he makes one additional Psicraft check (DC 15 + the power’s level). He retains the ability to manifest the selected power for only 1 round. If he doesn’t manifest the power, fails the Psicraft check, or manifests a different power, he loses his chance to manifest that power for the day. summarized: you need 3 rounds and a successful Psicraft check each round. => maybe interesting for prebuff effects, but too slow for the arena.
templer10 10-30-07, 07:40 AM	Manifest an Unknown Power from Another’s Powers Known A psionic character can attempt to manifest a power from a source other than his own knowledge (usually a power stone or another willing psionic character). To do so, the character must first make contact (a process similar to addressing a power stone, requiring a Psicraft check against a DC of 15+ the highest level power in the power stone or repertorie). A psionic character can make contact with only a willing psionic character or creature (unconscious creatures are considered willing, but not psionic characters under the effects of other immobilizing conditions). Characters who can’t use power stones for any reason are also banned from attempting to manifest powers from the knowledge of other psionic characters. Mental contact requires 1 full round of physical contact, which can provoke attacks of opportunity. Once contact is achieved, the character becomes aware of all the powers stored in the power stone or all the powers the other character knows up to the highest level of power the contactor knows himself. Next, the psionic character must choose one of the powers and make a second Psicraft check (DC 15 + the power’s level) to see if he understands it. If the power is not on his class list, he automatically fails this check. Upon successfully making contact with another willing psionic character or creature and learning what he can of one power in particular, the character can immediately attempt to manifest that power even if he doesn’t know it (and assuming he has power points left for the day). He can attempt to manifest the power normally on his next turn, and he succeeds if he makes one additional Psicraft check (DC 15 + the power’s level). He retains the ability to manifest the selected power for only 1 round. If he doesn’t manifest the power, fails the Psicraft check, or manifests a different power, he loses his chance to manifest that power for the day. summarized: you need 3 rounds and a successful Psicraft check each round. => maybe interesting for prebuff effects, but too slow for the arena. Blinks a little- How did i ever miss that? iam thinking this could prove usefull with Inertial armor and it's crazy Augmantation Line....
lonewolf 10-30-07, 07:41 AM	I'm going to have to admit: I really hate doing monks for monster fights. Preliminary of my creation can be found here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14162526&postcount=1419). I'll run the fight in the morning. edit after reading gladiators char sheet- I suppose this is more or less proof that I never read opponents char sheets before making the monster. I've successfully made two monsters whose claim to fame are grappling & speed: yet they can do neither as good as the PC they are facing. Heh. One small nitpick before you run the fight: The Giths grapple modifier should be only +9(+4 BAB, +1 Str, +4 Improved grapple). Weapon Focus(unarmed strike) doesnt improve the grapple modifier.
lonewolf 10-30-07, 07:47 AM	iam thinking this could prove usefull with Inertial armor and it's crazy Augmantation Line.... hmm That might be interesting for Samuel, to save that mage armor spellcasting service...
McJarvis 10-30-07, 08:04 AM	One small nitpick before you run the fight: The Giths grapple modifier should be only +9(+4 BAB, +1 Str, +4 Improved grapple). Weapon Focus(unarmed strike) doesnt improve the grapple modifier. That's actually a typo on the strength- it should be 14. [you can see I calculated str as a +2 bonus for all attacks as well]. I actually write all my monsters down in a notebook organized by CR so I can use them at tabletop games later on...so occasionally there are typos when I copy them to the computer.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 08:07 AM	I forgot about the template thing. One of my fatal flaws is that I usually look for ways that things work, instead of ways that they don't work. As Vath pointed out, you might want to work on that. ;) "Yes, you seem to be suffering from minor pain, eh? Well- just go take some aspirin at the store, that should solve everything. Oh yeah- and that home situation is nasty. Pick up a six pack to wash down the aspirin with to help with THAT mess" - Sauro to doctor ;)
Macbrea 10-30-07, 08:30 AM	He has the advantage all patients he works on don't have templates. :P
Erithmu 10-30-07, 09:13 AM	@T10: thanks for the Torel/Malik fight ... I don't have any fight issues, Mal76 might. I have rewards issues in that I think I should be over 3000xp gained due to slain giving me adjustments. 3000 +25%-9.375 = 3468(.75)xp same sort of thing w/ the gp, but I'll wait for mal to say something if he has issues w/ the fight. @T10: :bump:
McJarvis 10-30-07, 09:45 AM	prelim on lonewolf's fight is over, but I made some pretty major errors. going back and fixing them now. Ok, now Lonewolf is the winner. Less likely to get complaints now ;) I'm pretty confident on the result now. I'd love someone else's input on how to deal with the lava situation- I kind of went out on a limb for lonewolf & assumed that there are 10ft squares on the corners of the pava pond. If not, I'm not sure you can make someone move & make someone squeeze- though maybe you can. [can you really force them to "squeeze" as is necessary? hmmm]
templer10 10-30-07, 09:57 AM	@T10: :bump: done.
lonewolf 10-30-07, 10:44 AM	prelim on lonewolf's fight is over, but I made some pretty major errors. going back and fixing them now. Ok, now Lonewolf is the winner. Less likely to get complaints now ;) I'm pretty confident on the result now. I'd love someone else's input on how to deal with the lava situation- I kind of went out on a limb for lonewolf & assumed that there are 10ft squares on the corners of the pava pond. If not, I'm not sure you can make someone move & make someone squeeze- though maybe you can. [can you really force them to "squeeze" as is necessary? hmmm] thanks for running. Had I known that those things are trying to grapple, I would have made different tactics, which would made this victory much clearer(let them come closer to the pool, use expansion instead of Force Screen, voluntarily lose their first grapple check to establish the grapple), but unfortunately Therador hasnt got enough skillpoints for those knowledge skills. The only thing I see that I would want to discuss for future fights is the speed of moving the grapple: I see nothing in the rules that prohibits Therador to use his fly speed for moving the grapple. He is strong enough to carry the 2 Giths so he should be able to do so.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 10:59 AM	The only thing I see that I would want to discuss for future fights is the speed of moving the grapple: I see nothing in the rules that prohibits Therador to use his fly speed for moving the grapple. He is strong enough to carry the 2 Giths so he should be able to do so. If you had good or better fly manuverability I'd do it that way- but with just average I'm pretty sure you can't do it while grappling due to the hindered movement. I could be wrong, though...
Luni 10-30-07, 11:11 AM	If you had good or better fly manuverability I'd do it that way- but with just average I'm pretty sure you can't do it while grappling due to the hindered movement. I could be wrong, though... Especially if a Gith was wrestling against a wing or two. To be honest, magical or supernatural flight may be able to move in a grapple. Ex flight only if you are two sizes larger then the other grappler (aka snatch feat). Jusat my two cents.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 11:27 AM	Especially if a Gith was wrestling against a wing or two. To be honest, magical or supernatural flight may be able to move in a grapple. Ex flight only if you are two sizes larger then the other grappler (aka snatch feat). Jusat my two cents. I feel like manuverability should have more to do with it than the source of the flight- but likely this is just something that'll need to be decided in the courtroom. I'd be curious to know if something with average flight could fly at all in hampered movement. [say: in a solid fog] I'm reluctant to take into consideration whether the gith are "grappling the wings", though...since this has no solid mechanic we can judge by.
templer10 10-30-07, 12:42 PM	I feel like manuverability should have more to do with it than the source of the flight- but likely this is just something that'll need to be decided in the courtroom. I'd be curious to know if something with average flight could fly at all in hampered movement. [say: in a solid fog] I'm reluctant to take into consideration whether the gith are "grappling the wings", though...since this has no solid mechanic we can judge by. You can't move the grapple while flying with avrage or below manuverability, or to be precise - you can't move it anywhere but in a strait line- That is because you need a standart action in order to move the grapple ANY distance (flying or otherwise), you can't take a normal move action in a grapple, and avrage or below manuverability require that to keep flying you need to move half your speed forward, Since you only HAVE half your speed while moveing the grapple - you can only move the grapple forward.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 12:58 PM	You can't move the grapple while flying with avrage or below manuverability, or to be precise - you can't move it anywhere but in a strait line- That is because you need a standart action in order to move the grapple ANY distance (flying or otherwise), you can't take a normal move action in a grapple, and avrage or below manuverability require that to keep flying you need to move half your speed forward, Since you only HAVE half your speed while moveing the grapple - you can only move the grapple forward. Wow- yeah, totally forgot about that. You have to move at half speed or land- with a 100ft fly speed that means 100 ft per round [or rather, two 50 ft movements]. When you are grappling you only move forward at half your base speed- a paltry 1/4 of total possible movement. Thanks templer. I knew it was because of the manuverability.
TelinArtho 10-30-07, 01:03 PM	Actually - to be correct - if you have to move 1/2 your speed forward to maintain altitude - you have to move 50ft for a 100ft fly speed in any given round. It is not 100ft minimum.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 01:07 PM	Actually - to be correct - if you have to move 1/2 your speed forward to maintain altitude - you have to move 50ft for a 100ft fly speed in any given round. It is not 100ft minimum. hmm. I admit I haven't used the flight rules too often in home campaigns- but I always just assumed that half movement forward meant the movement you could do in one round. I guess basing it on actual speed makes a little more sense...
TelinArtho 10-30-07, 01:26 PM	hmm. I admit I haven't used the flight rules too often in home campaigns- but I always just assumed that half movement forward meant the movement you could do in one round. I guess basing it on actual speed makes a little more sense... It is something I made a mistake about a while back myself. That said - reduced movement becomes a problem: Fly Speed 100ft, minimum forward 50ft per round. In medium armor, speed is reduced to 70ft - can't do too much turning on a single move, not much restriction on a full move though. In medium armor and entangled (or other speed limiting effect) - speed is reduced to 35ft - has to spend a full-round action to stay aloft (at least 2 move actions) Even without medium armor but in an effect that reduces speed by half, the creature can't do any significant turn in a round that it wants to attack.
whitebaron 10-30-07, 02:19 PM	@whitebaron: The rewards for The Eternal Dreamless Sleep are wrong; since Shadow brought his cohort, they should get 1200 * (1 - 12.5% + 25%) = 1350 gp/xp. rewards changed, as rauul has not issued further comments yet...
lonewolf 10-30-07, 02:37 PM	Graashnak vs Inzin is up.
MindWandererB 10-30-07, 03:40 PM	Manifest an Unknown Power from Another’s Powers Known A psionic character can attempt to manifest a power from a source other than his own knowledge (usually a power stone or another willing psionic character). To do so, the character must first make contact (a process similar to addressing a power stone, requiring a Psicraft check against a DC of 15+ the highest level power in the power stone or repertorie). A psionic character can make contact with only a willing psionic character or creature (unconscious creatures are considered willing, but not psionic characters under the effects of other immobilizing conditions). Characters who can’t use power stones for any reason are also banned from attempting to manifest powers from the knowledge of other psionic characters. Mental contact requires 1 full round of physical contact, which can provoke attacks of opportunity. Once contact is achieved, the character becomes aware of all the powers stored in the power stone or all the powers the other character knows up to the highest level of power the contactor knows himself. Next, the psionic character must choose one of the powers and make a second Psicraft check (DC 15 + the power’s level) to see if he understands it. If the power is not on his class list, he automatically fails this check. Upon successfully making contact with another willing psionic character or creature and learning what he can of one power in particular, the character can immediately attempt to manifest that power even if he doesn’t know it (and assuming he has power points left for the day). He can attempt to manifest the power normally on his next turn, and he succeeds if he makes one additional Psicraft check (DC 15 + the power’s level). He retains the ability to manifest the selected power for only 1 round. If he doesn’t manifest the power, fails the Psicraft check, or manifests a different power, he loses his chance to manifest that power for the day. summarized: you need 3 rounds and a successful Psicraft check each round. => maybe interesting for prebuff effects, but too slow for the arena.That source doesn't say anything about whether the stone is expended or not... one could infer that it's not, but Complete Psionic (not canon, I know) says that you do use it up. PPS- I'm glad it didn't come up, but I'm pretty sure you need a heal check to determine if a creature is resisting attacks with DR. LMK if I'm wrong on that for future reference.We've played this a little fast and loose in the past. The way I usually run it is that if an attack does no damage at all, and there's no reasonable explanation (e.g. fireball vs. Evasion), the attacker can infer that there's some sort of protective effect in place, like DR or ER. Re: diving with weapons: I've been a long-standing opponent of the RotG take on this. It contradicts the RAW, and implications in other places--for instance, in Races of the Wild, the Raptorans have a weapon (foot-spikes, IIRC) that have the ability to do double damage on a dive as a special characteristic.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 03:47 PM	We've played this a little fast and loose in the past. The way I usually run it is that if an attack does no damage at all, and there's no reasonable explanation (e.g. fireball vs. Evasion), the attacker can infer that there's some sort of protective effect in place, like DR or ER. I guess my only hesitation to that is it more or less nullifies what in my mind should be a primary use for the heal check- though since no one uses it I guess it's a mute point...or is it?
Eamane 10-30-07, 03:47 PM	*snip* We've played this a little fast and loose in the past. The way I usually run it is that if an attack does no damage at all, and there's no reasonable explanation (e.g. fireball vs. Evasion), the attacker can infer that there's some sort of protective effect in place, like DR or ER. Since we have heal rules in place, I generally only allow this inference (Outside of tactics to the contrary) when 1. the target was uninjured before and after an attack (since this can be determined with 0 ranks of heal) or 2. when a successful attack pattern (over multiple rounds even) minimum damage should have changed the health status of the target (as appropriate the attacker's heal rank). Of course, I've only had to do this once, in a monster fight, but the monster was intelligent (8 int, iirc). Just my two cents. But I have a question on my own, again regarding stealth rules. Character B gets a spot check during Character A's turn... but when during Character A's turn? Reading the Hide rules, the number is based on the closest that Character A came to character B in the turn, implying that the check is granted after Character A is done doing everything. But occluded LOS is established far earlier than that. So does character B get a spot check based on how far Character A would have gone if he hadn't been spotted? Character B has a readied action that will likely prevent character A from moving.. thus changing the distance Character A has maintained to character B. Or in other words.. Gibbering Mouther is approaching Darian through the swamp. Darian has a readied deceleration. Does Gibbering mouther finish his move before Darian gets his spot check and thus (maybe) his readied action? Or should Darian get his spot check as soon as Gibbering Mouther comes within his LOS? Those are the only two ways I can see it working. But it's mildly important as to which one is the 'correct' way.
McJarvis 10-30-07, 04:10 PM	Basically: you get a spot check against the "easiest" hide DC in your opponents movement. Once that is established, if there is a readied action then it's like the rest of the opponents move never happened. It's weird to think about, yes, but in the end the D&D creators were probably Calvinists, so it's all kosher.
MindWandererB 10-30-07, 04:16 PM	We don't have this explicitly spelled out, but.... Darian is entitled to the spot check as soon as the Mouther gets within LOS. Thus, Deceleration can interrupt its move. However, he's also entitled to use the distance penalty that corresponds to where the Mouther gets closes to him during its move. As you noticed, this can result in a paradox if he misses the check by a little (e.g. if he'd make the spot if the Mouther moves all the way, but he uses Decelerate as soon as he has LOS, so the Mouther never finishes its move), so I think the way to do it is that he gets the check right away, but he succeeds on the check at the instant that the distance penalties are low enough that he can. So if he fails by 2 at first, he'll spot the Mouther when it gets 20 feet closer.
Eamane 10-30-07, 04:39 PM	We don't have this explicitly spelled out, but.... Darian is entitled to the spot check as soon as the Mouther gets within LOS. Thus, Deceleration can interrupt its move. However, he's also entitled to use the distance penalty that corresponds to where the Mouther gets closes to him during its move. As you noticed, this can result in a paradox if he misses the check by a little (e.g. if he'd make the spot if the Mouther moves all the way, but he uses Decelerate as soon as he has LOS, so the Mouther never finishes its move), so I think the way to do it is that he gets the check right away, but he succeeds on the check at the instant that the distance penalties are low enough that he can. So if he fails by 2 at first, he'll spot the Mouther when it gets 20 feet closer. That sounds workable. Thanks MWB, McJarvis. <goes back to the battle> As a side note... ye gods the Forest Map is awesome for sneaking. The gibbering mouther only has a +1 to move silently and hide, yet is quite able to get close to his opponent without being spotted/heard. Lord help someone who faces a sneak with proper tactics on this map. Without Touchsight, anyways. EDIT: Gibbering Mouther vs Darian is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14163591&postcount=1421). 1 on will saves can be daaangerous, eh? Also.. the image limit 20 is aggravating! Had to remove some of the maps.
templer10 10-30-07, 06:15 PM	Sorry to do this on such a late stage But just after i started work on Tanriel (luni) vs thorell (mcjarvis)) i got an emergecncy work cra$ so i wont be able to finish it today and probably not at all - setup has been posted her (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14206142&postcount=1440)e if someone can pick it up. sorry.
lonewolf 10-30-07, 06:25 PM	That sounds workable. Thanks MWB, McJarvis. <goes back to the battle> As a side note... ye gods the Forest Map is awesome for sneaking. The gibbering mouther only has a +1 to move silently and hide, yet is quite able to get close to his opponent without being spotted/heard. Lord help someone who faces a sneak with proper tactics on this map. Without Touchsight, anyways. EDIT: Gibbering Mouther vs Darian is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14163591&postcount=1421). 1 on will saves can be daaangerous, eh? Also.. the image limit 20 is aggravating! Had to remove some of the maps. Thanks for running.
Rauul 10-30-07, 06:38 PM	Another late fight for me.. Marius vs. Sylean'delues is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14183457&postcount=1429)... Dice roller is off a little was doing some math in my head..
McJarvis 10-30-07, 08:49 PM	Another late fight for me.. Marius vs. Sylean'delues is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14183457&postcount=1429)... Dice roller is off a little was doing some math in my head.. Issues: My tactics were to de-horse my opponent with energy push first. My opponent needs to make a move action every round to get control of his horse, or he gets to do nothing that round. [I'm not really sure if this will change anything in the fight] Marius should get a +3 to attack for it being an electric energy ray The energy push would de-horse him and remove his ability to use it as cover. The net effect is a +7 to my attacks overall[from a +5, that's a pretty big change]
Rauul 10-30-07, 09:00 PM	Issues: My tactics were to de-horse my opponent with energy push first. My opponent needs to make a move action every round to get control of his horse, or he gets to do nothing that round. [I'm not really sure if this will change anything in the fight] Marius should get a +3 to attack for it being an electric energy ray The energy push would de-horse him and remove his ability to use it as cover. The net effect is a +7 to my attacks overall[from a +5, that's a pretty big change] Problem was you had 6 pps to use.. your healing contingency kicked in.. spent 3 pps on vigor (as per your tactics) not leaving you enough left for the fight for energy push.. the +3 ment you needed dc 15 to hit him if he made his ride for cover (avalable to anyone with ride skill on a mount) his move action was to hold his horse still, once he started firing his bow in combat.. he could still fire his bow.. and ride for cover is a free action type action... I will edit it before tomorrow... mutters highlight and color available pps
Luni 10-30-07, 10:16 PM	Sorry to do this on such a late stage But just after i started work on Tanriel (luni) vs thorell (mcjarvis)) i got an emergecncy work cra$ so i wont be able to finish it today and probably not at all - setup has been posted her (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14206142&postcount=1440)e if someone can pick it up. sorry. Oy. I wish I had thought of Enlarge Person and Share spell. :(
McJarvis 10-30-07, 11:14 PM	Oy. I wish I had thought of Enlarge Person and Share spell. :( Thanks :) To my knowledge only Telin and myself have used the particular combo before. I still think that entangle spell might put a damper on my tactics- but we'll see.
bgt 10-31-07, 12:07 AM	Problem was you had 6 pps to use.. your healing contingency kicked in.. spent 3 pps on vigor (as per your tactics) not leaving you enough left for the fight for energy push.. the +3 ment you needed dc 15 to hit him if he made his ride for cover (avalable to anyone with ride skill on a mount) his move action was to hold his horse still, once he started firing his bow in combat.. he could still fire his bow.. and ride for cover is a free action type action... I will edit it before tomorrow... mutters highlight and color available pps Um, before you go editing the fight, there is a bit of a problem with McJarvis's objections: he never would have been able to manifest energy push, or use use his energy ray dorje in the first place. Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can’t attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don’t get the cover benefit. This usage does not take an action. Attacks: Some powers refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, such as disarm and bull rush, are considered attacks. All powers that opponents can resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are considered attacks. Astral construct and similar powers are not considered attacks because the powers themselves don’t harm anyone. Every time I fired at him, his tactics mandated that he ride for cover. Every time he rode for cover, he gave up the ability to attack me, even if that attack was a power. The fight should be edited, but only to give him back the dorje charges he spent, and to remove the times I rode for cover. My tactics never said to ride for cover, and there would have been no need to in the first place.
Erithmu 10-31-07, 12:16 AM	@bgt: Please note that riding for cover does not take an action ... What it is meant to infer that if you ready vs spellcasting/manifesting/Attacking with a melee weapon; the rider can't ride for cover. It is clarified in the CoCo Rules with a link to a Rules of the Game post.
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 12:24 AM	Um, before you go editing the fight, there is a bit of a problem with McJarvis's objections: he never would have been able to manifest energy push, or use use his energy ray dorje in the first place. Every time I fired at him, his tactics mandated that he ride for cover. Every time he rode for cover, he gave up the ability to attack me, even if that attack was a power. The fight should be edited, but only to give him back the dorje charges he spent, and to remove the times I rode for cover. My tactics never said to ride for cover, and there would have been no need to in the first place.Sorry, but according to the RotG (and FAQ, I think), that's not the way it works. You can't attack at the same exact time that you ride for cover, but you can attack at any other time during the round. So he wouldn't be able to ride for cover if you'd readied to attack when he did, for instance, but what he wants to do here is fine.
Taureus_Drakken 10-31-07, 12:55 AM	Sorry to do this on such a late stage But just after i started work on Tanriel (luni) vs thorell (mcjarvis)) i got an emergecncy work cra$ so i wont be able to finish it today and probably not at all - setup has been posted her (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14206142&postcount=1440)e if someone can pick it up. sorry. If no one has picked this up by the time I wake up in the morning. (8-9 hours from this post EST) I will step in and finish it. I would have earlier, but something came up, and I needed to focus on that first. If not, good luck to who ever jumps on it. Goodnight everyone! ¬Taureus¬
Rauul 10-31-07, 02:02 AM	Every time I fired at him, his tactics mandated that he ride for cover. Every time he rode for cover, he gave up the ability to attack me, even if that attack was a power. The fight should be edited, but only to give him back the dorje charges he spent, and to remove the times I rode for cover. My tactics never said to ride for cover, and there would have been no need to in the first place. yea i have argued this in the past... but thats not how D&D worded it... Maybe in 4e they will make it an Actual Action instead of faster than a free action... I agree with you but my hands are tied on this one... Editing the fight now....
Rauul 10-31-07, 02:31 AM	Marius vs. Sylean'delues is Updated (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14183457&postcount=1429)... The Outcome did changed Dice roller is linked.....
Callix 10-31-07, 06:49 AM	@Eamane: I found the start of the fight, and I'm sorry it turned into such a delayfest. I just felt I should point out that my Outmaneuver calculations were based on the fact that Swim takes double penalties for ACP, so the -5 for masterwork full plate becomes -10. Not fight-affecting, but I wanted to point that out. Also, due to bad tactics with a new fighter, I should've specified to shoot whenever the delay penalty kicks in. That's just my mistake, and I'll have to wear it. The fight should speed up a bit from here, and Shaela will finally get her tactics together. Again, sorry to cause you so much work.
Eamane 10-31-07, 07:41 AM	Verger vs Shaela is up here. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14212626&postcount=1441) @Callix Don't worry about it. It's my fault for waiting till the last second to do the fight; slight glitches in tactics are far more standard than flawless ones that don't break down. I do wish it had been a bit faster to run, as I'm going to work in a few hours, but eh, I'll live ;)
McJarvis 10-31-07, 08:45 AM	Marius vs. Sylean'delues is Updated (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14183457&postcount=1429)... The Outcome did changed Dice roller is linked..... Thanks for the re-run & for pitlording. I know how hard it can be :) edit- ow...expensive fight for mar tho. I guess that makes up for the first fight...we need to get that roller checked, way too many low touch attack rolls ;)
McJarvis 10-31-07, 09:54 AM	If no one has picked this up by the time I wake up in the morning. (8-9 hours from this post EST) I will step in and finish it. I would have earlier, but something came up, and I needed to focus on that first. If not, good luck to who ever jumps on it. Goodnight everyone! ¬Taureus¬ Thank you much for offering this. I was very hopeful on getting Thorell active this week too.
Taureus_Drakken 10-31-07, 10:37 AM	Just finished Tanriel vs Thoriel. Here it is. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14213570&postcount=1442) I believe that I followed tactics pretty much to the letter. If anyone sees anything I did wrong, please say something. ¬Taureus¬
McJarvis 10-31-07, 10:44 AM	Just finished Tanriel vs Thoriel. Here it is. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14213570&postcount=1442) I believe that I followed tactics pretty much to the letter. If anyone sees anything I did wrong, please say something. ¬Taureus¬ Only thing I can think of is non-fight changing[literally no edit required]: I believe Thorell has a 15 ft reach with his glaive. This means the druid would have to regular move to base him with a flame blade, provoking an AoO. That actually occured to me while I was dreaming last night. Weird dream, eh? All the same- yet another benefit of weilding reach weapons while enlarged... Thanks for the run!
lonewolf 10-31-07, 10:51 AM	Only thing I can think of is non-fight changing: I believe Thorell has a 15 ft reach with his glaive. This means the druid would have to regular move to base him with a flame blade, provoking an AoO. That actually occured to me while I was dreaming last night. Weird dream, eh? All the same- yet another benefit of weilding reach weapons while enlarged... Thanks for the run! Without looking at the fight: I doubt that he has a 15ft reach. If he is enlarged and wields a glaive he has 20ft reach. Reach weapons dont add 5ft to the wielders reach, but they double the wielders natural reach.
McJarvis 10-31-07, 10:55 AM	Without looking at the fight: I doubt that he has a 15ft reach. If he is enlarged and wields a glaive he has 20ft reach. Reach weapons dont add 5ft to the wielders reach, but they double the wielders natural reach. :-O I thought only adding 5 ft regardless of size was a dumb rule. geez...no wonder large means in charge.
McJarvis 10-31-07, 10:59 AM	nevermind- misread the rules...heh.
whitebaron 10-31-07, 11:09 AM	:-O I thought only adding 5 ft regardless of size was a dumb rule. geez...no wonder large means in charge. its mentioned clearly: A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.
McJarvis 10-31-07, 11:10 AM	its mentioned clearly: I never said I read the rules on it... ;)
Taureus_Drakken 10-31-07, 11:17 AM	Ninja'd...:eek: Looking back, the only thing that might change is the last hit Thorell gets. Unless you can't ride for cover after you have already had your attack action for that round...Even then, there is a 10% chance of failing the check...If need be, I can edit that in, but I am a little sketchy about the 'ride for cover' rules and how they work if you have already attacked/moved in the round. ¬Taureus¬
McJarvis 10-31-07, 11:27 AM	Ninja'd...:eek: Looking back, the only thing that might change is the last hit Thorell gets. Unless you can't ride for cover after you have already had your attack action for that round...Even then, there is a 10% chance of failing the check...If need be, I can edit that in, but I am a little sketchy about the 'ride for cover' rules and how they work if you have already attacked/moved in the round. ¬Taureus¬ they work fine. Only time "you can't attack while riding for cover" rules come into play is if, for instance, the druid's tactics were to "ready to attack when opponent is attacking". THEN I can't ride for cover. Besides- that last attack of mine really should have been the AoO for the druid approaching me, so technically the druid never got an attack in on me ;)
Taureus_Drakken 10-31-07, 11:35 AM	I will edit so that it is an AoO. 'Leaving a threatened square' That way there won't be any arguments. After that, I have to go to work, so unfortunately there won't be anymore edits before Pairings are made for this week. I wish Luni had gotten some to put in a word or two... ¬Taureus¬
Taureus_Drakken 10-31-07, 11:38 AM	And of course, now the roller isn't working to change the tag on the roll...:rolls eyes: ¬Taureus¬
McJarvis 10-31-07, 11:38 AM	I will edit so that it is an AoO. 'Leaving a threatened square' That way there won't be any arguments. After that, I have to go to work, so unfortunately there won't be anymore edits before Pairings are made for this week. I wish Luni had gotten some to put in a word or two... ¬Taureus¬ Hopefully Luni will get a chance to show up before the pairings. I'm editing Thorell to be ready for this week since the fight is technically done & I really don't want to wait out a week.
Luni 10-31-07, 11:41 AM	Just finished Tanriel vs Thoriel. Here it is. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14213570&postcount=1442) I believe that I followed tactics pretty much to the letter. If anyone sees anything I did wrong, please say something. ¬Taureus¬ If someone is entangled, to leave it, they need to make a full round action to brick free, which should negate that true strike hit.
Taureus_Drakken 10-31-07, 11:42 AM	I don't think it would change the outcome, just make it take longer. Besides, you have ranks in Ride as well, so it would come down to negating hits from one another until she had to refresh Flame Blade. But it would be nice to have input from the other combatant. ¬Taureus¬
Taureus_Drakken 10-31-07, 11:44 AM	If someone is entangled, to leave it, they need to make a full round action to brick free, which should negate that true strike hit. Grrr...I thought they get a second save against the spell on their action...That's how I have done it in the past anyway... ¬Taureus¬
McJarvis 10-31-07, 11:46 AM	I don't think it would change the outcome, just make it take longer. Besides, you have ranks in Ride as well, so it would come down to negating hits from one another until she had to refresh Flame Blade. But it would be nice to have input from the other combatant. ¬Taureus¬ hmm. Perhaps a ride check to quick-dismount & approach? I think it's pretty obvious from my tactics that I wanted that truestrike to get in. Unfortunately, it puts us in a position of if I don't make the ride check then the fight will be held over until next week- and I really don't want that. That's too much improv for my tastes. I think the outcome will be the same, though. final edit- I'd approve this: Drop the glaive, draw the bow, fire with that to use the truestrike. [while the horse gets itself free]. I think that's fair given that it's that or just let the truestrike be wasted. When he bases me, use the greataxe to continue the fight until it's over. Or, you know- whatever you decide on. I just want this over before the pairings.
Taureus_Drakken 10-31-07, 11:53 AM	I edited the last two rounds. Str check passes. Doesn't change outcome. ¬Taureus¬
Luni 10-31-07, 11:53 AM	hmm. Perhaps a ride check to quick-dismount & approach? I think it's pretty obvious from my tactics that I wanted that truestrike to get in. Unfortunately, it puts us in a position of if I don't make the ride check then the fight will be held over until next week- and I really don't want that. Hahaha. I'm not overly concerned with a loss. I'll accept it. I just wanted to point out to Taureus the Entangle thing. Also, there shouldn't be an AoO for moving a 5' Step. :) That won't change the fight though.
McJarvis 10-31-07, 11:56 AM	Also, there shouldn't be an AoO for moving a 5' Step. :) That won't change the fight though. The map is wrong at that point. Thorell's reach is 15->20 ft, and he couldn't hit you from 10ft away like he is. Since your reach is 5ft, you actually have to move 10ft before the attack, hence the AoO.
Luni 10-31-07, 12:07 PM	The map is wrong at that point. Thorell's reach is 15->20 ft, and he couldn't hit you from 10ft away like he is. Since your reach is 5ft, you actually have to move 10ft before the attack, hence the AoO. My map says it's a 5' step. Fire the mapmaker! :)
Callix 10-31-07, 03:21 PM	Verger vs Shaela is up here. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14212626&postcount=1441) @Callix Don't worry about it. It's my fault for waiting till the last second to do the fight; slight glitches in tactics are far more standard than flawless ones that don't break down. I do wish it had been a bit faster to run, as I'm going to work in a few hours, but eh, I'll live ;) Thanks for the run in full. I won't ask for the fight to be rerun, but Total Defence is a Dodge bonus to AC, so you lose it when denied Dex. This means that the sneak attacks can actually hit on a 16 or higher, since his AC is 22. Again, it's too late for an edit, but I wanted to point it out.
Eamane 10-31-07, 03:29 PM	Thanks for the run in full. I won't ask for the fight to be rerun, but Total Defence is a Dodge bonus to AC, so you lose it when denied Dex. This means that the sneak attacks can actually hit on a 16 or higher, since his AC is 22. Again, it's too late for an edit, but I wanted to point it out. Ergh. Thanks for pointing that out though. <grumbles> Sorry about that.
Callix 10-31-07, 03:31 PM	Ergh. Thanks for pointing that out though. <grumbles> Sorry about that. No biggie. He probably just would've healed out the damage. It's only three or four shots at best.