Post/Author/DateTime	Post
McJarvis 10-31-07, 12:50 PM	Please don't edit the sheet after the deadline or you will lose the match. HAPPY HALLOWEEN News & Whatnot Tune in next week for highlights of October battles. [Well, really the fights since Oct 17th since that's when I started recording information] 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!
whitebaron 10-31-07, 02:33 PM	please let there be light! gwerdan was not smart enough to buy any light.
Macbrea 10-31-07, 02:35 PM	I am hoping for pitch black so my enemies don't have to look so hard for Izumi. :P
Macbrea 10-31-07, 02:40 PM	Oh, this should be an epic battle this week.. heh.. Izumi vs Aquin is the only thing active in the ECL 9 league.
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 02:50 PM	please let there be light! gwerdan was not smart enough to buy any light. You still have 10 minutes to buy some....
Luni 10-31-07, 02:54 PM	Oh, this should be an epic battle this week.. heh.. Izumi vs Aquin is the only thing active in the ECL 9 league. I was thinking about bringing back Talari one day. She might be a challenge to you ECL 9's.
TelinArtho 10-31-07, 02:56 PM	Oh, this should be an epic battle this week.. heh.. Izumi vs Aquin is the only thing active in the ECL 9 league. Yeah - that might be interesting. The original week I had activated Aquin - I saw that Relanex was active... that might've been interesting (or rather - would be now. I deactivated Aquin when I realized he had so many issues...). Anyway - if the pairings gods decide it to be the fight - so be it.
templer10 10-31-07, 03:09 PM	Elrick is active at ECL 11 (i think all alone 2) - Inter league anyone?
Macbrea 10-31-07, 03:12 PM	Hmm, Elrick vs Izumi and Aquin.... Aquin wouldn't want that on his record.. heh.. Izumi is cursed in team fights.
Eamane 10-31-07, 03:12 PM	Elrick is active at ECL 11 (i think all alone 2) - Inter league anyone? <creates and activates 20 ecl 3 dwarven barb 1/rang 1/fight 1's>
lonewolf 10-31-07, 03:13 PM	well Raskos and Valen Sky are also active at ECL11. Im hoping for an Interleague fight vs Samuel. :cool:
templer10 10-31-07, 03:15 PM	Hmm, Elrick vs Izumi and Aquin.... Aquin wouldn't want that on his record.. heh.. Izumi is cursed in team fights. Actually just noticed there are plenty of ECL 11's active this week- not that i wouldn't mind going vs 2 meleer's when i have anti life shell memorized...
Macbrea 10-31-07, 03:15 PM	Just need the credits to make Izumi a Were-Tiger.... :P
templer10 10-31-07, 03:16 PM	well Raskos and Valen Sky are also active at ECL11. Im hoping for an Interleague fight vs Samuel. :cool: WEll keep samuel active next week also and youll get lorian there- if you dare... He levels either way after this week.
Macbrea 10-31-07, 03:17 PM	Anti-life shell doesn't help much vs Izumi. She has a 20ft reach vs a 10ft emunation. She doesn't actually need to be within and actually prefers to stay back some.
TelinArtho 10-31-07, 03:21 PM	Hmm, Elrick vs Izumi and Aquin.... Aquin wouldn't want that on his record.. heh.. Izumi is cursed in team fights. You should check the original version of Aquin... he leveled from ECL6 to ECL7 with all losses except for a monster fight with somewhat melee-based monsters...
McJarvis 10-31-07, 03:22 PM	<creates and activates 20 ecl 3 dwarven barb 1/rang 1/fight 1's> I should never have let out that secret desire of mine. One of these days someone's going to actually do it where I failed to have the gumption ;)
templer10 10-31-07, 03:26 PM	Anti-life shell doesn't help much vs Izumi. She has a 20ft reach vs a 10ft emunation. She doesn't actually need to be within and actually prefers to stay back some. nice reach but iam wondering why you got GPW over deep impact, all that damage wont help you if you cant actually HIT someone... And elrick has a pretty high AC (like MWB's Kervan without all the buffs). p.s. is Touch ac of 29 good...:D. lol - just realized forgot to mention that elricks breatplate isnt worn, But in the AC breakdown it's not listed as used so It will be just dead weight - could have been light - not that it matters much.
whitebaron 10-31-07, 03:38 PM	You still have 10 minutes to buy some.... mid-cycle? how?
McJarvis 10-31-07, 03:39 PM	mid-cycle? how? One of the first lessons we all have to learn is that Pitlords is not all-knowing. ;)
Rauul 10-31-07, 03:40 PM	nice reach but iam wondering why you got GPW over deep impact, all that damage wont help you if you cant actually HIT someone... And elrick has a pretty high AC (like MWB's Kervan without all the buffs). p.s. is Touch ac of 29 good...:D. lol - just realized forgot to mention that elricks breatplate isnt worn, But in the AC breakdown it's not listed as used so It will be just dead weight - could have been light - not that it matters much. Look closely at Izumi... when i say close.. i mean dissect her... and the battles she has been in... She isn't really a Fighter.. she is a Seamstress who gets lost and is forced to fight in the arena!!..
whitebaron 10-31-07, 03:41 PM	One of the first lessons we all have to learn is that Pitlords is not all-knowing. ;)well, i had to ask.. maybe there would be some option to do? :) in our last rl-campaign, we had a favored soul that loved to cast celestial brilliance on stones... it would last for 13 days, we used them in bags of holding, and about anyone could get light as easy as "pop the stone" *G*
McJarvis 10-31-07, 03:43 PM	well, i had to ask.. maybe there would be some option to do? :) in our last rl-campaign, we had a favored soul that loved to cast celestial brilliance on stones... it would last for 13 days, we used them in bags of holding, and about anyone could get light as easy as "pop the stone" *G* I'm kind of excited about the darkness rules, personally. My two characters I'm running right now are direct reactions to those rules being put into effect.
TelinArtho 10-31-07, 03:46 PM	nice reach but iam wondering why you got GPW over deep impact, all that damage wont help you if you cant actually HIT someone... And elrick has a pretty high AC (like MWB's Kervan without all the buffs). p.s. is Touch ac of 29 good...:D. lol - just realized forgot to mention that elricks breatplate isnt worn, But in the AC breakdown it's not listed as used so It will be just dead weight - could have been light - not that it matters much. Note your prison violation - the shield cannot be equipped if you want the bonus from the Monk's belt. Plus - that "29" AC is only when you can ride for cover - which is not automatic when your mount is dead.
Rauul 10-31-07, 03:50 PM	Izumi vs Aquin should volunteer to do one of the Community fights... Like.... Rules: A monster with a CR one higher than the EL of the teams is chosen randomly. At the beginning of the fight, this monster is placed on the map at the center (treat as a "hill"). Victory: When the monster or all PCs are defeated, whichever team dealt the most damage is the winner. Effects that defeat the monster (including effects that do not deal damage) gain credit only for the monster's current HP at the time; e.g. if a monster with 100 HP had already taken 62 damage, then a successful slay living, coup de grace, or attack dealing 50 damage would credit the character for only 38 points of damage. Special: No allies, not even class allies, are permitted. Eligible maps: Arena, Cavern, City, Forest, Plains, Sewer, Temple. or... Rules: A monster with a CR three lower than the ECL of the participants is chosen randomly (ECL 3 challenges get CR 1/2 monsters). At the beginning of the fight, one of these monsters per character is placed on the map at random coordinates. Each time a monster is defeated, it is replaced with another, randomly placed. Defeating a monster earns one point. Victory: Whoever has the most points when all PCs are defeated, or at the end of 30 rounds, is the winner. Special: Only class allies are permitted. Eligible maps: Arena, Cavern, Plains, Sewer, Temple.
McJarvis 10-31-07, 03:50 PM	Note your prison violation - the shield cannot be equipped if you want the bonus from the Monk's belt. Plus - that "29" AC is only when you can ride for cover - which is not automatic when your mount is dead. Or when people ready to attack you while you're attacking/spellcasting. <_< >_>
Erithmu 10-31-07, 03:55 PM	well, i had to ask.. maybe there would be some option to do? :) in our last rl-campaign, we had a favored soul that loved to cast celestial brilliance on stones... it would last for 13 days, we used them in bags of holding, and about anyone could get light as easy as "pop the stone" *G* I think my group had extend versions cast on holy symbols ... duration ... 1 month :) ... and that is light to out reach drow darkvision range.
templer10 10-31-07, 03:57 PM	Note your prison violation - the shield cannot be equipped if you want the bonus from the Monk's belt. Plus - that "29" AC is only when you can ride for cover - which is not automatic when your mount is dead. Hmm totally forgot about that, Guess it's time to invest in some force screen tattoes. personally i think trying to kill a Druid's animal companion, especially when it's not much of a fighter is usally an exersise in futility unless you are getting it incedently by AOA or some such, All the time you are burning on hitting that companion can be better served by hitting the druid.
Hirumajoe 10-31-07, 04:06 PM	Hmm totally forgot about that, Guess it's time to invest in some force screen tattoes. personally i think trying to kill a Druid's animal companion, especially when it's not much of a fighter is usally an exersise in futility unless you are getting it incedently by AOA or some such, All the time you are burning on hitting that companion can be better served by hitting the druid. Depends, if you're exactly on the edge and need 20s to hit, dropping the companion to prevent riding for cover isn't a bad plan, if it drops you into the 16-20 range. In any case, realize the one fatal flaw with Monk's belts as I see it, is you can sunder them. The same can't be said of armor.
TelinArtho 10-31-07, 04:11 PM	Hmm totally forgot about that, Guess it's time to invest in some force screen tattoes. personally i think trying to kill a Druid's animal companion, especially when it's not much of a fighter is usally an exersise in futility unless you are getting it incedently by AOA or some such, All the time you are burning on hitting that companion can be better served by hitting the druid. Well - as Hirumajoe mentions - sometimes it is quite worth it. In your case it is debateable since the companion has a comparatively high AC as well, but there are issues that would need to be addressed - and killing the companion resolves some of them.
McJarvis 10-31-07, 04:17 PM	In any case, realize the one fatal flaw with Monk's belts as I see it, is you can sunder them. The same can't be said of armor. shhhh. No need to tell him that....
templer10 10-31-07, 04:27 PM	In any case, realize the one fatal flaw with Monk's belts as I see it, is you can sunder them. The same can't be said of armor. shutting up now....
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 05:30 PM	Those of you who mentioned inter-leagues... you must be psychic. The one time the pairings really lend themselves to it, and you called it. Pairings are done... gonna be one heckuva week. Credits Eamane F2 Erithmu F1 C3 Hirumajoe F1 A-1 lonewolf F1 Luni F1 McJarvis F3 Nurlithion F1 Rauul F1 Q2 Taureus_Drakken F2 templer10 F5 Vathelokai F1 whitebaron F3 Q-1 MindWandererB A2 Sjiggie Q2 TelinArtho C3 A-1 A1 Q-2 Key: F=Fight, Q=Quest, C=Campaign, G=Guildmaster, A=Admin or Active Characters
Hirumajoe 10-31-07, 05:33 PM	@MWB: Hate to break it to you, but Elrick Flamebrother is ECL 11, not 10. I think he leveled last week. Which means there needs to be some shuffling.
templer10 10-31-07, 05:36 PM	@MWB: Hate to break it to you, but Elrick Flamebrother is ECL 11, not 10. I think he leveled last week. Which means there needs to be some shuffling. Indeed elrick is 11, and Lorian vs baelin again? we had that fight this week (save the map).
TelinArtho 10-31-07, 05:45 PM	@Macbrea - if the pairings stand - I'll send along ideas in the morning most likely. I'm just about to head out trick or treating with the kids - so I can't do it now. And of course if the pairings change - well my delay is nice then. Happy Halloween to all and to all a good night.
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 05:48 PM	@MWB: Hate to break it to you, but Elrick Flamebrother is ECL 11, not 10. I think he leveled last week. Which means there needs to be some shuffling. Hmm... I'd check, but his fights aren't linked... and the fight itself (now that I found it) doesn't link properly to the setup... alright, yup, my error (on the math; templer and lonewolf, please fix your links). A little tricky to fix... watch this space. Edit: fixed... not the most elegant solution in the world, but it works: Izumi (Macbrea) vs. Aquin (TelinArtho) : templer10 [Arena] Unknown Monster and Malik of Black Robe (Malither76) vs. Kracknol[ECL 12] (SauroGrenom): McJarvis [City] [Inter-League] Elrick Flamebrother (templer10) vs. Aerryl Nalladar (MindWandererB) : lonewolf [City]
whitebaron 10-31-07, 05:53 PM	aaaaaaah! pitch black.... :(
lonewolf 10-31-07, 05:53 PM	which link needs to be fixed? :confused:
Hirumajoe 10-31-07, 05:56 PM	aaaaaaah! pitch black.... :( Kinda approriate for Halloween. Fortunately the fight I'm running doesn't include sneaks. Unfortunately, one of the members doesn't seem to have a light source... Tsk, tsk, tsk.
lonewolf 10-31-07, 06:00 PM	@Taureus: Since Ackbar has no light and Darian has touchsight .... do you wanna surrender? :rolleyes:
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 06:01 PM	which link needs to be fixed? :confused: The Kervan vs. Elrick fight on Oct. 3. The link back to the setup from the fight is broken.
templer10 10-31-07, 06:01 PM	# Elrick Flamebrother (templer10) vs. Aerryl Nalladar (MindWandererB) : lonewolf [City] - Battle of the druids?
lonewolf 10-31-07, 06:07 PM	# Elrick Flamebrother (templer10) vs. Aerryl Nalladar (MindWandererB) : lonewolf [City] - Battle of the druids? OMG I already know that I will be out of pins for the map in round 2 or something... :nonono: :banghead:
lonewolf 10-31-07, 06:11 PM	The Kervan vs. Elrick fight on Oct. 3. The link back to the setup from the fight is broken. fixed
whitebaron 10-31-07, 06:15 PM	Kinda approriate for Halloween. Fortunately the fight I'm running doesn't include sneaks. Unfortunately, one of the members doesn't seem to have a light source... Tsk, tsk, tsk. nor do i. didn't think that gwerdan would make it to ecl5 that fast... will be a good lesson. :)
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 06:15 PM	fixed Thanks. We'll see about the pins... druids have a lot of options besides summoning.
templer10 10-31-07, 06:23 PM	Thanks. We'll see about the pins... druids have a lot of options besides summoning. lol that's going to be some long tactics.... I hope you like to read...
Rauul 10-31-07, 06:31 PM	no new types of fights.... :weep: :weep:
Taureus_Drakken 10-31-07, 06:36 PM	@Taureus: Since Ackbar has no light and Darian has touchsight .... do you wanna surrender? :rolleyes: Yeah, I figure since you have Touchsight and a Potion of Invisibility, it would be safe to say I am utterly sca-rewed.:weep: All the HP in the world won't help you when you have no chance of finding the guy before he finds you. @ Luni: I am going to save my resources, and let Darian have this one. As much fun as it would be to break his win-streak, it's not going to happen with Pitch Black lighting...:( ¬Taureus¬
Rauul 10-31-07, 07:20 PM	@Nurlithion Gol'ie tactics vs Dajeus Bag of tricks is sent..
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 07:32 PM	no new types of fights.... :weep: :weep: As I said, that's going to be volunteer-only. Hmm... I think I need a better system.
waywreth 10-31-07, 07:53 PM	Doh, Inzin forgot to memorize the light spell again. Poor pitlord (aka Eamane).
Luni 10-31-07, 09:02 PM	@ Luni: I am going to save my resources, and let Darian have this one. As much fun as it would be to break his win-streak, it's not going to happen with Pitch Black lighting...:( ¬Taureus¬ I wish every week of pitlording is this easy. Too bad it came up pitch black for you though.
Luni 10-31-07, 09:15 PM	Darian vs Ackbar is up here. http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14218252&postcount=1444 I'm certain someone is going to tell me I filled in the 3FC wrong. :)
Luni 10-31-07, 09:18 PM	Whitebaron: Grumsh's tactcis sent.
lonewolf 10-31-07, 10:03 PM	Darian vs Ackbar is up here. http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14218252&postcount=1444 I'm certain someone is going to tell me I filled in the 3FC wrong. :) Now that you mention it, Ackbar doesnt have craft(blacksmith), and even if he would have it the value cant possibly be correct. :rolleyes: Thanks for running it though. :D
lonewolf 10-31-07, 10:27 PM	Tactics for Samuel are away. Im really starting to like pitch black fights.... At least from the player side. As a pitlord though... :doh:
Eluria 10-31-07, 10:40 PM	@whitebaron: Tactics sent for Wroth; good luck!
McJarvis 10-31-07, 11:25 PM	I must confess, I don't know how team monster fights work. Do I give Mal all the info for the monster & Sauro the info his character meets the prereq knowledge skills for?
Vathelokai 10-31-07, 11:33 PM	Info for Gwerdan TwoFist Grummler vs random monster is up. In the interest of not slaughtering players un-necessarily, I'll allow Twofist to have a torch. Since the monster got first init, I did it's first round action. It had a good chance to get into melee by round 2, but you got lucky.
MindWandererB 10-31-07, 11:42 PM	I must confess, I don't know how team monster fights work. Do I give Mal all the info for the monster & Sauro the info his character meets the prereq knowledge skills for? Yep, exactly. Then Mal writes the tactics for the team.
Malither76 10-31-07, 11:44 PM	Do Baelin and Lorian fight again, I thought you only fought someone once per ECL? I could be wrong on that. Looks like it could be a quick fight again once we find each other or would it be possible for us to do a inter league against and EL 14 monster?
MindWandererB 11-01-07, 12:15 AM	Do Baelin and Lorian fight again, I thought you only fought someone once per ECL? I could be wrong on that. Looks like it could be a quick fight again once we find each other or would it be possible for us to do a inter league against and EL 14 monster? If the map is different, a rematch is possible. I would think you'd be happy with a sneak in the pitch-black forest against him....
Taureus_Drakken 11-01-07, 12:24 AM	Darian vs Ackbar is up here. http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14218252&postcount=1444 I'm certain someone is going to tell me I filled in the 3FC wrong. :) Thanks for the run.:D If it had been any other lighting, I would have made a go at it... @ lonewolf: I will be saving *more* up for a challenge at some point...;) Hopefully you aren't still undefeated at that point...Just shows how powerful a Psion is even in a "Core-only" arena. ¬Taureus¬
bgt 11-01-07, 12:44 AM	@templar10: Tactics sent.
templer10 11-01-07, 03:12 AM	If the map is different, a rematch is possible. I would think you'd be happy with a sneak in the pitch-black forest against him.... i have touchsight and a ring of invisibility so he aint...
Callix 11-01-07, 03:33 AM	@whitebaron, Taureus_Drakken: Tactics for Petyr and Rennae sent. Nothing all that innovative.
Salrantol 11-01-07, 07:57 AM	Not seeing any way to overcome both his opponent's superior perceptive abilities and his opponent's superior melee prowess, Enoch the Prophet surrenders to Gakhnalak Strongjaw. "All glory to Bareth`kul when one day soon he shall strike down this abominable creature."
McJarvis 11-01-07, 08:59 AM	Thankfully Kracknol had knoweledge enough to know what he's facing, so here's my dilemma: Do cloakers get equipment? They have treasure listed as "standard", but I really can't imagine so much as a cloak on one of those suckers.
McJarvis 11-01-07, 09:05 AM	i have touchsight and a ring of invisibility so he aint... You know, with the "bring psionics down to earth" rulings that have been happening lately, I'm surprised no one has tried to nerf touchsight ;)
lonewolf 11-01-07, 09:07 AM	You know, with the "bring psionics down to earth" rulings that have been happening lately, I'm surprised no one has tried to nerf touchsight ;) I´ve tried and tried and tried.... noone is listening... :(
McJarvis 11-01-07, 09:11 AM	I´ve tried and tried and tried.... noone is listening... :( I mean- I'd say it's definately more "out of the atmosphere" than the energy missle +1/dc thing was. requiring sneaks to have dispel magic/psionics is harsh.
templer10 11-01-07, 09:35 AM	I mean- I'd say it's definately more "out of the atmosphere" than the energy missle +1/dc thing was. requiring sneaks to have dispel magic/psionics is harsh. i dont realyl want to hash the sneak vs touchsight discussion again so ill just say this - personally i dont think you are right - since otherwise Sneaks can kill any psion/wilder since with the really dedicated sneaks around here they can easly snipe and still not get spotted, EVER i meant what do you do as a psion with an avrage wisdom of 8-10, and spot as a cross class skill vs someone with +30-40 hide check (and some here have more) carrying around something as simple as an item with extended darkness on it so they dont even need hide in plain sight? Arcane casters has ways around even dedicated sneaks - usually using summons, familiars with high spot check, Arcane sight, and the ability to be sneaks themselves (invisibility/improved invisibility). druids and clerics has summons that can get around or spot hidden things eventually. Druids also has spot as a class skill and inherently high spot due to high wisdom score. psions has touchsight - JUST that, no other way to spot sneaks. now touchsight, when you are in it's range, is better then most other abilities but it also has a fairly limited range - so it IS possible to get around it in some of the maps, just not easy. p.s - and something about increasing spot checks - note it's significantly easier to increase hide checks then spot checks and while spending cash to increae hide checks for sneaks pays off every single battle for them, paying the same amount of cash to increase Spot would pay off in a significently less percentege of the times for the spotters. p.p.s - another way for sneaks to get around touchsight is NOT be sneak attack depended and do their damage from farther then 60 feet away, at levels in which touchsight is a real problem a 1d8+2d6+magic/str isn't a problem to achive with Psioninc shot from outside touchsight range. i really sometime just make a sneak just to prove my point - Althrough i personally aint exacly fond of the concept (shocked you there didnt i?).
McJarvis 11-01-07, 10:15 AM	I guess you summarized my complaint pretty nicely- Touchsight completely negates rogues. Completely. There's no way around it for the rogue, until he can afford a ring of blinking. Sure, you can create a sneak that operates from more than 60 ft away- but it just hammers in the point that rogues are unwelcome in the arena.
TelinArtho 11-01-07, 10:24 AM	@templer10 - Aquin's tactics have been sent.
templer10 11-01-07, 10:24 AM	I guess you summarized my complaint pretty nicely- Touchsight completely negates rogues. Completely. There's no way around it for the rogue, until he can afford a ring of blinking. Sure, you can create a sneak that operates from more than 60 ft away- but it just hammers in the point that rogues are unwelcome in the arena. Even if it's true - and liek i said- i disagree with you on this - you have no better alternative since removing touchsight Elimanate psions/wilders as a force in the aren vs any halfway decent Sneak and thats a bad result 2, and Since RAW is on the side of the psions....
Hirumajoe 11-01-07, 10:32 AM	personally i dont think you are right - since otherwise Sneaks can kill any psion/wilder since with the really dedicated sneaks around here they can easly snipe and still not get spotted, EVER i meant what do you do as a psion with an avrage wisdom of 8-10, and spot as a cross class skill vs someone with +30-40 hide check (and some here have more) carrying around something as simple as an item with extended darkness on it so they dont even need hide in plain sight? Umm... Wilders *do* get spot and listen as class skills. And in regards to psions, how is that any different from any other class with spot/listen as cross class. I'm pretty sure psions have more options than Fighters and Paladins. Such as combining low light vision with My light (negate hide in plain sight out to 40'). And extended darkness is easily dispelled by a dedicated psion, given that its *obvious* where it is. If you're going to complain about a nerfed touchsight, I'd complain about the poor lot of the non-caster types without spot and listen. psions has touchsight - JUST that, no other way to spot sneaks. I disagree. For example at ECL 13 (or ECL 11 if a Wilder or have over channel) you can get Astral Constructs with blindsight out to 60'. Which will allow you to pinpoint *any* sneak out there, with non-detection or not. As noted earlier, My light with low light vision can defeat Hide in Plain sight out to 40'. Psionic Scent for psionic warriors can eventually let you track them down. How about using a large Area of Effect. Say a couple Ectoplasmic Shamblers. Each covers ten 10' cubes - or 40 squares. You can fill entire smaller maps (leaving your own square empty). Since you can't see through them, they'll either eventually they'll hit a delay penalty, move into your square, or simply die from the 5+ damage a round. now touchsight, when you are in it's range, is better then most other abilities but it also has a fairly limited range - so it IS possible to get around it in some of the maps, just not easy. Unless the psion starts checking out an area 125' wide and 120' long each round. And thats without augmentation. Or speed increases. So that pretty much limits you to the plains (at which point there's no place to hide - and if you brought hiding with you, its dispellable), the forest (although generally you can't get line of sight unless you're within 60' anyways), and the city (which again has places where you can force your hiding opponent to be within 60' in order to see you). p.s - and something about increasing spot checks - note it's significantly easier to increase hide checks then spot checks and while spending cash to increae hide checks for sneaks pays off every single battle for them, paying the same amount of cash to increase Spot would pay off in a significently less percentege of the times for the spotters. Do you complain that its easier to increase to hit rather than normal AC since in some fights normal AC doesn't do you any good, like in caster fights? Or that cloaks of resistance are useless when fighting straight fighters? I mean, there's 9,000 gp down the drain when Valen fights Izumi. :) p.p.s - another way for sneaks to get around touchsight is NOT be sneak attack depended and do their damage from farther then 60 feet away, at levels in which touchsight is a real problem a 1d8+2d6+magic/str isn't a problem to achive with Psioninc shot from outside touchsight range. You already mentioned this earlier, and versus touchsight, this isn't really viable. Some basic tactics *will* find your sniping opponent, and then its just an Energy missile away from being down and out for the count. Without a sneak attack opening, there's no way a rogue is going to simply "snipe" you to death with only 10-20 damage a round for 2-3 rounds before the psion has found him and toasted him with a pair of 10d6+10 cold energy missiles. i really sometime just make a sneak just to prove my point - Althrough i personally aint exacly fond of the concept (shocked you there didnt i?). Well, in two levels, Valen is going to have Cerebral Blind and Hide in Plain sight and a hide check of order +30-40. At which point, psions in that ECL range will be forced to fall back on some of these other ideas. And I really doubt its going to make him that much more effective, because of the counters mentioned earlier that are available. Although, I'm not really sure in what way you would nerf touchsight, other than to let it be affected by spells preventing detection, which again pushes us towards casting sneaks. Shrug.
Rauul 11-01-07, 10:36 AM	Even if it's true - and liek i said- i disagree with you on this - you have no better alternative since removing touchsight Elimanate psions/wilders as a force in the aren vs any halfway decent Sneak and thats a bad result 2, and Since RAW is on the side of the psions.... there is Nothing in CORE about Psionics... in fact in several books there are ways to negate Touchsight thats not allowed in Coco.. In CoCo the end all power for Psions is touchsight... Removing touchsight would actually make Psions Equal to Arcane casters and not making them a Dominating force.. would equal the playing field for all...
lonewolf 11-01-07, 10:50 AM	Interesting. There ARE a couple of people that agree with me. Where have you been? :rolleyes:
McJarvis 11-01-07, 11:03 AM	Interesting. There ARE a couple of people that agree with me. Where have you been? :rolleyes: most of us were beat into submission by sauro. ;) On another note- @Templer- tactics sent for marius @Taureus- tactics sent for Thorell
McJarvis 11-01-07, 11:13 AM	Thankfully Kracknol had knoweledge enough to know what he's facing, so here's my dilemma: Do cloakers get equipment? They have treasure listed as "standard", but I really can't imagine so much as a cloak on one of those suckers. bump for importance.
TelinArtho 11-01-07, 11:18 AM	They do get equipment. In a former fight I ran (not that I'm the best example), I provided them with the following: Potion of Eagle's Splendor (300gp), Amulet of Nat Armor +1 (2000gp), Potion of Shield of Faith +3 (300gp), Cloak of Resistance +1 (1000gp) There was some discussion about whether a cloaker could hold the potions, but since they didn't really affect the fight - I didn't see much point in editing it. Note that this was before the current rules for treasure existed. A cloak seems appropriate, and an amulet would be at least feasible. Other slots are questionable though, in my opinion.
lonewolf 11-01-07, 11:19 AM	You could also use tatoos instead of potions.
Nurlithion 11-01-07, 12:01 PM	Gol'ie vs Dajeus done here. It seems that pitlording is much harder than it looks, and almost as hard as staying awake during Acoustics class. Again, sorry to the involved for all the rerolls, but I just wasn't very used to the dice roller. Next week should go better.
McJarvis 11-01-07, 12:06 PM	Gol'ie vs Dajeus done here. It seems that pitlording is much harder than it looks, and almost as hard as staying awake during Acoustics class. Heh...I remember being shocked by that at first too. In theory it looks like great fun because you get to see the battle blow-by-blow, but it's more like blow. [20 minutes]. blow. In time, I found, it gets more entertaining. Especially once you establish a rythme to work at.
templer10 11-01-07, 12:33 PM	Gol'ie vs Dajeus done here. It seems that pitlording is much harder than it looks, and almost as hard as staying awake during Acoustics class. Again, sorry to the involved for all the rerolls, but I just wasn't very used to the dice roller. Next week should go better. I always have a TV in the background, But yea it can get annoying sometimes, But sometmes it's fun - I also get (read: steal) a lot of ideas of peeps i pitlord for... But you start to move it along pretty fast afte ra while - i usually spend about 30-60 minutes on a strait up fight (melee vs melee, ranged vs ranged etc), and add a little longer Per ECL until you get to around ecl 8+ then fights tend to be over in 10 rounds or less barring Pitch black conditions.
McJarvis 11-01-07, 01:20 PM	Also note that pitlording alot of fights really saturates your mind in all of the different types of builds out there- allowing you to better prepare yourself to combat them. You also begin to pick up on common themes[like touch attacks are good: grappling/rays/deep strikes/etc]
McJarvis 11-01-07, 01:22 PM	One more question regarding the interleague monster fight-> Does the monster start in the same square as its ally? I just assumed it did, but now am thinking it might follow other rules... Though on that note- why DON'T teams always start in the same square?
templer10 11-01-07, 01:40 PM	One more question regarding the interleague monster fight-> Does the monster start in the same square as its ally? I just assumed it did, but now am thinking it might follow other rules... Though on that note- why DON'T teams always start in the same square? the monste rdoesnt, it's rolled, dont know why (i think they should) - it's just the rule, only parties start at the same squere.
Macbrea 11-01-07, 02:20 PM	Ah.. I see another victim.. I mean person attempting to have his monster ally assist him. :P My giant wasp wasn't too helpful.....
MindWandererB 11-01-07, 02:34 PM	Not seeing any way to overcome both his opponent's superior perceptive abilities and his opponent's superior melee prowess, Enoch the Prophet surrenders to Gakhnalak Strongjaw. "All glory to Bareth`kul when one day soon he shall strike down this abominable creature.":OMG! Are you kidding? I was looking at this as a pretty challenging fight. Enoch has a lot of fodder to make use of, all of which have darkvision; he has a billion options in terms of spells and scrolls; and he has a mount that flies without wings, one of the few flying mounts that can navigate the forest. I figured it as even at best. You can withdraw the surrender if you reconsider.You know, with the "bring psionics down to earth" rulings that have been happening lately, I'm surprised no one has tried to nerf touchsight ;)Well... is touchsight powerful? Yes. Does it particularly shut down sneaks? Mostly... there have been a few sneak builds that have successfully been able to stay out of the power's range and still do good damage. But the power of it seems to be intentional design, unlike energy missile and dispel psionics, which seem to be unintentional math errors. There are other spells/powers that are all out of balance with the others at their level, too (Vigor comes immediately to mind). I could theoretically see one feasible nerf to touchsight that would make sense: it negates concealment but not cover. The logic being that since you still need LOE to the target to feel them, and a character hiding behind cover has a reduced profile, they'd be harder to feel just as they'd be harder to see. But that wouldn't really help very much, and it would take a lot of argument. Though on that note- why DON'T teams always start in the same square?Unlike pre-planned teams, ad-hoc teams just appear in the arena with the knowledge of what the fight terms are, with no ability to prepare (like they just stumbled upon each other). Teams of monsters wouldn't always even fit in one square.
McJarvis 11-01-07, 02:40 PM	But the power of it seems to be intentional design, unlike energy missile and dispel psionics, which seem to be unintentional math errors. Given that the suppression ability makes use of that double-dip caster level bonus, I'm not so sure it's obvious that dispel psionics is a math error. [Though, given that all my characters use buffing extensively, I certainly agree with it's nerfing...] Don't get me wrong- I actually am more of the opinion that we should leave the rules alone & avoid these kinds of "edits" to the rules. Maybe dispel psionics is only powerful because of problem CoCo already has with buffing- and perhaps characters need to depend on it less. I dunno. There are other spells/powers that are all out of balance with the others at their level, too (Vigor comes immediately to mind). I think vigor, like magic missile, is more powerful because of our format. When I played a wilder at tabletop, I found myself constantly stretching just how long a "minute" was so I could keep vigor up long enough for encounters. Of course, we have much longer buffing times too. Unlike pre-planned teams, ad-hoc teams just appear in the arena with the knowledge of what the fight terms are, with no ability to prepare (like they just stumbled upon each other). Teams of monsters wouldn't always even fit in one square. Yeah- but we allow them to co-ordinate tactics perfectly. [and what you just said is an RP excuse that certainly could be changed]. Given that actual teams have an advantage over ad-hoc teams in the first place since they are used to playing together & usually made for each other, I see no reason to penalize ad-hoc teams. Obviously I don't care for this weeks pairings- but I'd like to see it changed in the future. In my experience, being on an ad-hoc team usually means wandering around trying your best to find your ally, hoping the stronger gladiator doesn't find you with your pants down. That's just not fun. I'd rather be allowed to write tactics about how to combat my enemy than tactics about how to arrange logistics so we can find each other.
Macbrea 11-01-07, 02:44 PM	So, in this case.. You get a randomly rolled monster as your ally. Then have to write tactics with no knowledge were the randomly rolled ally will be hiding in the arena. All of this against a target two ecl higher then you. :P
Macbrea 11-01-07, 02:47 PM	Teams in my opinion an abuse of the Leadership Allies rules. Basically, you just need to find someone willing to make a team-mate to any character you have. Have them make an equal ECL character to you on 36pt buy. At that point you will always get fights against targets that are 2 ECL higher then you. The rules at that point dictate that you always start in the same square. You never get effected by odd rulings such as ambush. And you pretty much can tailor the team to compliment each other.
Salrantol 11-01-07, 02:49 PM	:OMG! Are you kidding? I was looking at this as a pretty challenging fight. Enoch has a lot of fodder to make use of, all of which have darkvision; he has a billion options in terms of spells and scrolls; and he has a mount that flies without wings, one of the few flying mounts that can navigate the forest. I figured it as even at best. You can withdraw the surrender if you reconsider.Sorry, Hirumajoe, I think I'll take MWB up on this. Consider the surrender withdrawn. While your points are correct, Enoch would have to pour his heart and soul into everything to try to make a dent in Gakhnalak without getting mercilessly slaughtered. Every single line of attack I see as an option becomes attrition, with Gakhnalak being able to attack and be healed while Enoch is choosing one or the other. While it is, no doubt, a difficult fight for Gakhnalak, I see it as much more difficult for Enoch. Oh, and thanks for reminding me that darkvision is an undead trait, for I had forgotten that and it does skew things a lot more in favor of Enoch, though I still feel Gak has the advantage. May the dice be fair that the best man may win.
Hirumajoe 11-01-07, 02:55 PM	Sorry, Hirumajoe, I think I'll take MWB up on this. Consider the surrender withdrawn. So noted. Just get me the tactics by Friday or Saturday and I'll get on it this weekend. May the best orc or undead win. :)
Turanson 11-01-07, 05:02 PM	@whitebaron: Tactics sent for Mineau
templer10 11-01-07, 05:54 PM	Rith - tactics for Lorian vs baeln part 2 - the darkned forest are out should be rather short and bloody.
Erithmu 11-01-07, 08:41 PM	Rith - tactics for Lorian vs baeln part 2 - the darkned forest are out should be rather short and bloody. Don't you mean part 4? ... :rolleyes: *Deletes the useless PMs* - lets see .. this full set won't be need, go w/ the the "do you want to surrender ones" ... :D
Taureus_Drakken 11-01-07, 09:05 PM	@ My Fighters: All tactics received. Getting started tonight, and trucking through until tomorrow. If I don't finish tomorrow, I have all-day Monday. @ Rauul: Tactics for Psori sent. ¬Taureus¬
Salrantol 11-02-07, 01:28 AM	@Hirumajoe: Tactics for Enoch the Prophet vs. Gakhnalak Strongjaw sent via 2 PMs. PLEASE, if you don't understand any of the timing, let me know--I may have phrased it poorly (as I should have been in bed hours ago) and will gladly clarify. If these tactics work as intended, I'll look like a strategic genius, and will very much deserve the win. If not, we're in for an ugly slugging match.
MindWandererB 11-02-07, 03:12 AM	@Hirumajoe: Tactics for Enoch the Prophet vs. Gakhnalak Strongjaw sent via 2 PMs. PLEASE, if you don't understand any of the timing, let me know--I may have phrased it poorly (as I should have been in bed hours ago) and will gladly clarify. If these tactics work as intended, I'll look like a strategic genius, and will very much deserve the win. If not, we're in for an ugly slugging match. I just had a thought about what your surprise tactic might be... and if I'm right, it's a good one. I'm expecting a slaughter. @lonewolf: Tactics for Aerryl vs. Elrick are sent, in two parts. Looks like it'll be a doozy.
Salrantol 11-02-07, 07:43 AM	I just had a thought about what your surprise tactic might be... and if I'm right, it's a good one. I'm expecting a slaughter.I don't know, it would be really good, if I'd have expected you to think you needed to be invisible in the dark. As is, (now that I've looked at your tactics) you have a pretty good shot of unhorsing Enoch and screwing up the whole plan. That's too bad, I was hoping to kill you by massive damage.
lonewolf 11-02-07, 08:17 AM	@lonewolf: Tactics for Aerryl vs. Elrick are sent, in two parts. Looks like it'll be a doozy. NOT received!! any chance for a typo in the name or something?
waywreth 11-02-07, 08:51 AM	NOT received!! any chance for a typo in the name or something? Yeah... he spelled it "waywreth". Not sure how that happened, but I'll forward them to you.
McJarvis 11-02-07, 09:07 AM	Yeah... he spelled it "waywreth". Not sure how that happened, but I'll forward them to you. I make that mistake all the time. You guys really should look into getting less-similar names.
templer10 11-02-07, 09:17 AM	LONEWOLF - tactics for Battle of the druids are out in 3! parts - that's the longest tactics i EVER wrote lol (and for me thats saying something), They are complicated - so if you have ANY questions pm me. p.s - this is a fight that can definently make the paper - May the best druid win.
waywreth 11-02-07, 09:17 AM	I make that mistake all the time. You guys really should look into getting less-similar names. Yeah I can see how that happens. :rolleyes: The amusing part is that I haven't even sent MWB a PM in awhile, so not sure how my name popped up.
lonewolf 11-02-07, 09:29 AM	after reading both tactics I can only say that I hate you guys! :rolleyes: Anyone wanna trade fights with me? :P Fight will be run on Monday.
whitebaron 11-02-07, 09:36 AM	after reading both tactics I can only say that I hate you guys! :rolleyes: Anyone wanna trade fights with me? :P Fight will be run on Monday. sure, 5° and done. ;)
templer10 11-02-07, 09:38 AM	after reading both tactics I can only say that I hate you guys! :rolleyes: Anyone wanna trade fights with me? :P Fight will be run on Monday. Lol i have to run the ECl 11/13 interluague - that's a HUGE pain in the a$$ also.
templer10 11-02-07, 09:40 AM	sure, 5° and done. ;) Lol - that's so not enough - for 2 druids, 2 animal companion,s 1 handle animal ally, and i imagine a couple of summons on either side.... oh and IN PITCH BLACK. EDIT - MWB - nice tactics -counterspell never even occured to me due to the fact it's almost never used. You will have to counterspell using dispells for some of the stuff i used unless you want to not be able to do that wall of stone, if it works i will have a definently harder time, if it doesnt, pray to the dice gods for lots and lots of luck in reflex saves...
Taureus_Drakken 11-02-07, 11:09 AM	Rennae vs Tzimosica is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14230349&postcount=1455). Don't think there are any mistakes, but please check just to make sure. ¬Taureus¬
Macbrea 11-02-07, 11:10 AM	@Templer10 and MWB: After reading both your tactics I think both of you forgot to read the special rule about the city map and lighting. Special: On the City map, the streets are lit with lanterns. All streets of at least 15 feet in width are considered well-lit, and all areas within 30 feet of these streets are considered shadowy illumination even in pitch-black conditions. Otherwise, all maps obey the same lighting rules.
templer10 11-02-07, 11:22 AM	@Templer10 and MWB: After reading both your tactics I think both of you forgot to read the special rule about the city map and lighting. MWB i think forgot- i didnt - which is why i didnt bother to light up unless i had no other choice.
whitebaron 11-02-07, 12:16 PM	@eamane: tactics for team sent @vath: tactics for gwerdan revisited. - only changed the AoO to use greatsword. @my fighters: all tactics received, FFA scheduled for sunday, luni's fight maybe tomorrow or monday.
TelinArtho 11-02-07, 12:51 PM	@macbrea and templer10 - small correction to Izumi's tactics: Upon drawing the Kusuri-gama it's light features will radiate out a light around her. This should immediately alert Aquin where she is standing. Unless the weapon is completely concealed, the light is automatically out there: Light Generation: Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell (bright light in a 20-foot radius, shadowy light in a 40-foot radius). These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can’t be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions. EDIT @templer10 - on a pounce - a griffon gets his normal 3 attacks and 2 more rakes.
Macbrea 11-02-07, 01:27 PM	Ah, then just hold it from the beginning. No reason not to.
Macbrea 11-02-07, 01:31 PM	Either way.. it probably won't matter.. I have the weapon in hand at round 2. And because she is armed all the time she can just attack with guantlets if you get there before round 2. That should be a fast battle to run. Edit: odd... wonder why I don't make my second attack on round 3.
templer10 11-02-07, 01:33 PM	Telin & Macbrea- i run the fight - and i just noticed it at the end- How can aquin even BRING a griffon into the fight? inless iam wrong - if a creature has a Level adjustment listed (like a griffon) you use it's ECL to calculate if you can bring it in the fight and a griffon ECL is 10, am i wrong?
Macbrea 11-02-07, 01:47 PM	Level Racial Start Leadership Race Adj. HitDice ECL Score Griffon +3 7 10 14 hmmm, oops... :P Aquin wishes to pay +5o and start one league higher?
templer10 11-02-07, 01:49 PM	Level Racial Start Leadership Race Adj. HitDice ECL Score Griffon +3 7 10 14 hmmm, oops... :P Aquin wishes to pay +5o and start one league higher? 3 ECL's higher actually since you need to be level 12 to use an ECL 10 ally...
Macbrea 11-02-07, 01:50 PM	It's probably why bronze griffon is a tad overpowered....
Hirumajoe 11-02-07, 01:51 PM	3 ECL's higher actually since you need to be level 12 to use an ECL 10 ally... Then why is the minimal ECL for a griffon listed as 9? Under the Rules of Gladius, Allies II, Minimal ECL requirements: 9: Ankheg, Cockatrice, Griffon, Owlbear, Spidereater, Huge Monstrous Spider There's somewhat of a contradiction here. Or maybe not a contradiction, but rather two limits, one higher than the other.
templer10 11-02-07, 01:53 PM	Telin & macrbea how you want me to handle this - run the fight without the griffon or give greater rewards/ally penalty? ill leave it up to you- i dont think it will matter for the actually result- izumi cant hit unless on a 20 anyway (vs aquin).
Erithmu 11-02-07, 01:59 PM	The Griffon is a purchased ally so it should be done via CR rules not ECL rules (case of leadership). So the Griffon should be a legal ally at ECL 9
TelinArtho 11-02-07, 02:00 PM	Don't confuse the rules for Leadership (which are allies based on ECL) and purchased allies (which are allies based on CR). Ferocity is the latter. I mentioned when the rules for allies were redone that any leadership ally should be bumped up to the level you can gain them as a leader, but I was unilaterally ignored/shot down. But as it stands - Ferocity is a purchased ally and is counted for ally penalties according to CR not ECL.
Eamane 11-02-07, 02:00 PM	Then why is the minimal ECL for a griffon listed as 9? Under the Rules of Gladius, Allies II, Minimal ECL requirements: 9: Ankheg, Cockatrice, Griffon, Owlbear, Spidereater, Huge Monstrous Spider There's somewhat of a contradiction here. Or maybe not a contradiction, but rather two limits, one higher than the other. ECL 9 has lots of contradictions. Ankheg should be lower as well. And the spider too I think, but I didn't double check.
templer10 11-02-07, 02:02 PM	Don't confuse the rules for Leadership (which are allies based on ECL) and purchased allies (which are allies based on CR). Ferocity is the latter. I mentioned when the rules for allies were redone that any leadership ally should be bumped up to the level you can gain them as a leader, but I was unilaterally ignored/shot down. But as it stands - Ferocity is a purchased ally and is counted for ally penalties according to CR not ECL. Ha? wierd....
Erithmu 11-02-07, 02:02 PM	@Hirm/Eamane: The ECL list that you two are looking at is the minimum ECL of the character to get that type of ally.
Macbrea 11-02-07, 02:03 PM	bah.. just play it out then.. I have 1 hp left according to the roller. I am not too worried either way.
templer10 11-02-07, 02:05 PM	bah.. just play it out then.. I have 1 hp left according to the roller. I am not too worried either way. actually u r dead - i forgot to do double dmg for the dive for the gryphon in the roller.
Macbrea 11-02-07, 02:05 PM	:P The missed shot on the incoming griffin seriously hurt my chances of survival in that one. Isn't much you can do after that. You have to kill them in one round.
templer10 11-02-07, 02:11 PM	Izumu vs aquin is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14230941&postcount=1456).
TelinArtho 11-02-07, 02:18 PM	Thanks for the run templer. I contemplated not bothering with the griffon for the fight - but I was concerned that Izumi would play a cat and mouse game here - readying to trip for when I approach, trip and attack then move away. Anyway - I'm glad for Aquin's first real win (his previous incarnation's only win was certainly a debatable win...). Now to see how he does against the rest of ECL9...
Hirumajoe 11-02-07, 02:25 PM	So having been informed by Taureus to look at the dice roller for Altair vs Thorell, I'm confronted with some extreme bias from the dice gods, which I feel an incredible need to share. Altair d4: 1 rolls, 3 average d20: 4 rolls, 14.5 average d3: 1 rolls, 3 average d6: 8 rolls, 4.1 average Thorell d4: 1 rolls, 1 average d20: 3 rolls, 2.7 average Camel d20: 1 rolls, 12 average
Taureus_Drakken 11-02-07, 02:26 PM	Altair vs Thorell is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14231780&postcount=1457). If I missed something about the camel getting attacks, I can easily edit it in... ¬Taureus¬
Hirumajoe 11-02-07, 02:31 PM	Thanks for the run Taureus. The camel probably should get an attack or two in there somewhere, but given Altair's AC and hp, it probably won't make a difference. One error I do see if you forgot the 2 charges from the Dorje. If you could edit those in for Altair under items used, that would be good.
Taureus_Drakken 11-02-07, 02:35 PM	Thanks for the run Taureus. The camel probably should get an attack or two in there somewhere, but given Altair's AC and hp, it probably won't make a difference. One error I do see if you forgot the 2 charges from the Dorje. If you could edit those in for Altair under items used, that would be good. I knew I forgot something... -edit done- And I think it would have gotten one attack -> the round they charged. But you are correct, it probably wouldn't have made a difference. I will see if McJarvis wants it added in. ¬Taureus¬
McJarvis 11-02-07, 02:47 PM	I knew I forgot something... -edit done- And I think it would have gotten one attack -> the round they charged. But you are correct, it probably wouldn't have made a difference. I will see if McJarvis wants it added in. ¬Taureus¬ I seemed to lose 2 standard actions, but as far as I can tell energy stun should have only taken 1 away from me. That would give me a chance to sunder his dorjes before the final shot- at the very least. [since his readied action takes place "before" mine, I should lose my current action & unstun before my next action takes place] edit- I *think* this is how it "went down": Turn order: Him, Me. Him: ready action Me: charge/ trigger readied action. effect: Him: energy stun[last 1 round] Me: move towards him, while stunned. [this move would end with him 20 ft away, unless the camel just doesn't stop because I'm not there to guide him. Regardless- 20 ft away would be the end of a charge with a 20ft reach weapon] Next round: [stun wears off] Him: attack with dorjes Me: Go on as normal with tactics. Me not being stunned when he attacks won't affect that, though, since my touch AC is a max of 15 while riding for cover[bleh] At least if I sunder the dorjes it'll negate that crit.
McJarvis 11-02-07, 02:59 PM	PS- regardless of those complex timing issues, Thorell has his mage armor as an ongoing effect. [around 1 hour, 59 minutes left of it]
Hirumajoe 11-02-07, 03:17 PM	@McJarvis: In regards to timing you may be right. Readied actions are all sorts of problems because they happen in the *middle* of the turn. So you've technically already taken part of a full round charge action (by moving) into range, but haven't yet finished it, and at which point it becomes illegal. Then 1 round later the stun wears off *in the middle* of your next action. And I have no clue what that would imply. Round up, round down? Get move action only, get a standard action only? Does an action that doesn't complete count as being taken? If for example, you charge someone, they manifest entangling ectoplasm, which then hits, and prevents charges, what happens? Do you get the option to take another action instead of the charge, even though its a full-round action? Or do you lose the rest of the turn? In that case, you've lost half an action without even being stunned. I'd love to hear other opinions, because I'm afraid I'm being unduly biased by my desire to see Altair win a fight he has no business winning. Edit: Oh, if the decision is to let Thorell act in round 7 (or whichever one), don't forget a side effect of stunning is dropping whatever is in your hands, which I think means the lance is on the ground. Not a big issue since Thorell still has a Glaive.
TelinArtho 11-02-07, 03:22 PM	The simple answer is the resolution of the ready action on initiative. The person who interrupted acts immediately before the person in the intiative order. Since his action is the one that created the "stun for 1 round" - then the stun ends immediately before his action. As such - the order is like this: Player A readies. Player B acts, triggers the ready. Player A acts (on the ready) Player B finishes his action. (In this case he can't since he's stunned) Next round: (Stunning ends) Player A acts Player B acts.
McJarvis 11-02-07, 03:23 PM	Readied actions are all sorts of problems because they happen in the *middle* of the turn. So you've technically already taken part of a full round charge action (by moving) into range, but haven't yet finished it, and at which point it becomes illegal. Take the fact that it was a charge out of the picture. If I stated to take a move action, then attack & your readied action went off after the move- it would still "count" as before I took any actions. edit- ninja'd by telin I'd love to hear other opinions, because I'm afraid I'm being unduly biased by my desire to see Altair win a fight he has no business winning. Heh- believe it or not, I was feeling about 50/50 on this one. I really felt like the dice would determine it- though I was thinking more in terms of you 1pp-energy raying me to death with high damage rolls instead of getting lucky on the saves. I had completely disregarded energypush as a tactic you'd use [I]because I didn't think it was likely that I'd fail two saves ;) Edit: Oh, if the decision is to let Thorell act in round 7 (or whichever one), don't forget a side effect of stunning is dropping whatever is in your hands, which I think means the lance is on the ground. Not a big issue since Thorell still has a Glaive. Yeah, especially since my next move was to drop the lance & draw the glaive ;)
whitebaron 11-02-07, 03:27 PM	well, its easy - you either are affected the whole round, or not. there is no way to do let the spell end in the middle of any players round.
MindWandererB 11-02-07, 03:31 PM	Yeah I can see how that happens. :rolleyes: The amusing part is that I haven't even sent MWB a PM in awhile, so not sure how my name popped up.:confused: That's the second time I've done that.... the names aren't phonetically similar, but you're both long-time CoCo veterans, you both have fantasy-like names, and both start with a lowercase letter. Sort of gives you an insight as to how my memory works (and why I can never remember anybody's name IRL).EDIT - MWB - nice tactics -counterspell never even occured to me due to the fact it's almost never used. You will have to counterspell using dispells for some of the stuff i used unless you want to not be able to do that wall of stone, if it works i will have a definently harder time, if it doesnt, pray to the dice gods for lots and lots of luck in reflex saves...I was counting on that... I knew I'd only have a shot if I could predict your own tactics within a fairly small margin of error. Unfortunately I did forget about the torches (stupid, since it was my own idea to put them there), so I have to hope my Hide checks pay off for me for a while. Aww crap... I also forgot about the 2x clearance rule for flyers. Fortunately, Elrick's buff sequence is longer than my critical buff sequence, so I might still be okay. So let's see... I ought to counterspell the faerie fire; I can't counterspell the elemental because it's a full-round spell and you can only ready a standard action (and I said to only counter a spell with itself, not a dispel). The next round will fall on lonewolf's judgment--I think I stressed countering the inevitable Dispel as the most important, but he might have me use Prot. Evil right there instead, in which case the Dispel will nail me good. Of course, if I do counter the Dispel, the elemental gets a shot at me. But we both have good Reflex saves, so the chances of being tossed out of the arena (two consecutive fails at +12 or +13 vs. DC 24) aren't too high. No... I don't think I'll win this. Even if I counter the initial Dispel, Elrick will then use Produce Flame, so then Aerryl, if she lives, will use Prot. Evil, and Elrick will dispel it, and she'll renew it (since I stressed using expendables), and he'll dispel it again, and by this time the elemental probably will have gotten her. I should have buffed the Prot. Evil earlier. Don't confuse the rules for Leadership (which are allies based on ECL) and purchased allies (which are allies based on CR). Ferocity is the latter. I mentioned when the rules for allies were redone that any leadership ally should be bumped up to the level you can gain them as a leader, but I was unilaterally ignored/shot down. But as it stands - Ferocity is a purchased ally and is counted for ally penalties according to CR not ECL.Can you point this rule out? I can't find it; the only rule I find is that if an ally has an ECL, you use the ECL.The simple answer is the resolution of the ready action on initiative. The person who interrupted acts immediately before the person in the intiative order. Since his action is the one that created the "stun for 1 round" - then the stun ends immediately before his action. As such - the order is like this: Player A readies. Player B acts, triggers the ready. Player A acts (on the ready) Player B finishes his action. (In this case he can't since he's stunned) Next round: (Stunning ends) Player A acts Player B acts.This is correct. Even if Player B has done everything in his round except 5' of movement, player A still is considered to have gone first. This can result in an effective double-round in some cases (player B takes a standard action, moves, triggers A's readied standard action, then A goes again).
Hirumajoe 11-02-07, 03:39 PM	Ok, so it looks like the following occurs: Round 7 Altair Shoots Dorje. Thorell draws Glaive while backing up (or not depending on actual position) to get to approriate range and attempts to sunder Dorje (most likely succeeding) (no AoOs from Altair's end since he was dumb and forgot to pull out a shortspear in his other hand...) Round 8 is going to depend on Pitlord's judgement. At this point, Altair is 15' away from Thorell. Ideally he would 5' step closer and manifest 1pp Crystal shard, but because I forgot about it explicitly in the tactics, the last pp is just sitting there being useless. :) So instead, he 5' steps, he either draws the shortspear or the crossbow, loads the crossbow, and then fires the crossbow or throws the spear. Thorell proceeds to annihilate Altair in melee. Why is it that a day later, I always find about 10 different minor contingencies that I forgot to add to my tactics? You'd think I'd learn. Or have a default tactics sheet with these things...
McJarvis 11-02-07, 03:43 PM	Why is it that a day later, I always find about 10 different minor contingencies that I forgot to add to my tactics? You'd think I'd learn. Or have a default tactics sheet with these things... Personally I take it as a badge of honor that I don't weigh down my tactics with too many contingencies. Also- don't count your luck as down too much. If the dice continue the way they have been [2.5 average on d20's for thorell] you'll kill him in no time. On an advice-type note- a powerstone of Prescience, Offensive would really help you out. That +2 damage/shot really saves charges on dorjes & time you have to spend taking opponents down.
Hirumajoe 11-02-07, 03:47 PM	Heh- believe it or not, I was feeling about 50/50 on this one. I really felt like the dice would determine it- though I was thinking more in terms of you 1pp-energy raying me to death with high damage rolls instead of getting lucky on the saves. I had completely disregarded energypush as a tactic you'd use because I didn't think it was likely that I'd fail two saves ;) Actually, the reason I went with the tactics was I completely mis-read the power. As indicated in my tactics, I thought it was 4d6+4 damage, not 2d6+2. Which is just as good as 1pp energy rays. So I figured why not do it all at once and get the benefit of a 1/4 chance of stunning you to boot. So I got the stun, but not the damage. Go figure. :) Edit: The offensive Prescience stone is a good idea. Unfortunately Altair was a tad poor buying his initial gear, but for next cycle, definitely will be investing in a couple.
TelinArtho 11-02-07, 03:53 PM	Can you point this rule out? I can't find it; the only rule I find is that if an ally has an ECL, you use the ECL.This is correct. I swear that this wasn't always the case (and why we had ECL8 characters coming in with CR4 Griffons once upon a time). That chart really shouldn't have Griffons listed as ECL9 then - because there is absolutely no way to get one until ECL12 as a prebuff. If MacBrea would prefer the fight be corrected to take out Ferocity - I don't think my (or his) tactics change much. At the moment, I'm not sure how I'm going to fix Aquin (since by ECL12 - he'll be able to fly himself so the griffon is completely out of the question by then).
McJarvis 11-02-07, 04:06 PM	If anyone wants to see proof that I'm easily distracted- check out my tactics on thorell. I totally spaced in the middle of a sentence, getting distracted by exactly how much damage that glaive will do.
templer10 11-02-07, 04:28 PM	: the elemental gets a shot at me. But we both have good Reflex saves, so the chances of being tossed out of the arena (two consecutive fails at +12 or +13 vs. DC 24) aren't too high. . I wonder- what actually happen if the elemntal grabs your dire bat but not you - i figure you either get grabbed along with it or you fall - iam sort of fine with either option lol.
MindWandererB 11-02-07, 04:29 PM	I swear that this wasn't always the case (and why we had ECL8 characters coming in with CR4 Griffons once upon a time). That chart really shouldn't have Griffons listed as ECL9 then - because there is absolutely no way to get one until ECL12 as a prebuff. If MacBrea would prefer the fight be corrected to take out Ferocity - I don't think my (or his) tactics change much. At the moment, I'm not sure how I'm going to fix Aquin (since by ECL12 - he'll be able to fly himself so the griffon is completely out of the question by then).I'm not quite sure what happened there, either... but I know the "always use ECL if there is one" rule has been there as long as I can remember. But I also know that you're right, we've had griffons as pets at ECL 10 and below. Anyone else have any light to shed?
McJarvis 11-02-07, 04:31 PM	I'm not quite sure what happened there, either... but I know the "always use ECL if there is one" rule has been there as long as I can remember. But I also know that you're right, we've had griffons as pets at ECL 10 and below. Anyone else have any light to shed? I remember it as Telin remembers it. ECL was used for leadership- CR used for pretty much everything else. Though, on a personal note, I'm always for nerfing ally rules :)
TelinArtho 11-02-07, 04:58 PM	I'm not quite sure what happened there, either... but I know the "always use ECL if there is one" rule has been there as long as I can remember. But I also know that you're right, we've had griffons as pets at ECL 10 and below. Anyone else have any light to shed? In looking around - this was just done "wrong" for a very long time. You can see examples of it with Monsieur Hood (ECL9), Antalya (ECL8) with their pegasi. I found it interesting on my replacement choices: Griffon, CR4 but ECL10 - so not available until ECL12. Pegasus, CR3, but ECL6 - available now but with 3 HD less than the Griffon. Would end up being a 21.428% penalty (instead of the "14%" I was planning on with the griffon. or the Hippogriff, CR2, for 1 HD less than the pegasus. With the elite array, it is arguably stronger (slightly slower, worse maneuverability and 3hp less; stronger (so I can actually equip it with armor), better stats, better saves, and for only a 10% penalty...)
Taureus_Drakken 11-02-07, 05:32 PM	@ McJarvis & Hirumajoe: I fixed from Round 7. Thorell sunders the dorje and the crossbow. Altair hits with the spear (min damage :weep: ) and then misses with a dagger...Thorell cleans house with a critical hit... Sorry about taking so long to edit this... ¬Taureus¬
Hirumajoe 11-02-07, 05:34 PM	@ McJarvis & Hirumajoe: I fixed from Round 7. Thorell sunders the dorje and the crossbow. Altair hits with the spear (min damage :weep: ) and then misses with a dagger...Thorell cleans house with a critical hit... Sorry about taking so long to edit this... ¬Taureus¬ Um... Actually, looking at the rolls he doesn't sunder the Dorje. Which means the critical should stand. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wands are not melee or ranged weapons. And thus are attacked as objects carried. You rolled a 2 on the attack roll. Thorell should be at a +7+4 bonus to hit, for a total of 13. He was aiming for a 10 + 3 (Dex) + ?? (Size). Since the wand is *at least* small, that sunder attempt missed. Which means Altair hits with a Crit in round 8. Or am I missing something? Edit: And don't apologize for taking long. This is *Friday*. You're already days ahead of most people. :D Edit 2: I just realized, Altair won the fight because Thorell rolled 4 or less on *4* consecutive d20s...
whitebaron 11-02-07, 05:39 PM	Um... Actually, looking at the rolls he doesn't sunder the Dorje. Which means the critical should stand. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wands are not melee or ranged weapons. And thus are attacked as objects carried. You rolled a 2 on the attack roll. Thorell should be at a +7+4 bonus to hit, for a total of 13. He was aiming for a 10 + 3 (Dex) + ?? (Size). Since the wand is *at least* small, that sunder attempt missed. Which means Altair hits with a Crit in round 8. Or am I missing something? a wand is tiny. ;) -> +8
Taureus_Drakken 11-02-07, 05:41 PM	Crap...Regardless of the size of the object (Tiny +8...Thanks whitebaron) he misses AC 21. Thanks for catching that. -more editing- ¬Taureus¬
Callix 11-02-07, 06:57 PM	@Taureus: Thanks for running Rennae's fight, and at least it was quick. Rennae's been having a run of bad luck recently. She hasn't been able to use more than 3pp in a fight in her last 4 fights. That's not good for pure psion. Then again, she did run into the ultimate winner of a free-for-all, Darian Thorne and Blindness in three of them.
McJarvis 11-02-07, 07:53 PM	Edit 2: I just realized, Altair won the fight because Thorell rolled 4 or less on *4* consecutive d20s... I think you really won because you were able to dish out enough damage to kill me in 3 rounds. Not every build can actually do that- your build deserves all the credit on that win. :) It's a shame, though- this was really my last chance to kill your character for a few levels. Once you get enough pp available for ego-whip I'm toast :-( On a very positive note- I now understand how important it is to have the imp. sunder feat. [I was considering trading it 'cause I already had a +8 from size & two-handed weapon, but I didn't realize those didn't carry over to sundering objects. Which is weird- but I guess it's the letter of the law...] @Taur: Thanks for Pitlording. I don't really know how long you've been doing it, but both matches you've run for me in the last two weeks I've been very pleased with.
Macbrea 11-03-07, 10:09 AM	Not worried about that fight as it's likely if I activate Izumi again next week she will face Aquin with whatever he is suppose to have as a pet.... :P
Hirumajoe 11-03-07, 10:15 AM	On a very positive note- I now understand how important it is to have the imp. sunder feat. [I was considering trading it 'cause I already had a +8 from size & two-handed weapon, but I didn't realize those didn't carry over to sundering objects. Which is weird- but I guess it's the letter of the law...] @Taur: Thanks for Pitlording. I don't really know how long you've been doing it, but both matches you've run for me in the last two weeks I've been very pleased with. Yeah, Improved Sunder does make it alot easier. And you did literally miss by only two AC. If you look up Wands under Magic Items in the SRD, they're listed as AC 7 (which is presumably 10 + 2 (Size) - 5 (Dex)). Which implies you only needed a 10 + 3 (Dex) + 2 = 15 to hit. A 4 or higher would have changed that entire fight around - as opposed to an 8 or higher without the feat. So in one to three levels, you'll only have to worry about auto-misses when trying to sunder wands (depending on your planned progression and item acquisition). On the bright side, even if you feel Altair is out of your reach, just get to ECL 4 sometime in the next month or three and Kai Engel should still be there trying to level up. :D Then we can have the battle of the Enlarged, Sundering Arcane Gishes. @Taur: I second McJarvis's comments, I thought the run and putting up with ping-pong edits was well done. And early to boot!
TelinArtho 11-03-07, 10:32 AM	Not worried about that fight as it's likely if I activate Izumi again next week she will face Aquin with whatever he is suppose to have as a pet.... :P Well - what he is supposed to have as a pet he really can't because we don't have aquatic environments for large and huge creatures...
Hirumajoe 11-03-07, 11:58 AM	Ok, when commanding undead, do they respond to hand signals, or does it have to be verbal? Basically, if an Ogre Mage Skeleton is in melee combat with an effectively silenced Orc priestess, can the evil priest mounted on a skeleton nightmare redirect them to attack the really dangerous Orc barbarian charging out of the brush? Thanks.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 12:01 PM	Ok, when commanding undead, do they respond to hand signals, or does it have to be verbal? Basically, if an Ogre Mage Skeleton is in melee combat with an effectively silenced Orc priestess, can the evil priest mounted on a skeleton nightmare redirect them to attack the really dangerous Orc barbarian charging out of the brush? Thanks. Commanded: A commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric. The cleric must take a standard action to give mental orders to a commanded undead. At any one time, the cleric may command any number of undead whose total Hit Dice do not exceed his level. He may voluntarily relinquish command on any commanded undead creature or creatures in order to command new ones so: yes. works in silence.
Hirumajoe 11-03-07, 12:05 PM	so: yes. works in silence. Hmm... Good point. But I believe these undead are created with the Create Undead Spell. That has the statement: This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands. Reading this implies no (and also doesn't require a standard action to command them... free speaking). So looks like the answer is no, but I was curious if there were any other interpretations that might in use. Edit: Of course, given a 20 wisdom, he might be wise enough to realize that he may be incapable of giving commands at some point, and give the order - attack the female orc until the male orc shows up... Hmm...
Vathelokai 11-03-07, 12:11 PM	Gwerdan Two-Fist vs Heiracosphinx is up over here. A quick, close melee in the temple.
templer10 11-03-07, 12:58 PM	# Quavein Siannodel (Nurlithion) vs. vs. Sylean'delues (bgt) : templer10 [Arena] is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14238159&postcount=1458)
Vathelokai 11-03-07, 01:24 PM	# Quavein Siannodel (Nurlithion) vs. vs. Sylean'delues (bgt) : templer10 [Arena] is done (# Quavein Siannodel (Nurlithion) vs. vs. Sylean'delues (bgt) : templer10 [Arena]) Got a bad link there...
Nurlithion 11-03-07, 01:56 PM	And you forgot to list the potion I used in the Rewards part. Thanks for the run though, I see that fighting his favored enemy is good to a ranger's career.
Salrantol 11-03-07, 02:41 PM	I'm not sure what fight you'd be referring to [;) ] but I would have to say that animate dead creates undead subject to verbal commands. They don't take a standard action to direct, but they must be able to hear the words to respond. On a related note, how did I find them before she handed off the crossbow bolt??
Hirumajoe 11-03-07, 03:02 PM	I'm not sure what fight you'd be referring to [;) ] but I would have to say that animate dead creates undead subject to verbal commands. They don't take a standard action to direct, but they must be able to hear the words to respond. On a related note, how did I find them before she handed off the crossbow bolt?? Well... You're leading UFA by 40' (and moving before he does, so always staying outside of the light). A female Orc sees light moving in a certain direction and plots an intercept course. Your mount has 60' darkvision and so does the Orc. You move into LOS of each other and then get within 60' of each other. Your mount indicates an orc is present, and the orc in return can see you. So you now know where one orc is, but not the other. Given your tactics, I'll be sending in UFA, but having made a simple wisdom check, with the orders of attack the female orc until the male orc shows up, and attack him instead (since thats the gist of your tactics). Of course, the orc will have to attack or the like to drop his invisibility. Thats about as far as I got before a 3 year old woke up, jumped in my lap and started hiting keys randomly. Hopefully this evening or tomorrow morning I'll get to the meat of the fight. Edit: Grr... Re-reading MWB's tactics, now it looks like Blu was supposed to wait just outside silence range, rather than continuing on. Hrmm... I may need to redo that last round then. But of course since you're flying off at 40' a round in the opposite direction thats going to add several more rounds to pursuit.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 03:47 PM	Gwerdan Two-Fist vs Heiracosphinx is up over here. A quick, close melee in the temple. well, i won't argue the result of the fight, as im quite likely to lose, but i think i should get another two AoOs if i do these tumblings you did. my reach: 10. her reach: 5 on a side note: i should remember tumble... just not used to need it...
Vathelokai 11-03-07, 03:54 PM	well, i won't argue the result of the fight, as im quite likely to lose, but i think i should get another two AoOs if i do these tumblings you did. my reach: 10. her reach: 5 on a side note: i should remember tumble... just not used to need it... You only provoke an attack of opportunity when you leave a threatened square. It's been ruled in the past that a large creature only provokes if all the spaces they occupy are threatened. If this has changed or is still under debate, I'd love to know. Now that you bring it up, that would mean that the first AoO never happened.... seems I was a bit sloppy. Either way, something needs changed. Anyone know about the large creatures vs reach weapons conundrum?
whitebaron 11-03-07, 04:04 PM	You only provoke an attack of opportunity when you leave a threatened square. It's been ruled in the past that a large creature only provokes if all the spaces they occupy are threatened. If this has changed or is still under debate, I'd love to know. is this some kind of coco house-rule? - never seen such a thing in srd or faq...
McJarvis 11-03-07, 04:06 PM	is this some kind of coco house-rule? - never seen such a thing in srd or faq... I only remember us clarifying that if a large or larger creature moves in a threatened area, he only provokes an AoO if some part of him leaves a threatened square & isn't replaced by another part of him. I don't remember the "if all of a creature is in threatened squares" jargon. So far as I know- by the rules- a large creature whose base is touching a medium creature w/o reach will still draw an AoO if he moves. Otherwise large creatures could never provoke AoO's from things with only a 5 ft reach?
Vathelokai 11-03-07, 04:08 PM	My memory can never be trusted on these matters. That's why I ask. I may be making things up on accident.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 04:09 PM	I only remember us clarifying that if a large or larger creature moves in a threatened area, he only provokes an AoO if some part of him leaves a threatened square & isn't replaced by another part of him. still, this seems to be a noncore houserule. every move action you take in a threatened square provokes an AoO. otherwise, all large or huge creature would be entirely immune to AoOs if you wanted to keep them at bay by moving away. i have to say that i'd like that the least.
SauroGrenom 11-03-07, 04:34 PM	I only remember us clarifying that if a large or larger creature moves in a threatened area, he only provokes an AoO if some part of him leaves a threatened square & isn't replaced by another part of him. I don't remember the "if all of a creature is in threatened squares" jargon. This is one of those times where Vath's not 100% right. THis whole thing isn't a CoCo house rule. It's just a careful read of the RAW. The rules say that you provoke an AoO when you leave a threatened square... For someone who's medium or smaller, this is equivalent to saying you provoke when you move through a threatened share. But if you're large or larger, we use the RAW rule and you only provoke when leaving a threatened square. For people who are Large and moving into melee with a guy who has less than 15' reach, there's no reason to provoke an AoO moving to melee. If that guy has a 15' reach and you move into base contact, then you provoke an AoO even is you're large.
McJarvis 11-03-07, 04:37 PM	still, this seems to be a noncore houserule. every move action you take in a threatened square provokes an AoO. otherwise, all large or huge creature would be entirely immune to AoOs if you wanted to keep them at bay by moving away. i have to say that i'd like that the least. Except move actions don't provoke AoO's - using them to move out of threatened squares does. Since large++ creatures are not collections of smaller creatures, that's why we don't have them provoke if only part of them is moving out....to be replaced by another part of them Don't get me wrong- if you only threaten 1 square of a large creature & he moves away from you, it provokes an AoO in my book. edit- ninja'd by sauro, but I'm glad to see I was correct.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 04:46 PM	well, so being large was ruled to be a superior factor in the arena. i dont mind losing to the sphinx - in fact, i was expecting it. still i think this is a misread of the rules. sauro calls it a careful read of the raw - i call it an interpretation of the raw, as the table of "actions in combat" also states Move Action Attack of Opportunity1 Move Yes 1 Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity. on a side note: Grumsh and his wizard-fodder is up. Not much you can do when a barbarian starts right in front of you.
Turanson 11-03-07, 05:23 PM	A close call if ever I saw one :D
Turanson 11-03-07, 05:24 PM	Oh an thanks for the run baron.
Vathelokai 11-03-07, 05:37 PM	well, so being large was ruled to be a superior factor in the arena. i dont mind losing to the sphinx - in fact, i was expecting it. still i think this is a misread of the rules. sauro calls it a careful read of the raw - i call it an interpretation of the raw... Since you say that you are okay with the fight as it stands, I won't alter it. The first AoO shouldn't have happened, so the attack rolls get pushed back (meaning that the attack that missed, never happened, and you did the same ammount of overall dmg). As for the rule; I agree with McJarvis's wording of it. You're not actually leaving a square if another part of yourself is filling the space.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 05:47 PM	As for the rule; I agree with McJarvis's wording of it. You're not actually leaving a square if another part of yourself is filling the space. well, if that's how it is to be handled in coco, you better add it to the decisions or house rules, since i've never seen it like that before. it's obvious, that the rules were written with only medium creatures in mind, and thus results in the bad wording. there's as much evidence (nothing more) in the srd that you should get an AoO as against it.
McJarvis 11-03-07, 05:49 PM	As far as that chart goes- it more or less was decided that it is worded poorly. It contradicts itself no matter how you look at it: If a move action provokes an AoO, then the part about drawing a weapon is incorrect. [there are other examples beyond just that, though]. If it's talking about moving- then the script at the bottom is incorrect, because there is something on the chart that is explicitly for movement.
SauroGrenom 11-03-07, 05:53 PM	Wow! What I just said and what McJarvis just said and what Vath has said is that this is not a CoCo house rule or even a courtroom clarification. The rules clearly say that movement only provokes an AoO when you leave a threatened square. There's nothing more clear than that. The only way to avoid that is to use the withdraw action. If a sphinx is approaching you and you have a 10' reach, it can get right up next to you w/o leaving any threatened squares. No house rules needed. RAW is more than sufficient.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 06:00 PM	It contradicts itself no matter how you look at it: If a move action provokes an AoO, then the part about drawing a weapon is incorrect. [there are other examples beyond just that, though]. If it's talking about moving- then the script at the bottom is incorrect, because there is something on the chart that is explicitly for movement. i don't see the contradiction, as you incur the AoO only for the movement part of the move+draw action. the subscript is worded so you also incur AoOs when you follow for a grapple, or bullrush... if you get bullrushed, you incur AoOs. that's what this subscript is for. Wow! What I just said and what McJarvis just said and what Vath has said is that this is not a CoCo house rule or even a courtroom clarification. you are reading only one part of the rules, invalidating another one, and state it's written clearly - i'd say, that's the exact definition of house-ruled.
SauroGrenom 11-03-07, 06:02 PM	As far as that chart goes- it more or less was decided that it is worded poorly. It contradicts itself no matter how you look at it: If a move action provokes an AoO, then the part about drawing a weapon is incorrect. [there are other examples beyond just that, though]. If it's talking about moving- then the script at the bottom is incorrect, because there is something on the chart that is explicitly for movement. I dissagree in the sense that I feel the chart is well written, and there's not much or any room for confusion. There's no reason or evidence in the rules that you cut a monster up into parts and consider each square they occupy as a separate thing. So the idea that we need a house rule to prevent that type of thought is just as silly as the idea we need a house rule to prevent people from thinking that a medium sword does more damage when wielded by a huge monster. The chart says as quoted above, "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity." So moving out of a threatened area provokes (unless you use a withdraw action of have another means of avoiding an AoO), and other kinds of move actions also provoke even though they don't involve movement. If some people make a mistake and reword this as moving "through" a threatened square provokes, then that's their problem for being mistaken. We often reword things in a way that makes more sense to our own minds, but sometimes it causes a misunderstanding. We cannot possibly take on the responsibility of writing clarifications for every possible misunderstanding drawn from the rules.
McJarvis 11-03-07, 06:04 PM	Note that your complaint that the rules are obviously meant for medium creatures is a non-trivial fix. If you were to "adjust" the rules for all sizes then you would end up with wonky stuff like small-sized creatures needing to enter the space of large+-sized creatures in order to attack them. [2 size categories lower]. This actually only makes size even more powerful- not less. [and in general would be a headache, since your standard measure of a square would have to be relative to one of the combatants instead of an absolute measure like 5'.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 06:07 PM	The chart says as quoted above, "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity." So moving out of a threatened area provokes (unless you use a withdraw action of have another means of avoiding an AoO), and other kinds of move actions also provoke even though they don't involve movement. i'll take you on that. it says REGARDLESS of the taken action. so you don't leave a threatened square, as defined by leaving = no body part of you is within the square. still leaves you with one trouble: it says a move (really moving, not a move action) provokes AoOs. @mcj: i won't even bother to reply on that, as it goes in a completely different direction as i was arguing.
McJarvis 11-03-07, 06:09 PM	I dissagree in the sense that I feel the chart is well written, and there's not much or any room for confusion. There's no reason or evidence in the rules that you cut a monster up into parts and consider each square they occupy as a separate thing. So the idea that we need a house rule to prevent that type of thought is just as silly as the idea we need a house rule to prevent people from thinking that a medium sword does more damage when wielded by a huge monster. The chart says as quoted above, "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity." So moving out of a threatened area provokes (unless you use a withdraw action of have another means of avoiding an AoO), and other kinds of move actions also provoke even though they don't involve movement. That's what I mean, though- whether something uses a move action or a standard action doesn't actually dictate whether it provokes an AoO or not, since to my knowledge everything is covered by the rules otherwise. [forgive me if I'm wrong on that]. I maintain that that first line in the chart is completely unnecessary- and actually contradicts other parts of the chart. I'm pretty sure you were on my side in the whole "does a wand/dorjes provoke an AoO" debate- so let me put it this way(using the same logic we used then- and the same logic that I'm still convinced is correct). If you draw a weapon using quickdraw, you don't provoke an AoO. But if you don't have quickdraw- does it provoke an AoO? You may not provoke an AoO for drawing a weapon, but you took a move action to do it- so according to this chart you should provoke an AoO. That, however, is not the case. Thus I maintain the first line of the chart is an error.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 06:12 PM	I'm pretty sure you were on my side in the whole "does a wand/dorjes provoke an AoO" debate- so let me put it this way(using the same logic we used then- and the same logic that I'm still convinced is correct). If you draw a weapon using quickdraw, you don't provoke an AoO. But if you don't have quickdraw- does it provoke an AoO? You may not provoke an AoO for drawing a weapon, but you took a move action to do it- so according to this chart you should provoke an AoO. That, however, is not the case. Thus I maintain the first line of the chart is an error. all i can reference for this is: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html the move in the header is move-equivalent-action the move in the table is "actually moving your feet"
Luni 11-03-07, 06:12 PM	well, so being large was ruled to be a superior factor in the arena. i dont mind losing to the sphinx - in fact, i was expecting it. still i think this is a misread of the rules. sauro calls it a careful read of the raw - i call it an interpretation of the raw, as the table of "actions in combat" also states on a side note: Grumsh and his wizard-fodder is up. Not much you can do when a barbarian starts right in front of you. I was curious if Grumsh would get lucky and find the right starting box. I see no problems with the fight. :) I hope Mineau gets a much longer fight next week.
McJarvis 11-03-07, 06:14 PM	all i can reference for this is: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html the move in the header is move-equivalent-action the move in the table is "actually moving your feet" Well that's even more wonky- that means you provoke an AoO even if your movement doesn't involve changing squares. Like using your horse for cover[definitely involves moving your feet]. Actual movement in D&D always refers to moving between physical squares- which the text at the bottom of the chart specifically says isn't covered in the chart. Using a move action is something entirely different. [except for certain RP movement, like jumping onto a 4' high table] edit- Actually, if you're right then ENTERING a square threatened by an opponent _also_ provokes an AoO. That is clearly not the case.
lonewolf 11-03-07, 06:18 PM	Just to show that its not black and white: A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an AoO against you if you approach it, because it must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it This is IMHO the intend of the rule. If you move into an threatened square and continue to move the other creature gains an AoO. The "Leaving a threatened square" part is IMHO the mechanical description of said rule that seems to have a small loophole where the description is not identical with the intend of the rule. We can stand on principle and disect the RAW or we can look at the intend and go from there. I strongly favor the second option.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 06:29 PM	edit- Actually, if you're right then ENTERING a square threatened by an opponent _also_ provokes an AoO. That is clearly not the case. nope, it doesn't. the action always takes place before the resolution. so you are considered to be moving in the square when you are in the last square outside 5ft, and in the square after your action. standing does not provoke an AoO.
SauroGrenom 11-03-07, 06:30 PM	That's what I mean, though- whether something uses a move action or a standard action doesn't actually dictate whether it provokes an AoO or not, since to my knowledge everything is covered by the rules otherwise. [forgive me if I'm wrong on that]. I maintain that that first line in the chart is completely unnecessary- and actually contradicts other parts of the chart. I'm pretty sure you were on my side in the whole "does a wand/dorjes provoke an AoO" debate- so let me put it this way(using the same logic we used then- and the same logic that I'm still convinced is correct). If you draw a weapon using quickdraw, you don't provoke an AoO. But if you don't have quickdraw- does it provoke an AoO? You may not provoke an AoO for drawing a weapon, but you took a move action to do it- so according to this chart you should provoke an AoO. That, however, is not the case. Thus I maintain the first line of the chart is an error.Ok... At the risk of possibly confusing things, I'll try to explain this in slightly different words than what's used in the SRD. We know from the area that lists Attacks of Opportunities that you get an AoO if someone moves out of a threatened square, or does any of a number of distracting actions. Also we have this table that lists all possible move actions and if those provoke an AoO. If I understand you, you're saying that since the first entry in the table is "move" that all move actions provoke an AoO... If that's what you're saying you're wrong due to a small misunderstanding of what's meant by the "Move" entry on this table. What's intended here is that all things on this section of the table are move actions, but not necessarily are they movements... Movement is one way to use a move action, and that is a choice that can provoke an AoO if you're moving out of a threatened area. There's subtle difference here in what it means to "move" and what it means to take a "move action". So all move actions don't provoke an AoO. But nearly all movements out of a threatened area do provoke an AoO. Drawing a sword is a move action, but not a movement out of a threatened area. So it won't provoke an AoO. The wand/dorje with ranged attacks is a slightly different thing, since in that case the action is more than one kind of standard action. That one action is simultaneously three actions (activating a magic item, making a ranged attack and casting a spell). So it's a bit of a different beast than what we have here.
SauroGrenom 11-03-07, 06:46 PM	THere are a couple RoTG articles covering this... Part 1 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041026a) Part 2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a)
Rauul 11-03-07, 06:46 PM	heck standing up won't allow Mobility to take effect even tho it's a move action.. but your not moving out of the square so the +4 to ac dosen't apply.. So basicly mobility is for when you provoke an attack of opportunity by running by someone.. Seems kinda worthless for feat.. but needed for prestige classes
Luni 11-03-07, 06:48 PM	Just to show that its not black and white: This is IMHO the intend of the rule. If you move into an threatened square and continue to move the other creature gains an AoO. The "Leaving a threatened square" part is IMHO the mechanical description of said rule that seems to have a small loophole where the description is not identical with the intend of the rule. We can stand on principle and disect the RAW or we can look at the intend and go from there. I strongly favor the second option. I agree with lonewolf here. It should be for moving within a threatened area that provokes an AoO.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 06:48 PM	with your explanation, sauro, you directly contradicted your previous statement :( move in that table = movement, then you'd be hard pressed to argue why it should not give an AoO, as it explicitly says so. and: as i have read those articles already, they are just about the standard-things we all know about. there's nothing in it concerning larger creatures.
MindWandererB 11-03-07, 07:09 PM	All right folks, let's not get agitated over this. I was here for the original decision, and while it may or may not be RAI, it is RAW. The one thing I disagree with Sauro on is that it is a clarification that people may or may not agree with or be used to, and is therefore perfectly appropriate content for the Court Decisions. @Telin: I know you can't update those right now, but please make a note of it. Thanks.
SauroGrenom 11-03-07, 07:16 PM	with your explanation, sauro, you directly contradicted your previous statement :( move in that table = movement, then you'd be hard pressed to argue why it should not give an AoO, as it explicitly says so. and: as i have read those articles already, they are just about the standard-things we all know about. there's nothing in it concerning larger creatures.Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square. Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot-step and the withdraw action (see below). Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity. Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule. Then the table says Move Action Attack of Opportunity1 Move Yes 1 Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity. OK, so let me paraphrase your position... You claim that any movement in a threatened area results in an AoO since move is on the table as provoking an AoO. We shall use a old math proof trick for logic. We shall assume you are correct, and find the implications. If the assumptions lead to incorrect conclusions, then the assumptions are incorrect. Assume that any movement in a threatened square provokes, what happens when you enter a threatened square? You have clearly moved in a threatened square, so you provoke an AoO for entering that square. Is this a correct conclusion? The answer to the last is "No", as evidenced by the following: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rg_diagram1_72dpi_600.jpg So the assumption is wrong. IE you do not provoke for "moving" unless that movement is leaving a threatened square and does not avoid an AoO for other specific reasons.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 07:16 PM	All right folks, let's not get agitated over this. I was here for the original decision, and while it may or may not be RAI, it is RAW. The one thing I disagree with Sauro on is that it is a clarification that people may or may not agree with or be used to, and is therefore perfectly appropriate content for the Court Decisions. if it is raw, show me the lines that explicitly state this. i'll quote the corresponding lines form the srd: Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square. Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot-step and the withdraw action. Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity. Move Action Attack of Opportunity1 Move Yes 1 Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity. so, the rules state: if you leave a threatened square, no matter how, you get an AoO. also, if you do any of the other actions given in the table within a threatened square, you get an AoO. as move is explicitly given in there, i see no possibility to make this decision based on core/raw rules. @sauro: i can do the math trick on yourself, too. an action always takes place before it resolves. so the moving is part of the action of the square BEFORE you enter the threatened square. so your argument as it stands is still void - waiting for updates on that line of logic. @mwb: i don't want to prove i am right - i want to find out what is within the rules. and i simply don't see how you can imply with such a wording that this is not the case with movement and AoOs.
lonewolf 11-03-07, 07:28 PM	While Im not a native speaker, I think that moving out of a threatened square != leaving a threatened square the first thing says that you are in a threatened square and move using the square as your starting point and the second says you are in a threatened square and are leaving it. If you leave the square you are always moving out of it, but the reverse is not true. Both actions clearly provoke an AoO.
TelinArtho 11-03-07, 07:32 PM	Okay - I'll make a note of it and add it when we set up the new accounts. I trust we haven't had further word suggesting we might get those accounts back right?
MindWandererB 11-03-07, 07:41 PM	Okay - I'll make a note of it and add it when we set up the new accounts. I trust we haven't had further word suggesting we might get those accounts back right? No... we'll probably have to make new accounts. I'll ask the Powers that Be one more time if there's any hope. @whitebaron: All the arguing in the world won't win this case one way or the other. It rests on one question: does it count as "leaving" a square if one portion of the creature leaves it, but another part of the creature still occupies it? The last time, we eventually decided that Sauro's answer was the better one, because it didn't sound quite right that if you left a square, you'd still be occupying it. I agree that it could go either way, but we need to pick one, and this is the one we went with.
lonewolf 11-03-07, 07:45 PM	As I said, not only leaving a square but also moving out of a threatened square provokes an AoO.
whitebaron 11-03-07, 07:53 PM	@whitebaron: All the arguing in the world won't win this case one way or the other. It rests on one question: does it count as "leaving" a square if one portion of the creature leaves it, but another part of the creature still occupies it? The last time, we eventually decided that Sauro's answer was the better one, because it didn't sound quite right that if you left a square, you'd still be occupying it. I agree that it could go either way, but we need to pick one, and this is the one we went with. so any elder decision is foolproof and won't be changed? just use sauros "trick" of falsification: see my line of arguing, and tell me what is wrong with it. if you can't, then it must be right. i can't see any flaw in that, but i (and others, as you can see in this thread) see some flaws in the other argumentation. basically, the arguments were built around - the table is contradictory in itself (which, i must confess, is due to the similarity of movement vs. move-equivalent-action, and i don't see any contradications once you accept this fact) - how could you else move up to an opponent (i sorted this out already above, as an action is always seen as done in it's starting squares.) - you don't leave the square since one part of your body stays there(1 see lonewolfs line of arguing, its not even mentioned as leaving in the srd. 2 it doesn't state that you don't get an AoO for moving anywhere.) - the elders already decided otherwise so: give me a clean line of argumentation on this, where you can't do any complaints, else i'll have to stress this on and on and on.... (which is already getting boring) since i don't like being houseruled on things that are in the raw, just because of a misinterpretation somewhere in the past.
MindWandererB 11-03-07, 08:23 PM	so any elder decision is foolproof and won't be changed? just use sauros "trick" of falsification: see my line of arguing, and tell me what is wrong with it. if you can't, then it must be right. i can't see any flaw in that, but i (and others, as you can see in this thread) see some flaws in the other argumentation. basically, the arguments were built around - the table is contradictory in itself (which, i must confess, is due to the similarity of movement vs. move-equivalent-action, and i don't see any contradications once you accept this fact) - how could you else move up to an opponent (i sorted this out already above, as an action is always seen as done in it's starting squares.) - you don't leave the square since one part of your body stays there(1 see lonewolfs line of arguing, its not even mentioned as leaving in the srd. 2 it doesn't state that you don't get an AoO for moving anywhere.) - the elders already decided otherwise so: give me a clean line of argumentation on this, where you can't do any complaints, else i'll have to stress this on and on and on.... (which is already getting boring) since i don't like being houseruled on things that are in the raw, just because of a misinterpretation somewhere in the past.It's not that it's foolproof. It's that there's no proof one way or the other. And it's not a house rule if that's the way we're reading the RAW. However... I do see one point that I wasn't getting. The table does say that "move" provokes. I don't think the table is in error. That would imply that moving within a threatened area gets an AoO--the bit about "leaving" a threatened square is really only a clarification, because AoOs take place at the beginning of the provoking action and moving into a threatened square begins outside of the threat range.
Taureus_Drakken 11-03-07, 10:06 PM	@Taur: I second McJarvis's comments, I thought the run and putting up with ping-pong edits was well done. And early to boot! @Taur: Thanks for Pitlording. I don't really know how long you've been doing it, but both matches you've run for me in the last two weeks I've been very pleased with. I have only been doing this since late September, but had 3-4 weeks where I wasn't assigned fights...My fault for that...:rolleyes: I am just doing my best to not repeat the week where I couldn't finish (much rather start) two fights. I hated not being able to get them up that week, and make it my goal to have them done as soon as I have enough time. I have a better schedule at work now, and usually have either Friday, Saturday, or Sunday off in any given week. I am getting a better grasp of more tactics as I go (namely readied-actions, grappling and sundering) so it gets easier as the weeks pass to get fights done. I just do what the tactics tell me (haven't had any problems with following tactics yet...) and let the dice sort out the fight. (Sometimes I wonder what exactly is going on with the roller...(This week for example...Thorell's rolls that were kept were all 4 or under)) I hope to continue as long as possible. Good luck to you both. ¬Taureus¬
McJarvis 11-04-07, 01:42 AM	(Sometimes I wonder what exactly is going on with the roller...(This week for example...Thorell's rolls that were kept were all 4 or under)) Chance is a fickle mistress- but her kiss is warm and inviting.
lonewolf 11-04-07, 06:03 AM	It's not that it's foolproof. It's that there's no proof one way or the other. And it's not a house rule if that's the way we're reading the RAW. I have been made aware of that the Rule Compendium covers this situation. Does anyone has this book or can take a look at it in a store?
whitebaron 11-04-07, 06:44 AM	I have been made aware of that the Rule Compendium covers this situation. Does anyone has this book or can take a look at it in a store? as the rules compendium already proved to have at least one contradiction to the raw, i'm hesitant to use it for that explanation - but it might be interesting to do just that, to see what they have to say on it. i know a store (spielerei) that is most likely to have that book - but i really don't have the time to go there this week. However... I do see one point that I wasn't getting. The table does say that "move" provokes. I don't think the table is in error. That would imply that moving within a threatened area gets an AoO--the bit about "leaving" a threatened square is really only a clarification, because AoOs take place at the beginning of the provoking action and moving into a threatened square begins outside of the threat range. is this to be changed from the original decision, or just a note?
McJarvis 11-04-07, 08:35 AM	is this to be changed from the original decision, or just a note? Just a note. In order to get rulings changed in CoCo after they have already been made you pretty much need the following: 1) An atmosphere that isn't hostile/arguing. 2) A general consensus that not only is the previous ruling incorrect, but also unfair and finally, most importantly: 3) Probably about 4 of the elders agreeing with you. That's just my personal feelings on what it takes, of course. No rules are set in stone except that a council decision needs to be made. [Well, MWB could just say "we're doing it this way" IAR, but he's not the kind of person that would do that]
lonewolf 11-04-07, 08:54 AM	@McJarvis: I disagree on 2(incorrect rulings should be changed even if both variants are considered fair), and the majoraty of Elders(3) should be sufficient to turn a ruling around.
McJarvis 11-04-07, 08:56 AM	@McJarvis: I disagree on 2(incorrect rulings should be changed even if both variants are considered fair), and the majoraty of Elders(3) should be sufficient to turn a ruling around. Oh- don't get me wrong, that is the way we do it. But in general, to affect change I believe my conditions must be adhered to. [The dispel psionics & Energy missile rulings are good examples. They've been discussed before, but they couldn't change until all the old conversations left recent memory & the overwhelming majority of elders agreed with the changes] Technically what you said is the "minimum"...but in practice it seems only absolute desire for a change will change things. Unless- of course- it is a new issue not decided on. That's the kind of issue where we get 3-2 rulings. I *think* this is because Elders[understandably] have a philosophy of resisting change if there is opposition to it. So if Elder A wants the change but sees that Elders B and C don't, Elder A may abstain from voting altogether..thus keeping the change from occurring. Honestly- I like it that way. [and if ever an elder, this is likely the approach I would take.]
whitebaron 11-04-07, 09:01 AM	1) An atmosphere that isn't hostile/arguing. 2) A general consensus that not only is the previous ruling incorrect, but also unfair and finally, most importantly: 3) Probably about 4 of the elders agreeing with you. @1: heated, maybe. arguing: well, that's the essence behind any change, isn't it? without argument, no need to do something. hostile is different. nobody here would like it if i got really hostile. @2: so it is more important to keep decisions, than get it right according to raw? strange concept. @3: well, that's possible. @4: should we take it to the council, then?
McJarvis 11-04-07, 09:14 AM	@2: so it is more important to keep decisions, than get it right according to raw? strange concept. This is more of a time constraint than some sort of ideal. Honestly- there are other issues on the council that I'd rather see be discussed than this, since I don't see this affecting that many fights. Similarly, I think using a wand in melee should provoke an AoO for making a ranged attack- but since there are other council arguments that are more "winnable" I'd rather just see them to completion. I mean, even something so simple as merging the genders for weight charts is probably gonna take about a month....and monster spells/powers & tactics will be a headache in and of itself. edit//rant- On the "More important than RAW" side of things- I think CoCo has been straying from RAW for quite a while. I understand nerfing things when they get out of hand- but there are other issues that we seem to decide on randomly & for no real good reason. For instance- Matter Agitation was house-ruled to be fire damage, yet it's probably one of the least used powers out there. What are we going to do next- house-rule lightning damage to be fire damage since lightning actually cooks flesh from the inside out & it wouldn't make sense for something fire immune to be hurt by it? I *wish* we would stop trying to "fix" the game, other than what is *absolutely* necessary. [ie- banning gate, etc]
whitebaron 11-04-07, 12:03 PM	This is more of a time constraint than some sort of ideal. Honestly- there are other issues on the council that I'd rather see be discussed than this, since I don't see this affecting that many fights. There's not really a need to discuss this any more, as i've already pointed out the flaw of the original decision. - all that needs to be done would be to vote on it. Similarly, I think using a wand in melee should provoke an AoO for making a ranged attack- but since there are other council arguments that are more "winnable" I'd rather just see them to completion. well, this is core-defined as well. activating any wand does not provoke an AoO. making a ranged attack does. if you need to do a ranged attack as part of the spell, you provoke (though, you don't lose the spell if you get hit because of that.) Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. [...] Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. I mean, even something so simple as merging the genders for weight charts is probably gonna take about a month.... merging genders for weight is something really useless. just let them horse-abusers be any weight within male or female of the race, done and all accounted for. this, for me, is a non-issue - it's just for some people that like to abuse. that much said, i find it a pity that many newcomers seem to be way more active in coco than elders, and their comments are almost always either seen as bad, or totally unregarded.
Hirumajoe 11-04-07, 01:41 PM	Enoch the Prophet (Salrantol) vs. Gakhnalak Strongjaw (MindWandererB) [Forest] is up here. There's probably some mistakes, so let me know. Edit: Just realized I forgot to take into acount Enoch being effectively blind for certain attacks at some point in there... Need to go back and check to see what that changes. Edit2: Doesn't really require any changes, but I'll assume that Enoch pulled out the bolt with light when he stood up, so as to avoid any penalties.
mucki 11-04-07, 01:46 PM	I don't know how the decision should go about what exactly constitues "moving out of a square" if you are larger than medium, but I do have to say that I think the table discussed so hotly above is indeed correct. I think it was just written under the assumption that the moving person is medium (which makes sense since it is a handy guide for players and the PHB doesn't have large player races). If the mover is medium and is standing in a threatened square, then a move action will always provoke an AoO since by necessity you leave the square you are in. On the actual issue of moving out I have to say that personally I am just a tad more towards the interpretation of "if any of your sqaures moves out of a threatened square", but tbh. I doubt that anyone can say with finality what the RAW ("moving out of a square") actually means, without asking the person(s) who wrote it, because the language is just not defined enough. Could be: "I have completely left the square", but might as well be "part of me left the square". (actually I think the correct word to describe the movement relative to the square would be "through", but that implies in as well as out).
templer10 11-04-07, 02:01 PM	Marius vs Tweak II is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14246514&postcount=1462) - the result was closer then (i) anticipated.
Vathelokai 11-04-07, 02:26 PM	Marius vs Tweak II is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14246514&postcount=1462) - the result was closer then (i) anticipated. Always forgetting to be specific in my tactics... oh well. Good fight.
McJarvis 11-04-07, 02:40 PM	that much said, i find it a pity that many newcomers seem to be way more active in coco than elders, and their comments are almost always either seen as bad, or totally unregarded. What newcomers see as Elder's inactivity is usually the Elders having a reluctance to hash out old arguments. Everything you've snipped from the SRD is nothing new & everyone has seen before- it's just that not everyone agrees it means what you say it means. [And I'm really only using "you" here because you happen to be the one snipping stuff right now. Believe me- I cut/pasted the exact same stuff about ranged attacks & the Elders sided with the current ruling. There's not much to do about it- until I "get" to be an elder. [I'm not really sure if it's a good or bad thing to be one ;) ]
McJarvis 11-04-07, 02:54 PM	Marius vs Tweak II is done (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14246514&postcount=1462) - the result was closer then (i) anticipated. Huh. I need to remember to watch out for disarming in the future :-) [of course: once I hit ECL4 or 5 I won't be so dependent on that dorjes, I hope] edit- Good grief that's too many natural 20's. The dice really hated me this week. [between thorell rolling all 4 and under & those 20's...] At least I survived 1 battle..
MindWandererB 11-04-07, 02:58 PM	Enoch the Prophet (Salrantol) vs. Gakhnalak Strongjaw (MindWandererB) [Forest] is up here. There's probably some mistakes, so let me know. Edit: Just realized I forgot to take into acount Enoch being effectively blind for certain attacks at some point in there... Need to go back and check to see what that changes. Edit2: Doesn't really require any changes, but I'll assume that Enoch pulled out the bolt with light when he stood up, so as to avoid any penalties. Yeah, falling into the water that way really messed me up. But so did my miserable attack rolls and the undead's good ones. @Salrantol: told you.
whitebaron 11-04-07, 03:12 PM	What newcomers see as Elder's inactivity is usually the Elders having a reluctance to hash out old arguments. Everything you've snipped from the SRD is nothing new & everyone has seen before- it's just that not everyone agrees it means what you say it means. pointing to the arguments or giving a complete line of argumentation would be nice though. no need to rehash old discussions, but: if there is a flaw, and this was not noted before, its more out of pride or vain not to want do discuss this again, right?
McJarvis 11-04-07, 03:16 PM	pointing to the arguments or giving a complete line of argumentation would be nice though. no need to rehash old discussions, but: if there is a flaw, and this was not noted before, its more out of pride or vain not to want do discuss this again, right? I think it's more out of not wanting to re-hash things every week. These discussions can get really long & heated- and more often than not your kinda wasting your breath since the elders already made their decision based on the information you're bringing up. On a personal note- I've become very uncomfortable with the idea that every time 2 Elders changeover we suddenly rehash all the old decisions. This might just be because we've had 4 Elders leave in the last year, though. [i]And a GM that more or less "was" CoCo.
whitebaron 11-04-07, 03:23 PM	On a personal note- I've become very uncomfortable with the idea that every time 2 Elders changeover we suddenly rehash all the old decisions. basically, there is no rehash on the decision, as none was posted originally. i agree with you, that you should not touch old decisions - unless there is an obvious flaw. this is true mainly for the coco decisions - like credits, costs, arenas, and so on. but if it concerns game mechanics, i don't think that you should ignore those just because the elders said differently another time. else you could create a completely different game based on the srd, but this would not be something i could call "core".
McJarvis 11-04-07, 03:26 PM	but if it concerns game mechanics, i don't think that you should ignore those just because the elders said differently another time. else you could create a completely different game based on the srd, but this would not be something i could call "core". That's all fine and good- but the truth of the matter is that 3 elders at one point in time disagreed with you. If it was as clean-cut-and dried as you claim, then that would not have happened. Unfortunately there are times when we are absolutely convinced that we are correct in our thinking- but others don't see it that way. Just gotta live with it. We'll see if anyone wants to rehash the AoO debate. I'm not exactly the keeper of the elders, after all. [I keep sending my application, but no one ever calls back on that one. ;)]
whitebaron 11-04-07, 03:32 PM	That's all fine and good- but the truth of the matter is that 3 elders at one point in time disagreed with you. as nobody succeeded in pointing me to the discussion about this, i can't really say much about their base of discussion. as it is not in any decision or rulings or faq thread, i have to assume it was never ruled through. which reminds me of: @mwb: is there any chance to get an elder-overview installed in one of the critical places? (aka courtroom, council)
Eamane 11-04-07, 03:53 PM	as nobody succeeded in pointing me to the discussion about this, i can't really say much about their base of discussion. as it is not in any decision or rulings or faq thread, i have to assume it was never ruled through. which reminds me of: @mwb: is there any chance to get an elder-overview installed in one of the critical places? (aka courtroom, council) Though I have issue with many small things, this is perhaps the largest and easiest corrected issue. Any ruling that requires multiple elders to weigh in on it should be placed in the rulings thread. If an issue requires a vote it clearly was not clear-cut and was confusing. Confusing issues have a tendency to come up again and again. Particularly because if you place the ruling (and reasoning) in the rulings thread, any future discussion of the same rule has easy to hand evidence to serve as a talking point, instead of people making vague comments on what was decided earlier without any concrete reasons because it was a gorram long time ago and searching through gigantic threads is a pain ;)
MindWandererB 11-04-07, 04:49 PM	Though I have issue with many small things, this is perhaps the largest and easiest corrected issue. Any ruling that requires multiple elders to weigh in on it should be placed in the rulings thread. If an issue requires a vote it clearly was not clear-cut and was confusing. Confusing issues have a tendency to come up again and again. Particularly because if you place the ruling (and reasoning) in the rulings thread, any future discussion of the same rule has easy to hand evidence to serve as a talking point, instead of people making vague comments on what was decided earlier without any concrete reasons because it was a gorram long time ago and searching through gigantic threads is a pain ;)Yes. I don't know why it wasn't put there originally, but it will be in the next update. @whitebaron: What do you mean by an elder overview?
whitebaron 11-04-07, 05:04 PM	@whitebaron: What do you mean by an elder overview? a list of current elders, accessible to everyone that's trying to figure out who they are?
lonewolf 11-04-07, 05:17 PM	a list of current elders, accessible to everyone that's trying to figure out who they are? try this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=6463520#post6463520)
whitebaron 11-04-07, 05:23 PM	try this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=6463520#post6463520) ah, nice. but this should be referenced then, or made sticky - but afaik, there's not even mwb a moderator here, so just link it should be enough.
Salrantol 11-04-07, 05:48 PM	@Salrantol: told you.Well, if it weren't for the water, I'd've been prone and silent the whole fight, so that made a WORLD of difference. Also, how was I supposed to know that UFA was actually going to HIT something? Look at my fight records--even stuff with lower AC than Gakhnalak has always been a problem for the ogre mage skeleton. All the odds looked to be in your favor--Enoch himself didn't touch you and his allies usually can't hit the broad side of a barn. That said, thank you for talking me out of the decision to surrender, and good fight. Fortunately, Enoch did what he's made for--not getting hit and winning through attrition.
lonewolf 11-04-07, 05:51 PM	ah, nice. but this should be referenced then, or made sticky - but afaik, there's not even mwb a moderator here, so just link it should be enough. well, its part of the rules of gladius thread, which is sticky...
whitebaron 11-04-07, 06:24 PM	well, its part of the rules of gladius thread, which is sticky... ah! i finally can see why i failed to find them names. should be linke in the courtroom and council anyway, as there can never be to much cross-referencing.
whitebaron 11-04-07, 07:31 PM	that ffa is killing me... actually 3 people doing nothing really offensively. i'm currently in round 31, and just noticed i forgot to add animal affinity to the rifle... :rolleyes:
TelinArtho 11-04-07, 07:33 PM	whitebaron - if you want a specific discussion found, let me know in a PM and I'll research it on Monday (since I don't have my archives in front of me). If any particular item is not in the court decisions that was once discussed - also bring it up to me, so I can find the discussion and update it accordingly. As to any comment about elders not putting in a lot of time - I respectfully ask that you reconsider that statement. Although some of us are busier than others, I can guarantee that many of us are putting in hours every day. In fact, the only "down time" I give myself is usually on the weekends.
whitebaron 11-04-07, 07:56 PM	whitebaron - if you want a specific discussion found, let me know in a PM and I'll research it on Monday (since I don't have my archives in front of me). [...] As to any comment about elders not putting in a lot of time - I respectfully ask that you reconsider that statement. Although some of us are busier than others, I can guarantee that many of us are putting in hours every day. In fact, the only "down time" I give myself is usually on the weekends. 1) that's easy. they said there should be some discussion on the AoO / large creatures somewhere. 2) please don't get me wrong. i don't know how many hours per day the individual elder puts into coco, its just that forum interaction is really sparse on some of you. it's way better than what my current questlord is available, though. :) (6 posts in 2 weeks...) on a final note, the ecl4 ffa is up. ... corrected link ... please don't try this at home! its boring. i'll edit expenditures and rewards tomorrow. hopefully, there won't be many complaints...
MindWandererB 11-04-07, 09:25 PM	the ecl4 ffa is up. http://forums.gleemax.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=14247217 please don't try this at home! its boring. i'll edit expenditures and rewards tomorrow. hopefully, there won't be many complaints...Link correction
TelinArtho 11-04-07, 09:35 PM	1) that's easy. they said there should be some discussion on the AoO / large creatures somewhere. 2) please don't get me wrong. i don't know how many hours per day the individual elder puts into coco, its just that forum interaction is really sparse on some of you. it's way better than what my current questlord is available, though. :) (6 posts in 2 weeks...) Personally, I wouldn't advise equating posting frequency as a measure of activity. NiQil, as a for instance, had a personal policy to only post his comments when he felt there was something more to be said (as opposed to saying he agreed with x or y or to rehash the same thing ad infinitum). For elders in particular, we do exchange a fair number of PMs in order to address one matter or another - which of course only makes it into a post if the conversation is relevant (see the discussion on HirumaJoe's Blackmarket request as a for instance). As for that particular discussion - unless I get a specific note that someone is looking for one discussion or another - I don't generally look it up. It involves doing mass searching and does take a while to do well. So, in other words, I only do it on specific request. In any case though, I'll look it up on Monday when I get my archives on hand. I do remember some of it was in the FotW of the time - so that might take a little longer (since FotW threads are not a part of my archive).
Salrantol 11-04-07, 10:17 PM	Personally, I wouldn't advise equating posting frequency as a measure of activity. NiQil, as a for instance, had a personal policy to only post his comments when he felt there was something more to be said (as opposed to saying he agreed with x or y or to rehash the same thing ad infinitum).Amen.
Erithmu 11-05-07, 12:12 AM	Baelin vs Lorian Rematch. @T10: Do your pitlords a huge favor ... Take a week where Lorian and Longshot go through a clean up. Litterally clean them up and make them short, and cut the useless information. Eliminate extraneous carriage returns, make all your links post tags, get rid of the nit picking weight (if it doesn't weigh anything I don't need to know that), excessive coloring, bolding, Useless information (racial non-combat stuff, descriptions of things we can look up) I mention the returns as returns count for like 3 characters and with the character limit it doesn't help. Most fights should be able to fit two char sheets, two tactics, and the fight and results in one post (unless it goes really really long). I ask you PLEASE .....
Eluria 11-05-07, 12:16 AM	on a final note, the ecl4 ffa is up. http://forums.gleemax.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=14247217 please don't try this at home! its boring. i'll edit expenditures and rewards tomorrow. hopefully, there won't be many complaints... Hey wb, thanks for running what looks like a long, complex fight. I've noticed a few errors I'd like to point out; I'm not going to haggle over everything, but there are a few major ones, which I'll *; just going in order: Round 6: Petyr shoots a spider instead of Gortek; shooting summons is nowhere in his tactics, and represents quite a bit of pitlord modification from what he specifically says to do. Rd 7: It would be nice if the spiders flanked, since they can, it makes sense, I wanted them to, and as fiendish they do have intelligence of 3 and are not technically just vermin anymore, but I can see your argument and won't press the point. Again, it's unclear from his tactics why Petyr would shoot a spider (it's sort of a major deviation, and, as such, would be nice to see a comment for why exactly it's being made). Rd 8: As the spider vanishes, you make it's web vanish too; I'm not sure that's correct, actually, but can't find evidence either way. (those are all minor and up to your discretion, and I won't argue any of them further) Rd 21: Wroth misses; this is a hit due to True Strike, and needs to be editted in, along with the poison save Rd 22-25: Petyr shoots Wroth; in his tactics it explicitly says to shoot the one at higher HP, or Gortek; you unexplainedly switch Petyr's targets, and I'm not quite sure why. Obviously this would change things too, but without a pitlord explanation as to why, it's not really clear to me whether this was a deviation from his tactics for some legitimate reason... In summary, the main error I see is the true strike attack listed as a miss, but overall I would just say that it felt like, while Petyr submitted rather short tactics, they did cover much of what was happening, but you deviated them for no apparent reason, to his benefit. In addition, for things that weren't even mentioned (what to do about summons) you deviated from his explicit tactics to deal with them; normally I've seen pitlords ... not penalize, but certainly not just automatically chose the best option for people to take in situations that they're forced to improvise because they're not covered in tactics. Obviously this was a long and challenging/frustrating fight to run, and I certainly don't expect there to be no errors; I'm just pointing out the mostly minor (and 1 major) things I note; I'd appreciate if you could address them, at least with a post if not with fight edits. Thanks for running it and for listening.
Callix 11-05-07, 01:46 AM	on a final note, the ecl4 ffa is up. http://forums.gleemax.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=14247217 please don't try this at home! its boring. i'll edit expenditures and rewards tomorrow. hopefully, there won't be many complaints... Not too many complaints on my part :). Thanks for the run. That can't've been fun. Eluria is right; killing the spider, while smart, is not Petyr's tactics. Also, the link you posted is to the "edit post" function; since we're not mods, we just get an Access Denied page. The link you want is on the post number in the top right hand corner.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 03:01 AM	as for the true strike: yep, i missed it after 4 hours of running. will edit it in, though it won't change a lot. (petyr had a contingency for str damage) as for the spiders: i misread petyrs tactic, to hit the closest, not the first enemy. as petyr is int 18, i'm reluctant to say this, but i'm ok with deviating from his tactics. (now, that i see i deviated from them) as for the web: it goes away once your summons go away. When a summoned creature goes away, so does everything it came with. as for round 7: even if the spiders flanked, they wouldn't have hit. -> i'll see what i can do. on another note: i just noticed, petyr used 28 bullets, and carries only 24 :( why do you guys go into ranged fight and carry ammunition for just 3 rounds? ;) i will ask pitlords to not get another ffa... they are just crazy and not even barely worth the stress you get for your credit... you need lots more time, even more concentration, are more prone to errors, and still get only one additional credit for quarelling with players, and having to eventually redo much of the fight.
Rauul 11-05-07, 04:23 AM	-> i'll see what i can do. on another note: i just noticed, petyr used 28 bullets, and carries only 24 :( why do you guys go into ranged fight and carry ammunition for just 3 rounds? ;) So he was out of bullets when he hit Gortek with the psi-shot that killed him.. that could make a VERY big difference in the outcome.. as the Ray of Enfebblement wears off... and Petyr isn't a melee monster...
Callix 11-05-07, 06:09 AM	on another note: i just noticed, petyr used 28 bullets, and carries only 24 :( why do you guys go into ranged fight and carry ammunition for just 3 rounds? ;) Two words: Carrying capacity. 24 bullets should last him into round 29 at least; not many fights get that far. Also, I did remember to specify using Psi-Shot on my last bullet, so the focus won't be wasted. Finally, you've been too nice to me in the damage department. Offensive Precognition gives no bonus to damage rolls; that's what Offensive Prescience is for. Thus, each of Petyr's hits is just 1d12 damage, unless they're within 30ft for Point Blank Shot. Sorry about all the extra rolls that will add.
templer10 11-05-07, 06:10 AM	i will ask pitlords to not get another ffa... they are just crazy and not even barely worth the stress you get for your credit... you need lots more time, even more concentration, are more prone to errors, and still get only one additional credit for quarelling with players, and having to eventually redo much of the fight. Take it as compliment - MWB doesnt usually give FFa's to newer pitlords. my recommendation - if it's complicated tactics try to post the first part of the fight when someone dies while still running the rest of it- usualyl someone will point out an error fairly quickly.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 09:27 AM	Take it as compliment - MWB doesnt usually give FFa's to newer pitlords. my recommendation - if it's complicated tactics try to post the first part of the fight when someone dies while still running the rest of it- usualyl someone will point out an error fairly quickly. the first one died after about 4h20mins. :) still 3-4 hours till i'm home from work, maybe 5 until i can look over it.
templer10 11-05-07, 09:42 AM	the first one died after about 4h20mins. :) still 3-4 hours till i'm home from work, maybe 5 until i can look over it. i think the most a FFA took me was around 10 hours with 3 sneaks, with ridiculesly high hide skills, ridiculesly low spot skills and no decent ability to cause dmg (Ray of forst + 1d6 sneak atta ftw) and a druid and many many darkness and obscuring mist spells... on the other hand, the fastest FFA i did took me around 1 hour with 1 person rolling a natural 1 on a drow poison save and a second to a VERY lucky double 20 crit...(lucky for me anyway).
whitebaron 11-05-07, 09:45 AM	on the other hand, the fastest FFA i did took me around 1 hour with 1 person rolling a natural 1 on a drow poison save and a second to a VERY lucky double 20 crit...(lucky for me anyway). reminds me of luni's saturday fight "charge, done" - i just did the wrong one first.
McJarvis 11-05-07, 10:57 AM	Tanriel vs a Bear & Horse (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14220754&postcount=1446) is up. CLW wand saves the day.
Luni 11-05-07, 11:14 AM	reminds me of luni's saturday fight "charge, done" - i just did the wrong one first. I don't like driving pitlords insane. Sneaky characters are a huge pain to pitlord sometimes. As for FFA's, I like the ones that all want to wait til someone else starts fighting. Cowards! :) Thanks for the fight McJarvis. Clearly I need better tactics.
McJarvis 11-05-07, 11:36 AM	Thanks for the fight McJarvis. Clearly I need better tactics. I didn't think it was *that* bad :) Though you probably could have afforded to specify keeping 150ft away from them when firing- that would have at least prevented the black bear from attacking. I almost rerolled it due to his relatively low speed.
lonewolf 11-05-07, 12:48 PM	I´ve posted the first part of Elrick vs Aerryl up until the Air elemental appears. Im gonna wait with the rest until the discussion in the Tavern is resolved.
lonewolf 11-05-07, 01:11 PM	I am looking on the Interleague fight tactics and must protest on Raskos taking the sunrod with him. It is clearly marked as an item that is only taken with him on quests and makes large parts of my tactics invalid.
templer10 11-05-07, 01:35 PM	I am looking on the Interleague fight tactics and must protest on Raskos taking the sunrod with him. It is clearly marked as an item that is only taken with him on quests and makes large parts of my tactics invalid. Hmm - didnt see that when posting.... i never really encountered Gear that is "for quests" only - Can you bring it to the arena if you mentione you take it for quests only? iam hesitent to take it away from them becuae their tacitcs depend just as much on it as yours are on them not having it. Hirumajoe/Sauro - comments please.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 01:39 PM	Hmm - didnt see that when posting.... i never really encountered Gear that is "for quests" only - Can you bring it to the arena if you mentione you take it for quests only? iam hesitent to take it away from them becuae their tacitcs depend just as much on it as yours are on them not having it. Hirumajoe/Sauro - comments please. the answer should be easy for that - since they don't have it in their equipment worn section, it's not in the arena.
TelinArtho 11-05-07, 01:42 PM	Hmm - didnt see that when posting.... i never really encountered Gear that is "for quests" only - Can you bring it to the arena if you mentione you take it for quests only? iam hesitent to take it away from them becuae their tacitcs depend just as much on it as yours are on them not having it. Hirumajoe/Sauro - comments please. Since it is equipment that is specifically used for quests, is not counted in his encumbrance - it should not be allowed for the combat. Just treat the "Equipment for quests" section as an "At Home" section.
lonewolf 11-05-07, 01:42 PM	IMHO it should be treated like the "Equipment at home" section. You can access it between fights, but you have to prebuff it if you want to take it into the arena.
Hirumajoe 11-05-07, 01:43 PM	Hmm - didnt see that when posting.... i never really encountered Gear that is "for quests" only - Can you bring it to the arena if you mentione you take it for quests only? iam hesitent to take it away from them becuae their tacitcs depend just as much on it as yours are on them not having it. Hirumajoe/Sauro - comments please. Since its not my character, I'm not going to make an argument one way or the other. The only request I have, is if it is decided that the sunrod is removed, that an intelligent use of the torches be made on the Valen/Raskos side. (I.e. passing them around, lighting them, recovering them, etc). Secondly, I'm now curious as to how bright tindertwigs are - I can imagine Valen lighting the twig, and the next round running around where Quartz directs him so he get within 5' and see the darn ghost... :D But I can see Lonewolf's point, and defer to Sauro on the matter for our side's opinion. If no argument is made, then I'll go along with Lonewolf's opinion. Edit: One other question, with the wording of the ghost ability telekinesis - can he actually concentrate or is 1 round of use (standard action) then 1d4 rounds of non-use? Edit 2: I'd also like to point out, that if Valen is Enlarged, and is holding a torch or located so that he's not directly on top of it, he is with 10' of a shadow (since the torch is presumably eminating from one of the corner points on the large square and there are shadows within 10' on the opposite side). So Hide in Plain sight kicks in. Which is a small plus for our side. Just don't ask me how that actually is supposed to work physically...
lonewolf 11-05-07, 02:13 PM	Aerryl vs Elrick fight is up Unless a majority of Elders asks me to Im not gonna change my ruling that Elrick needs to speak Auran to order the Elemental, since I agree with templer that this is a pretty standart attack form for an elemental. I also disagree with Hirumajoe that the Elemental should die the instant it reaches 55ft height, but it can continue its movement until the mages start shooting. @templer: That doesnt mean that I agree with you on everything. While MWB did read your tactics and didnt saw any problems with it, that doesnt change the fact that I want to run a fight according to the rules. Also note that if you do want elementals to use different tactics than their usual combat options(Earth Elementals that grapple or something), you will need to learn the applicable languages to order them to.
Hirumajoe 11-05-07, 02:19 PM	@Lonewolf: You do realize that at best Telekinesis lasts 12 rounds for you then is off for 1d4 rounds? (I'm assuming you're allowed to concentrate to keep it up, rather than it dropping immediate for 1d4 rounds after a single rounds worth - I'm not sure this is the case since its not listed as a spell-like ability, so you're not actually casting it). You physically *cannot* drown Raskos since he can hold his breath for 28 rounds (twice his Con)? He will always be able to grab a breath during that 1 round of down time. This may turn into a rather long fight for Templer10...
lonewolf 11-05-07, 02:26 PM	@Lonewolf: You do realize that at best Telekinesis lasts 12 rounds for you then is off for 1d4 rounds? (I'm assuming you're allowed to concentrate to keep it up, rather than it dropping immediate for 1d4 rounds after a single rounds worth - I'm not sure this is the case since its not listed as a spell-like ability, so you're not actually casting it). You physically *cannot* drown Raskos since he can hold his breath for 28 rounds (twice his Con)? He will always be able to grab a breath during that 1 round of down time. This may turn into a rather long fight for Templer10... crap I somehow misread the "max 1round/CL" and thought it was "max 1min/CL". @templer: Do you think it would be a small enough adjustment to do grapple attempts for damage instead?
templer10 11-05-07, 02:32 PM	crap I somehow misread the "max 1round/CL" and thought it was "max 1min/CL". @templer: Do you think it would be a small enough adjustment to do grapple attempts for damage instead? HE will do it - Eventually - it will take him a few rounds to "remmber" that. p.s - another thing you didnt note- RAsks has PR 19, so you are bound to fail on some of those grapple checks even if that was 1 minute/level.
lonewolf 11-05-07, 02:35 PM	HE will do it - Eventually - it will take him a few rounds to "remmber" that. p.s - another thing you didnt note- RAsks has PR 19, so you are bound to fail on some of those grapple checks even if that was 1 minute/level. well, PR checks only once each time Samuel uses Telekinesis. If he breaches it once, there is no rechecking for the rest of the duration.
Rauul 11-05-07, 03:54 PM	Nemion vs. Psori D'Agostea is here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14255476&postcount=1468). I notice we have been seeing a lot more +1-2 LA characters lately... Low hit points makes for easy runs..
MindWandererB 11-05-07, 04:08 PM	Take it as compliment - MWB doesnt usually give FFa's to newer pitlords. my recommendation - if it's complicated tactics try to post the first part of the fight when someone dies while still running the rest of it- usualyl someone will point out an error fairly quickly. whitebaron's done 20 fights already. He's not so new anymore. If I only have FFAs to folks who've done 50 fights, I'd have a hard time making ends meet. Edit: I'm starting to wonder about the city ceiling rule. It's interesting, but it makes certain tactics abnormally powerful. Summons and telekinesis (already very potent options) become much more valuable there--they effectively become extremely potent and reusable save-or-die effects. I notice that it's very rare that one character has a viable strategy for taking advantage of it, and the other manages to survive anyway. That suggests an overpowered option.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 04:22 PM	first update on the status of the ffa: petyr failed his save on the charge and took 4 damage, but takes only 1 str damage, which at that point means he can move away at full speed like he did. (since his weight carried dropped due to shot bullets) i won't edit the spider things anymore. i misread the tactics, and i shot the closest opponents. this is my fault, and i'm sorry for it. this means that wroth will still die between petyr and gortek. i will look into petyr's bullet amount later on. (i looked up 82 when i first looked it up for gortek, too. but obviously, this was the equipment at home - missed to tiredness.) maybe gortek will win, maybe petyr.
McJarvis 11-05-07, 04:28 PM	whitebaron's done 20 fights already. He's not so new anymore. If I only have FFAs to folks who've done 50 fights, I'd have a hard time making ends meet. Edit: I'm starting to wonder about the city ceiling rule. It's interesting, but it makes certain tactics abnormally powerful. Summons and telekinesis (already very potent options) become much more valuable there--they effectively become extremely potent and reusable save-or-die effects. I notice that it's very rare that one character has a viable strategy for taking advantage of it, and the other manages to survive anyway. That suggests an overpowered option. I, personally, don't really like the "environmental hazard" maps [City & Temple]. At least- I don't when they're taken advantage of in that fashion.
templer10 11-05-07, 04:29 PM	whitebaron's done 20 fights already. He's not so new anymore. If I only have FFAs to folks who've done 50 fights, I'd have a hard time making ends meet. Edit: I'm starting to wonder about the city ceiling rule. It's interesting, but it makes certain tactics abnormally powerful. Summons and telekinesis (already very potent options) become much more valuable there--they effectively become extremely potent and reusable save-or-die effects. I notice that it's very rare that one character has a viable strategy for taking advantage of it, and the other manages to survive anyway. That suggests an overpowered option. i can definently see your point there - But wasn't that rule put in place in just in fact so peeps could use the tactical options it give them? on the other hand - isnt the city height limit about the same as putting a very strong melee fighter vs a caster in the temple (like krackol) who can win in the first round if he wins initative? But on a note of changing rules - a rule i would just Love to see changed is the winged flying rules - who makes no sense at all and if i remmber correctly was implemented by Cat using his GM stick (tm) as a response to almost loosing to hood on a Pegasus.
McJarvis 11-05-07, 04:30 PM	But on a note of changing rules - a rule i would just Love to see changed is the winged flying rules - who makes no sense at all and if i remmber correctly was implemented by Cat using his GM stick (tm) as a response to almost loosing to hood on a Pegasus. I'd second that. As much as a giant eagle or owl flying down a 10 ft ally doesn't make sense- I'd rather stick to RAW.
lonewolf 11-05-07, 04:34 PM	But on a note of changing rules - a rule i would just Love to see changed is the winged flying rules - who makes no sense at all and if i remmber correctly was implemented by Cat using his GM stick (tm) as a response to almost loosing to hood on a Pegasus. 3rd :thumbsup:
Nurlithion 11-05-07, 04:35 PM	Rauul, just a little nitpick: you forgot to list a scroll of Shield I used in the beggining of the fight in the wrap-up. Thanks for pitlording! I actually thought Nemion was gonna lose this one.
Hirumajoe 11-05-07, 04:35 PM	I always thought the point of the 50' instant death was more to act as ceiling rather than be used offensively. Basically limiting the only maps with unlimited height to the plains and certain sections of the forest map. The city buildings are much less interesting when one opponent simply flies up 100-200' in order to be able to look down all the streets and starts dropping fireballs or arrows. I'd like to see Macbrea's suggestion, that it counts as outside of the arena and the 10 round timer run. Or perhaps state that a protective hemi-spherical wall of force has been erected around the city block the fight takes place in, to contain the damage. And thus at 50' up you run into the wall. Something along those lines. Edit: And I'd 4th the suggestion of going back to RAW on the winged flying ruling.
Macbrea 11-05-07, 04:41 PM	The height limit on the city was to prevent the city from just becoming another plains map. If an opponent could fly to 400ft above the map, then fireball it's target below it. It becomes heavily in favor of the fliers. In the same fashion as the plains map does. They didn't want two of those maps. The rule that an epic wizard blasts you if you get above the height then becomes a horridly powerful tactic. The rules to the map should have more accurately reflected the rest of coco. If you leave the arena for more then 10 rounds for any reason you loose. This means if there was a match height of 50ft on the map. Spending more then 10 rounds above 50ft would be an automatic loss. On the plains map, I had to ask if it was possible to push someone off the map and hold them there for 10 rounds with a telekinetic grapple. In the end we decided that the edge of the plains/forest maps are walls.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 04:44 PM	what about having those flying to high getting whirlwinded/into a hurricane without save? :) you could actually get over 50ft. but you could see about nothing, and would get damaged every round. (untyped, so no exploits due to resist xxx or protection from yyy.)
Rauul 11-05-07, 04:49 PM	Rauul, just a little nitpick: you forgot to list a scroll of Shield I used in the beggining of the fight in the wrap-up. Thanks for pitlording! I actually thought Nemion was gonna lose this one. Fixed... As for loosing.. it could of gone either way... a max damage hit on the x-bow would of hurt you.. he needing a full round to reload it hurts tho.. it was close..
McJarvis 11-05-07, 04:53 PM	Howabout instead of blasting those epic wizards just always keep an epic-type spell similar to Solid Fog over the city? This fog is not an exact copy of the spell- it's immune to AMF and all other types of spell interactions. You can move through it at a maximum of 5ft per full-round action spent to move through it.
Hirumajoe 11-05-07, 04:55 PM	@Lonewolf and Templer10: I thought Lonewolf wanted the will save version with 20' movement per round of telekinesis? The disarm method will simply drop the torch on the ground each round, at which point Valen or Raskos presumably picks it up again on their turn. Since the combat manuever use of Telekinesis has no way of moving the torch away on the same turn that it disarms it (I suppose you could bull rush it, but again, on the next turn). And you can't change which form of the spell one uses once started.
lonewolf 11-05-07, 04:58 PM	I was about to post (nearly) the same thing. Samuel wants to use the violent thrust option of Telekinesis. That gives Valen a Will save and if he fails the torch is in the pool.
templer10 11-05-07, 05:01 PM	@Lonewolf and Templer10: I thought Lonewolf wanted the will save version with 20' movement per round of telekinesis? The disarm method will simply drop the torch on the ground each round, at which point Valen or Raskos presumably picks it up again on their turn. Since the combat manuever use of Telekinesis has no way of moving the torch away on the same turn that it disarms it (I suppose you could bull rush it, but again, on the next turn). And you can't change which form of the spell one uses once started. Hmm - actually with An unarmed diasrm you catually takes the object into your own possesion but i suppose you cant do that with a TK disarm, Ill edit that - Question, if he manages to get both torches, you want to surrender? without light you cant dispell unless the psicrytal tells you the squere and you makes 20 50-50 checks, but it doesnt matter since raskos has no way to use the WAnd of MM on it since he still has full concealment.
Hirumajoe 11-05-07, 05:13 PM	Hmm - actually with An unarmed diasrm you catually takes the object into your own possesion but i suppose you cant do that with a TK disarm, Ill edit that - Question, if he manages to get both torches, you want to surrender? without light you cant dispell unless the psicrytal tells you the squere and you makes 20 50-50 checks, but it doesnt matter since raskos has no way to use the WAnd of MM on it since he still has full concealment. I can't really speak for Sauro. I agree it looks grim. In addition, Valen I believe has to be able to see something, more than just pinpoint it, in order to do a directed dispel, so I don't even use manifest it if there's no light. Technically, he can make a normal attack with 50% miss chance for being blind, then 50% miss chance for incorpreality. Quartz lets him pinpoint the ghost and its amulet. I'd probably just run it until Valen goes down (shouldn't take too long given that he only has 12 Cha). At that point, you can't even hope for Valen to get a lucky streak of 50+'s and 20s. If Sauro agrees no light = no win, then feel free to stop at the point where the torches both go out. Otherwise, you are probably are safe to say once Quartz (and hence Valen) is out of the picture, its game over.
Hirumajoe 11-05-07, 05:17 PM	@Templer10: Just noticing the rolls, you're forgetting that Violent Thrust uses the entire casting in a single round. You need to roll a 1d4 die to determine the next time Samuel can use Telekinesis after each violent thrust. (Pushing back the second and third will saves further in time). Just trying to spot mistakes as I see 'em to save you time. :)
MindWandererB 11-05-07, 05:34 PM	I always thought the point of the 50' instant death was more to act as ceiling rather than be used offensively. Basically limiting the only maps with unlimited height to the plains and certain sections of the forest map. The city buildings are much less interesting when one opponent simply flies up 100-200' in order to be able to look down all the streets and starts dropping fireballs or arrows. I'd like to see Macbrea's suggestion, that it counts as outside of the arena and the 10 round timer run. Or perhaps state that a protective hemi-spherical wall of force has been erected around the city block the fight takes place in, to contain the damage. And thus at 50' up you run into the wall. Something along those lines. Edit: And I'd 4th the suggestion of going back to RAW on the winged flying ruling. Hirumajoe is right--it was meant to act as a ceiling, so the city is an interesting map. Similarly, Cat didn't actually want to nerf Hood in particular; he'd designed the sewer so that flyers would be at a disadvantage, and just didn't realise that the rest of us had ruled that a "flavor" text of a 20' wingspan didn't mean that it still takes up, and can fly in, a 10' space. He added the double-space for flyers rule because he thought it was common sense to begin with. And I'm sort of inclined to agree with him--it's pretty silly.
lonewolf 11-05-07, 05:40 PM	@templer: While were at pointing out errors before the fight is posted: Valen and Raskos ready dispel & Magic Missile on sight, not on manifesting. So Samuel should not have to roll a Concentration check since the damage is done before he starts manifesting.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 05:42 PM	the first phase of FFA edit is done. petyr failed the poison save but could move away since his reduced load allowed him to do so. wroth fell like in the original to the combined shots of petyr and gortek. petyr will actually fail the second save and have to manifest animal affinity(str), i'll have to count bullets as next task. what is currently round 30 will be his last rifle shot, he will then have to revert to rapier. since he cannot kill gortek before with the rifle, it is likely gortek will win. gortek is at 15, but close by. and no, i won't use recall agony, as this is really to much deviation from original tactics.
Hirumajoe 11-05-07, 05:43 PM	@Lonewolf: I'm pretty sure the concentration check is for the *Telekinesis* which had be concentration up until that point (incorrectly). If you'll note, the dispell on Raskos goes off, even though the concentration check was failed. :)
templer10 11-05-07, 05:55 PM	@Lonewolf: I'm pretty sure the concentration check is for the *Telekinesis* which had be concentration up until that point (incorrectly). If you'll note, the dispell on Raskos goes off, even though the concentration check was failed. :) The concetration was for TK - but why is it incorrect? It's a concetration power after all. Note- grabbing an object is the sustainted force, not violent thrust. p.s - iam beginning to hate telekineses...
Rauul 11-05-07, 05:58 PM	the first phase of FFA edit is done. petyr failed the poison save but could move away since his reduced load allowed him to do so. wroth fell like in the original to the combined shots of petyr and gortek. petyr will actually fail the second save and have to manifest animal affinity(str), i'll have to count bullets as next task. what is currently round 30 will be his last rifle shot, he will then have to revert to rapier. since he cannot kill gortek before with the rifle, it is likely gortek will win. gortek is at 15, but close by. and no, i won't use recall agony, as this is really to much deviation from original tactics. running out of ammo is pretty devastating for an archer build... he may want to consider getting a handy haversack to be able to carry more ammo for that rifle...
lonewolf 11-05-07, 06:23 PM	The concetration was for TK - but why is it incorrect? It's a concetration power after all. Note- grabbing an object is the sustainted force, not violent thrust. p.s - iam beginning to hate telekineses... Both options work against possessions. Violent Thrust is just much faster.
Hirumajoe 11-05-07, 06:32 PM	Both options work against possessions. Violent Thrust is just much faster. Actually, Violent thrust works against held objects (in addition to unattended objects) where as Sustained force works against any objects on someone (since you can manipulate it as if with one hand). So a secured object which is not in hand, can't be violently thrusted, since you can't untie it or something. I believe there was a discussion about violent thrusting weapons from sheaths not that long ago, although I've forgotten what the final decision on that was. (Anyone who does remember, feel free to chime in. :) ) From Violent Thrust from Telekinesis: Creatures who fall within the weight capacity of the spell can be hurled, but they are allowed Will saves (and spell resistance) to negate the effect, as are those whose held possessions are targeted by the spell. From Sustained Force from Telekinesis: A sustained force moves an object weighing no more than 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level) up to 20 feet per round. A creature can negate the effect on an object it possesses with a successful Will save or with spell resistance.
lonewolf 11-05-07, 06:40 PM	well, I am targeting your held torch arent I? And if you read the spell literaly, you can hurl items not held but possessed by another creature without it even getting a will save, since only creatures whose held items are targeted recieve one. There is nothing in the spell description that disallows targeting other objects in a creatures possession.
Taureus_Drakken 11-05-07, 06:45 PM	Nemion vs. Psori D'Agostea is here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14255476&postcount=1468). I notice we have been seeing a lot more +1-2 LA characters lately... Low hit points makes for easy runs.. Thanks for the run. I had banked on him trying to Color Spray me (basically would have been totally screwed if it had gotten past my SR), but I guess I was banking on that a little too much. ¬Taureus¬
McJarvis 11-05-07, 06:48 PM	Thanks for the run. I had banked on him trying to Color Spray me (basically would have been totally screwed if it had gotten past my SR), but I guess I was banking on that a little too much. ¬Taureus¬ It's funny how sometimes you're 100% sure an opponent won't do something, and then they go ahead and do it. :)
Hirumajoe 11-05-07, 07:04 PM	well, I am targeting your held torch arent I? And if you read the spell literaly, you can hurl items not held but possessed by another creature without it even getting a will save, since only creatures whose held items are targeted recieve one. There is nothing in the spell description that disallows targeting other objects in a creatures possession. My apologies. Was just trying to point out the differences in the two uses. I agree totally that you should be able to work on the held torch, which is what I presume occurs on the first will save. What may be unclear, for general consideration, as opposed to this particular fight, is if you can violently thrust an object which is tied down, or stored in a backpack or in a sheath. Otherwise, a single casting of violent thrust should be able to disarm a warrior of every single item they are carrying in a single round on a failed will save. Which seems a bit excessive. I mean, if I were running Samuel and I could target up to 12 items anywhere on my opponents in a single round, why stop at the held and stored torch? I'd be tossing all the magic weapons, the backup weapons, the stat enhancers, and the magic missile wand all 120' away in the dark in a single round. I don't think that was the intent of the spell. So I presume only held objects and unattended objects can be targeted by the violent thrust version of the spell. Otherwise, Valen *really* needs to pick up the level 3 psionic version.
whitebaron 11-05-07, 07:06 PM	final edit of the FFA one question: do you get to recover bullets?
lonewolf 11-05-07, 07:07 PM	final edit of the FFA one question: do you get to recover bullets? I think so just like arrows
Eamane 11-05-07, 08:13 PM	My apologies. Was just trying to point out the differences in the two uses. I agree totally that you should be able to work on the held torch, which is what I presume occurs on the first will save. What may be unclear, for general consideration, as opposed to this particular fight, is if you can violently thrust an object which is tied down, or stored in a backpack or in a sheath. Otherwise, a single casting of violent thrust should be able to disarm a warrior of every single item they are carrying in a single round on a failed will save. Which seems a bit excessive. I mean, if I were running Samuel and I could target up to 12 items anywhere on my opponents in a single round, why stop at the held and stored torch? I'd be tossing all the magic weapons, the backup weapons, the stat enhancers, and the magic missile wand all 120' away in the dark in a single round. I don't think that was the intent of the spell. So I presume only held objects and unattended objects can be targeted by the violent thrust version of the spell. Otherwise, Valen *really* needs to pick up the level 3 psionic version. This was handled (eventually) way back in the days of the first Arena ghost, who telekinetic thrusted people around like it was going out of style. AFAIK, the ruling was the stored items were not vulnerable to being thrusted. I don't remember what the definition of stored was off hand though. I wasn't around when that one was handled, but I remember it by way of the Energy Missile ruling, which was compared to it in terms of sheer brokenness if it is allowed to work any other way.
Rauul 11-05-07, 08:28 PM	final edit of the FFA one question: do you get to recover bullets? @rauul: well, proud dwarf you are... lying behind a boulder and using a bow. BAH! Bah! Silly insane Duergar and a equally Insane Human with a boomstick... i wait for them to kill each other and use up bullets... then I be sane and smart... and get drunk!! My Momma didn't raise a Stupid or Insane Dwarf yanno... besides he would get hit with a Delay penalty if he had sat behind the boulder drinking beer.. might as well waste Crossbow bolts and hit once (2 dmg) would of been more productive to Drink beer...
SauroGrenom 11-05-07, 10:32 PM	Hmm - didnt see that when posting.... i never really encountered Gear that is "for quests" only - Can you bring it to the arena if you mentione you take it for quests only? iam hesitent to take it away from them becuae their tacitcs depend just as much on it as yours are on them not having it. Hirumajoe/Sauro - comments please. Hmmm... That's a carry over from the long era of questing. Probably shouldn't have stopped questing. Anyway, I didn't count it in the encumbrance and that's a good sign that the rod is probably out. I agree that a modification to the tactics for team Valen & Raskos would be appreciated... There are a few things in Lonewolf's tactics that are a bit off and should be noted. Specifically the intimidate value isn't high enough to force both Yaurl and Scathers away from the battle. Let me detail it for you: Samuel has 30 intimidate value. To make Yaurl Panicked requires a total of 20 = 9ECL + 1 wis +10 to become panicked. To make Scathers Panicked requires a total of 12 = 1 wis + 1 (wizard class levels -2) +10 to become panicked. The total required to panic all of Raskos's allies is 32, and Samuel is 2 points shy. So either Yaurl or Scathers is in the battle. Either one of them will be frightened for 4 rounds, then recover to a shaken state for the remainder of the battle. So one of those allies should be around if it matters... I doubt it. Anyway, in this situation after the first torch is tossed into the water, Raskos would cast invisibility on the second one or hand it to Scathers. The torch itself would thereby be more difficult to target with further attacks of this kind. That's probably a bit too savvy for improvised tactics.
templer10 11-06-07, 01:56 AM	Sauro - yes that's abit 2 much for improvised tactics. About allies- do any of your allies can actually Hit a ghost? (didn't check myself) if not i wouldnt bother. YOu also dindt give any tactics on what to do with them. about the TK - from lonewolf's tactics he clearly wanted to continusly use TK to get rid of the torches and he didnt want to waste mroe tiem he had 2 so i used the sustained force version since it doesnt require cooldown after usage and samuel waited until valen was fairly close to the water to use it. ill work on it after work today- should be complete in time.
Callix 11-06-07, 03:16 AM	final edit of the FFA one question: do you get to recover bullets? Thanks for the run. It was always going to be hard, what with failing two saves and running out of bullets. Minor quibble: Offensive Prescience adds +2 damage, not +1. That's 5 more damage to Gortek, and 2 more to Wroth from the first two shots. Doesn't change anything. Wroth is on 1hp, not 3, when Gortek breaks Hold Person, and Gortek ends up on 5 hp, not 11. And what did I do to those recovery dice? Nothing wrong, just weird.] And with that, I'm taking a week off. Nothing serious, just exams. I'll be back for the 21st.
lonewolf 11-06-07, 04:21 AM	There are a few things in Lonewolf's tactics that are a bit off and should be noted. Specifically the intimidate value isn't high enough to force both Yaurl and Scathers away from the battle. Let me detail it for you: Samuel has 30 intimidate value. To make Yaurl Panicked requires a total of 20 = 9ECL + 1 wis +10 to become panicked. To make Scathers Panicked requires a total of 12 = 1 wis + 1 (wizard class levels -2) +10 to become panicked. The total required to panic all of Raskos's allies is 32, and Samuel is 2 points shy. So either Yaurl or Scathers is in the battle. Either one of them will be frightened for 4 rounds, then recover to a shaken state for the remainder of the battle. So one of those allies should be around if it matters... I doubt it. Frighten Allies (Intimidate) As a Free Activity, you can use your Intimidate skill to scare one or more allies of your opponent that have an intelligence of 3 or more. Your Intimidate value must be at least as high as (Ally CR + Ally Wisdom modifier + any bonuses to saving throws vs. fear) to affect him or her (called Courage Value). There are three different effects depending on your Intimidate value relative to the Courage Value: * Scared: Your intimidate skill is at least equal to the ally's Courage Value. Your opponent's ally is Shaken for the entire combat. * Frightened: Your intimidate value is higher than the Courage Value by 5 or more. Your opponent's ally is Frightened for the first 4 rounds, then is Shaken for the rest of the fight. * Panicked: Your intimidate value is higher than the Courage Value by 10 or more. Your opponent's ally is Panicked and does not appear to the fight. Multiple Allies: If the opponent has more than one ally, you can decide which ally you want to intimidate. After having intimidated the first ally, deduct the the Courage Value from your Intimidate Value. If you have points left, you can intimidate another ally (and so on) but your Intimidate value is decreased after each intimidation. 2 things: - Samuels intimidate skill modifier is +30, so his value is take 10 + modifier => 40. - After intimidating the first Ally, you deduct the Courage Value From your Intimidate Value, not the Courage Value + 10 if you have beat the first ally by 10. The combination of those two things enables Samuel to easily scare away both Yaurl and Scathers.
whitebaron 11-06-07, 07:44 AM	on the second i agree, but on the first i do not. all other skill packages except for moneymaking use the skill value, not the skill check result. i think this ought to be the same for intimidate.
TelinArtho 11-06-07, 09:55 AM	2 things: - Samuels intimidate skill modifier is +30, so his value is take 10 + modifier => 40. - After intimidating the first Ally, you deduct the Courage Value From your Intimidate Value, not the Courage Value + 10 if you have beat the first ally by 10. The combination of those two things enables Samuel to easily scare away both Yaurl and Scathers. 1. On the first one, as whitebaron stated, this is against the skill modifier not the value at take 10. 2. This I think is actually incorrectly presented in the Rules. 3. That said - Intimidate goes off of the CR of the ally - not the ECL. So while Yaurl is ECL9, his CR is much lower.
McJarvis 11-06-07, 10:18 AM	I've started the Monster fight at ECL12. Given the relative complexity of what's going on, I'm going to "update" it every time I'm done with a round & check here. If anyone sees any errors, please let me know. It's looking to be quite the epic battle!
McJarvis 11-06-07, 01:09 PM	prelim on Krak vs Mal & Cloakers (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14220769&postcount=1448) is up. The monsters+centaur won this one.
templer10 11-06-07, 02:52 PM	the fairly predictable result of valen & raskos vs samuel is here. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14263745&postcount=1469) fighting a ghost in the dark with TK when all you have for light is 2 torches.... not fun.
SauroGrenom 11-06-07, 03:02 PM	prelim on Krak vs Mal & Cloakers (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14220769&postcount=1448) is up. The monsters+centaur won this one. I'm reading this one right now, and I've spotted a major problem in round 8. Kracknol doesn't provoke any AoO's for his movement... He has total concealment due to the greater concealing amorphia. Since he has total concealment he simply doesn't provoke AoO's for movement. It's much like being invisible in this sense.
McJarvis 11-06-07, 03:04 PM	I'm reading this one right now, and I've spotted a major problem in round 8. Kracknol doesn't provoke any AoO's for his movement... He has total concealment due to the greater concealing amorphia. Since he has total concealment he simply doesn't provoke AoO's for movement. It's much like being invisible in this sense. I totally forgot about that. That's pretty fight-changing. I'll review it the moment I get home from work[in about two hours] I believe the initial grapple was made off an AoO- and if it didn't happen then you wouldn't take that falling damage. [~1/4 of hps]
SauroGrenom 11-06-07, 03:24 PM	I totally forgot about that. That's pretty fight-changing. I'll review it the moment I get home from work[in about two hours] I believe the initial grapple was made off an AoO- and if it didn't happen then you wouldn't take that falling damage. [~1/4 of hps]Also it almost ensures that Kracknol gets to attack Malik. With his damage boosts, and the dive attack, Kracknol should be able to slay Malik with one full attack. With CoCo ally rules, when Malik is dead, his ally disappears totally. Then it's just Kracknol and the cloakers, with Kracknol having way more HP than what round 9 ends with now. I think you're shorting Kracknol on his AC while grappled. I think he still has an AC of 23, and the roller looks like only 19 is used. I don't know if that will make much of a difference.
McJarvis 11-06-07, 03:26 PM	Also it almost ensures that Kracknol gets to attack Malik. With his damage boosts, and the dive attack, Kracknol should be able to slay Malik with one full attack. With CoCo ally rules, when Malik is dead, his ally disappears totally. Then it's just Kracknol and the cloakers, with Kracknol having way more HP than what round 9 ends with now. I think you're shorting Kracknol on his AC while grappled. I think he still has an AC of 23, and the roller looks like only 19 is used. I don't know if that will make much of a difference. Whenever Krac was pinned he had an AC of 19. [Pinning takes it down by 4]
Hirumajoe 11-06-07, 03:29 PM	the fairly predictable result of valen & raskos vs samuel is here. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14263745&postcount=1469) fighting a ghost in the dark with TK when all you have for light is 2 torches.... not fun. Thanks for the run. I'd like to point out an error in the rewards section: Valen doesn't own a wand of magic missile [CL 9]. I believe that charge was used by Raskos. In additional Valen only dances for 154 gp, not 164 gp - you're tipping him 10 gp too much. :) And I'd like to point out that because Quartz is still around, Valen *could* ready an action to attack Samuel on entering range. But given thats a 1 in 80 chance each time (50%, 50% and 1 in 20) I think the surrender at that point is reasonable.
lonewolf 11-06-07, 04:42 PM	@Eamane: Do you still plan to do the Wiener Wadlbeisser vs. Inzin fight before pairings? Just wondering, since the deadline has passed and the rolls look as if you´ve stopped just after Initiative was rolled...
Eamane 11-06-07, 06:38 PM	@Eamane: Do you still plan to do the Wiener Wadlbeisser vs. Inzin fight before pairings? Just wondering, since the deadline has passed and the rolls look as if you´ve stopped just after Initiative was rolled... Yeah, I'm back on it again; I had to stop due to familial requirements, but I just got back a few minutes ago. The fight, quite honestly, looks to go fairly quickly, so it should be up in a few hours.
waywreth 11-06-07, 07:26 PM	Yeah, I'm back on it again; I had to stop due to familial requirements, but I just got back a few minutes ago. The fight, quite honestly, looks to go fairly quickly, so it should be up in a few hours. Thanks... minor request though, please don't use Telin's dice for Inzin.
TelinArtho 11-06-07, 07:47 PM	Always comments about my dice... why never anyone else's... Its a conspiracy and everyone is out to get me!
McJarvis 11-06-07, 08:10 PM	Fixed the fight with Kracknol & Mal. Now Mal died, but the cloakers remained victorious.
Rauul 11-06-07, 08:30 PM	Always comments about my dice... why never anyone else's... Its a conspiracy and everyone is out to get me! Well look at your cleric's dice in my quest.... i almost threw out my dice...
Eamane 11-06-07, 09:15 PM	I'm not using Telin's dice; for either side, no worries. I do have a question for COCO though; Thoughts on the mechanical consequences of a creature with natural flight (i.e: wings) becoming blinded? RAW, it would seem the only consequence for movement is half-speed, but if the creature has a good or better maneuverability this doesn't seem to affect their ability to stay in the air at all. True/false/other?
MindWandererB 11-06-07, 10:11 PM	I'm not using Telin's dice; for either side, no worries. I do have a question for COCO though; Thoughts on the mechanical consequences of a creature with natural flight (i.e: wings) becoming blinded? RAW, it would seem the only consequence for movement is half-speed, but if the creature has a good or better maneuverability this doesn't seem to affect their ability to stay in the air at all. True/false/other? That's correct. And even a creature with average or worse can stay airborne if they double move their full movement.
SauroGrenom 11-06-07, 10:57 PM	Fixed the fight with Kracknol & Mal. Now Mal died, but the cloakers remained victorious. Malik lost the fight, so I don't think he gets winner's rewards. The cloakers get winner's rewards, but Malik doesn't.
Erithmu 11-06-07, 11:00 PM	Malik lost the fight, so I don't think he gets winner's rewards. The cloakers get winner's rewards, but Malik doesn't. Mal and monsters are considered a 'team' so if anyone is left standing, the team gets winners rewards.
Eamane 11-06-07, 11:15 PM	Inzin vs team Weiner is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14239535&postcount=1460), with setup here (http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php%3Fp%3D14239499%26postcount% 3D1459). Rewards up in a few hours; I have to stray from my keyboard for a bit, but I'll be back this evening. If there are major issues, I will address them and finish the paperwork for the fight.
MindWandererB 11-07-07, 02:21 AM	Inzin vs team Weiner is up here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14239535&postcount=1460), with setup here (http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php%3Fp%3D14239499%26postcount% 3D1459). Rewards up in a few hours; I have to stray from my keyboard for a bit, but I'll be back this evening. If there are major issues, I will address them and finish the paperwork for the fight. In case it matters: Armor worn starts worn. If you want it off, you have to take it off during the fight. Not usually viable. (Although I just realised a trick--you can change your shape to get rid of it....)
Eamane 11-07-07, 02:25 AM	In case it matters: Armor worn starts worn. If you want it off, you have to take it off during the fight. Not usually viable. (Although I just realised a trick--you can change your shape to get rid of it....) Really? Hmm. Does this apply to shields as well, since they are 'armor'? Reduces flexibility of fighter-types if so. Anyways, edited in the rewards, though I'm not quite sure I'm doing it right. Team rules say treat them as a party of randomly assigned gladiators and to calculate individual xp based on their ECL, not the group EL. Thus in this case, their ECL is 3 vs a 6, which means if they had won by themselves, they would have gotten 2,700 xp. Since they lost, they only get a 3rd of that, 900. Add up all the gladiators (3) and you get 2,700 again, then divide (3) and you are back to 900. Then reduce to max losing to ECL (step I forgot) and we are at 300 xp, 300 gp, yes?
MindWandererB 11-07-07, 02:43 AM	Really? Hmm. Does this apply to shields as well, since they are 'armor'? Reduces flexibility of fighter-types if so.Yeah, but it's a move action to remove a shield, so no big deal.Thus in this case, their ECL is 3 vs a 6, which means if they had won by themselves, they would have gotten 2,700 xp. Since they lost, they only get a 3rd of that, 900. Add up all the gladiators (3) and you get 2,700 again, then divide (3) and you are back to 900. Then reduce to max losing to ECL (step I forgot) and we are at 300 xp, 300 gp, yes?Not quite... 2700 would be the reward for one of them winning, so 900 would be the reward for one of them losing or for all three winning, so 300 is the reward they get, no max losing reward needed. It's basically the same as TT D&D with part XP, except that you divide by 3 for a loss. Typically, matched-EL battles earn the same rewards as standard fights at your ECL.
whitebaron 11-07-07, 02:53 AM	300/300 it would be. the roller was against us, but you forgot the second potion of pfe, which we specifically asked for to drink. a brown bear standing next to khamul... is something i think he should react to. also, i don't know where inzin has his second produce flame from. his 3FC seems to indicate that he has only one left...
Eamane 11-07-07, 04:06 AM	300/300 it would be. the roller was against us, but you forgot the second potion of pfe, which we specifically asked for to drink. a brown bear standing next to khamul... is something i think he should react to. also, i don't know where inzin has his second produce flame from. his 3FC seems to indicate that he has only one left... Khamul doesn't have the spellcraft needed to determine spell lengths; if had survived the initial assault (without getting grappled, anyways), he would have tried to down another potion. Inzin was actually in the first fight of his 3fc; he just forgot to clear out the information from his last cycle. This confused me as well until I looked at his past couple fights.
lonewolf 11-07-07, 04:17 AM	@Eamane: You still need to add Political Carreer modifiers from Crucio to the Rewards of our team. Thanks for the run.
mucki 11-07-07, 04:36 AM	Khamul doesn't have the spellcraft needed to determine spell lengths True. Though he will make a mental note to write the duration of all potions and scrolls onto them with permanent marker ;-) Anyway, a good fight, and we did more damage than I have hoped for :)
whitebaron 11-07-07, 06:05 AM	Khamul doesn't have the spellcraft needed to determine spell lengths; if had survived the initial assault (without getting grappled, anyways), he would have tried to down another potion. Inzin was actually in the first fight of his 3fc; he just forgot to clear out the information from his last cycle. This confused me as well until I looked at his past couple fights. fair enough. thnx. something to consider: if crucio tells him, how long it will last, can he judge the minutes? and: do you have to write to all expendables that your character knows how long they last? after all, the vendor could have told him so. i'd generally assume that you know exactly how long your buffs last - even though you don't have spellcraft to identify this.
Rauul 11-07-07, 07:04 AM	fair enough. thnx. something to consider: if crucio tells him, how long it will last, can he judge the minutes? and: do you have to write to all expendables that your character knows how long they last? after all, the vendor could have told him so. i'd generally assume that you know exactly how long your buffs last - even though you don't have spellcraft to identify this. I probably shouldn't say anything... but In Real Combat.. you don't have time to think... you use what is ingrained into you via Training.... As i know Real life has Very little to do with D&D, it is one of the ways I personnel look at it when having to use skills in Combat.. being told something by a Friend or Merchant... isn't training... Can you remember what you store cashier said to you 2 weeks ago? I can Definitely Remember what my Drill,Jump,Black hat, and AS Instructor told me 16 years ago.. I think my cashier told me about chicken being on sale... Could of been Beef tho.. Just my 2.5 cents on the Importance of Skills vs What if a Friend told me...
Malither76 11-07-07, 07:10 AM	ok, I'm confused, a team battle two ECL's of the same level taking on an ECL 2 higher earns rewards as long as the team wins, right? I know when Baelin and Lorian fought Psibeast Lorian got the win rewards although he died, So Malik gets the win rewards of an EL 10 fight right which is 3000xp/5800gp + his 20% political career is 3600xp/6960gp is this right? thanks want to update for pairings today so please respond.
lonewolf 11-07-07, 07:27 AM	ok, I'm confused, a team battle two ECL's of the same level taking on an ECL 2 higher earns rewards as long as the team wins, right? I know when Baelin and Lorian fought Psibeast Lorian got the win rewards although he died, So Malik gets the win rewards of an EL 10 fight right which is 3000xp/5800gp + his 20% political career is 3600xp/6960gp is this right? thanks want to update for pairings today so please respond. Yes this is correct. If the Team wins, all teammembers get win rewards even if the indiviual teammember died.
Malither76 11-07-07, 07:30 AM	cool thats what I thought, Now I just need McJarvis to update the rewards with Maliks Political career and I'm good to go
whitebaron 11-07-07, 08:12 AM	coco is actually quite easy to do the rewards for team fights, as the ecl always matches. thus you always get the same rewards than for a single fight of you ecl - e.g. 300 xp for loss, 900 xp for win @ecl3 400 xp for loss, 1200 xp for win @ecl4 you don't have to do difficult math to achieve any of the rewards... just look it up in the predefined table in battles of gladius I. @rauul: as dnd is round-oriented, and any caster can do perfect maths even though he would have no means to triangulate the position for a fireball, any pc should be able to do perfect timing. if you want to introduce any check for this, you would have to do similar checks for distances, where to aim a spell, etc. as this is obviously not an option - perfect timing it is.
McJarvis 11-07-07, 08:14 AM	coco is actually quite easy to do the rewards for team fights, as the ecl always matches. thus you always get the same rewards than for a single fight of you ecl - e.g. 300 xp for loss, 900 xp for win @ecl3 400 xp for loss, 1200 xp for win @ecl4 you don't have to do difficult math to achieve any of the rewards... just look it up in the predefined table in battles of gladius I. See, that's what I always say(and it's always what I do), but Telin usually pops in with the "real calculation" to show that it's not just a matter of what ECL the gladiator is at. I'm pretty sure it's just tomato-tomahto, though.
whitebaron 11-07-07, 08:24 AM	See, that's what I always say(and it's always what I do), but Telin usually pops in with the "real calculation" to show that it's not just a matter of what ECL the gladiator is at. I'm pretty sure it's just tomato-tomahto, though. well, this is due to the underlying design of the xp tables in the first hand. this system is not workable under ecl3, but then it scales exactly like that. ecl3 beating cr3 gets the same xp as 2*ecl3 beating cr5 or 3*ecl3 beating cr6. actually, thats even how they state you should advance the experience table for crs not given. the only time you get bonus xp is ecl1-2 - which is good, since starting levels were always the hardest and most annoying.
McJarvis 11-07-07, 08:26 AM	the only time you get bonus xp is ecl1-2 - which is good, since starting levels were always the hardest and most annoying. Heh. Hazard pay in D&D. You know what I'd love to see in 4th? A linear experience table.
Rauul 11-07-07, 08:27 AM	@rauul: as dnd is round-oriented, and any caster can do perfect maths even though he would have no means to triangulate the position for a fireball, any pc should be able to do perfect timing. if you want to introduce any check for this, you would have to do similar checks for distances, where to aim a spell, etc. as this is obviously not an option - perfect timing it is. Wizards Casting Spells is Via practice and Study... long long hours of it.. it's ingrained into them.. things like that are possible without checks.. a Non caster without Spellcraft.. should have no idea when potions wear off till they wear off.. (DC 20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.) Granted if the Spell is in thier Spell book or they have Divine version.. they have no Check... All others.. thats why we train Skills and Spend the skills points on them..
McJarvis 11-07-07, 08:28 AM	Sorcerers don't have long hours and practice. Maybe we should force them to roll an attack roll for their fireballs.... :)
Rauul 11-07-07, 08:34 AM	Sorcerers don't have long hours and practice. Maybe we should force them to roll an attack roll for their fireballs.... :) Supportively... Sorcerers have the ability in their blood.. (like dragons) and it takes them practice to Form their Spells... they don't just appear. "Hey look I can cast fireball!!".. remember they also have the Ability to Unlearn a Spell (meaning they learned it in the first place)
lonewolf 11-07-07, 08:38 AM	so at least Rogues using UMD should make attack rolls with fireballs, right? and every character using a Necklace of Fireballs, right? :nonono:
Rauul 11-07-07, 08:41 AM	so at least Rogues using UMD should make attack rolls with fireballs, right? and every character using a Necklace of Fireballs, right? :nonono: na... any Moron can throw something and have it explode in a 20ft radius... (they do have to roll to hit with a Javelin of Lightning)
lonewolf 11-07-07, 08:47 AM	na... any Moron can throw something and have it explode in a 20ft radius... (they do have to roll to hit with a Javelin of Lightning) actually, they dont. Also: if someone drinks a potion of Enlarge Person, do you think he shouldnt notice when it wears of? What about Bulls Strength? or Owls Wisdom? Where do you draw the line?
Macbrea 11-07-07, 09:00 AM	The skill spellcraft states, 'Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place.' This is a skill within the game. Allowing a fighter to decide that spells with no visible effects have ended is giving them abilities they do not have.
lonewolf 11-07-07, 09:04 AM	Except that it is nowhere stated that the spell in question(protection from evil) has no visible effect: ...It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1foot. .... Nowhere is stated that this barrier is invisible, so we have to assume that it is not.
Macbrea 11-07-07, 09:08 AM	Actually, it does in abjuration on what that means... Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence. If one abjuration spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Search skill drops by 4. If an abjuration creates a barrier that keeps certain types of creatures at bay, that barrier cannot be used to push away those creatures. If you force the barrier against such a creature, you feel a discernible pressure against the barrier. If you continue to apply pressure, you end the spell.
lonewolf 11-07-07, 09:13 AM	That still doesnt say that all abjurations are invisible. It just says that abjurations that ARE invisible and interact with other abjurations that are invisible, they interfere with each other. I believe this is meant to make it not so good to cast multiple explosive runes on the same place. A good example that not all abjurations are invisible is prismatic wall.
Eamane 11-07-07, 11:46 AM	My argument wasn't that Khamul did not notice the spell going away. Merely that he did not know before hand that it was going to go away that turn. Once it went down, he would notice and would have been able to take steps to renew it. Given the timing of spell durations, it always goes away after your action, unless you've changed your initiative to be lower/it was cast with someone with a higher initiative than you.
McJarvis 11-07-07, 11:49 AM	I'm pretty sure that for the purposes of player's knowledge, they know when effects are going down unless... [1] It was unclear what effect was happening. [such as enemy casting a spell at them] [2] It was unclear when the effect began. [such as when looking at a buff on an enemy] In the case of a fighter drinking a potion of pro:evil- the fighter should certainly know the very round it is going down. [the same way the fighter knows exactly what the save DC potential of spell casters he is going against is.]
Eamane 11-07-07, 11:51 AM	Updated the awards on the fight due to Crucio's package. I added 21% to his 300 (63), then added 600 (for the other two) then divided the total by 3 to average it out, which left me with 321 for everyone. Correct?
lonewolf 11-07-07, 11:53 AM	Updated the awards on the fight due to Crucio's package. I added 21% to his 300 (63), then added 600 (for the other two) then divided the total by 3 to average it out, which left me with 321 for everyone. Correct? yes, thank you.
whitebaron 11-07-07, 12:58 PM	Updated the awards on the fight due to Crucio's package. I added 21% to his 300 (63), then added 600 (for the other two) then divided the total by 3 to average it out, which left me with 321 for everyone. Correct? yes, but next time, take the easy way: look up the loss rewards for ecl3, divide the percentage/3, and apply it to that value - and you're done for.
mucki 11-07-07, 01:30 PM	I'm pretty sure that for the purposes of player's knowledge, they know when effects are going down unless... [1] It was unclear what effect was happening. [such as enemy casting a spell at them] [2] It was unclear when the effect began. [such as when looking at a buff on an enemy] In the case of a fighter drinking a potion of pro:evil- the fighter should certainly know the very round it is going down. [the same way the fighter knows exactly what the save DC potential of spell casters he is going against is.] That was exactly what I was thinking. If you know that a spell or effect lasts 10 rounds, and you know when it starts, then it doesn't need fancy math or years of training as a wizard to know when it ends. All it requires is being able to count to that number. So an orcish manual for Prot:Evil potion could be: "Drink potion. After time for 30 attacks drink next potion." Of course this would not provide the fighter with any help if he gets dispelled, and he would assume that the effect still lasts until he notices otherwise. Our characters are not computer programmers, dentists, etc ... who just happen to fight in an arena once a week. They are natural born killers, trained to survive in battle. Fighting is their job, so I think it is reasonable to expect that they know what tools they have at their disposal and what they are up against. If one does not assume that every combatant is at some level a trained and able fighter, then I would say any animal that charges is illegal since they are too dumb to know what a straight line is.
MindWandererB 11-07-07, 04:30 PM	Heh. Hazard pay in D&D. You know what I'd love to see in 4th? A linear experience table. There are no XP tables in 4e. Each monster gives you a flat amount of XP, period. In fact, "ELs" are calculated just by XP: you add up the XP of all the monsters in a fight and compare to a target value for each level (or higher, for a high-powered game).
whitebaron 11-07-07, 04:39 PM	yes, they are making it more like playing minis.. at least in some aspects. hopefully not in all. ;)
hogarth 11-07-07, 05:10 PM	There are no XP tables in 4e. Each monster gives you a flat amount of XP, period. So they're going back to the same method as 1st edition? How advanced! :)
Eamane 11-07-07, 09:26 PM	So they're going back to the same method as 1st edition? How advanced! :) I liked 1st edition! Maybe I can play a half-orc cleric/assassin and be 'teh ownz' once more.
whitebaron 11-10-07, 12:24 PM	i just realized in my fight this week, that with ecl5 i have hit the mark where gold and XP is not equal. - @vath: could you please change the rewards of the fight from last week for gwerdan? should be 533 gp, not 500. fight
Vathelokai 11-10-07, 04:57 PM	i just realized in my fight this week, that with ecl5 i have hit the mark where gold and XP is not equal. - @vath: could you please change the rewards of the fight from last week for gwerdan? should be 533 gp, not 500. fight Fixed. Thanks for the link; so much easier. Note: please send PM in the future. I usually don't read the old fight of the weeks unless one of my fights is held over.
whitebaron 11-10-07, 05:07 PM	Fixed. Thanks for the link; so much easier. Note: please send PM in the future. I usually don't read the old fight of the weeks unless one of my fights is held over. hehe, well, i was considering exactly that, and decided against it. - i can't get it right however i try. ;)