Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sindorin 04-20-05, 12:25 PM	Remember to Be Nice-izzle!!! Pairings made Thursday, 24 hrs. after the original deadline.
Jindl 04-20-05, 12:27 PM	I count 8 unfinished fights. I would hope we'll delay pairings until tomorrow, as that is 16 characters who would be missing this week of pairings.
Sindorin 04-20-05, 12:31 PM	Eh, oh well it was worth a shot :)
Jindl 04-20-05, 04:08 PM	No word from Pitlords yet ... so I guess we can assume pairings will be delayed 'til Thursday, and the editing deadline has been extended 24 hours? Still 7 fights unfinished ...
Pitlords 04-21-05, 03:03 PM	I'll roll pairings now...
spasheridan 04-21-05, 03:08 PM	It's sad that.. even with the extra day .. no more fights were finished. :( I can take an extra fight this week if there's a need.
Pitlords 04-21-05, 04:12 PM	PAIRINGS DONE Ok, here's the procedure again: Send in your tactics early so that your fight can be run early Pitlords may begin running fights without tactics on saturday Fights due TUESDAY 8 AM GMT!! That's in the middle of the colonial night so better finish it on monday at the latest. Because there might be mistakes in your fight, it would be even better to run it on saturday or sunday so that the details can be discussed If the fight is posted after Tuesday (Europe-)morning you lose your gained credit and receive a negative credit on top of that. If the fight is not posted at all, you lose another credit. If you tell us on time that you cannot run the fight AND we find a new pitlord, you won't gain negative credits but lose only the gained credit for not running the fight. Ok, so much for the stern reminder. Now on to happier things: the Pairings... Characters on Quests: Rook Devange (Huan) and Fyhir (Spasheridan) seek mithral and knowledge: Jindl Characters otherwise occupied: Eniolissaryn the Elder (Jindl) crafts an amulett of health+2 Jindl of the High Forest (Jindl) crafts a barding for Nox Characters training animals: The Ripper (Xanadu) teaches "fetch" to Fleshgrinder the Direbat Ixenthor (Caterane) teaches "impr.attack" to Umbrahlok the Direbat Rayos Athess (Kaigan) trains "heel" to Methyr the wolf Arena Fights: Level 3 En'Sidious Nyte (Arstimis) vs Brilf Zephyr (Sunwolf): Aramil Dunskar [extended] Dr.Hobo (Cerebus13) vs Salrantol os`du'Vakt (Salrantol): Captain Mutilate Jstorrie [extended] Keth'Arian'Kari (One_Winged_Angel) vs Cedric Fischer (Snommelp): Iced [extended] Horthek Bolgimzak (Salrantol) vs Rakkar the Reckless (Xanadu): Iced [extended] Hisoka the Clown (Salzorin) vs Daka (Zyme86): Aramil Dunskar [rerun] Brogan Galanodel (bgt) vs Guts (Cerebus13): Jindl Inquisitor Valorum (Captain Mutilate) vs Aularyth (Jstorrie): Zyme86 Zasko Kesferon (Jstorrie) vs Virgo Arkazzan (King Uther): Captain Mutilate Eiletha Surion (Kaigan) vs Gareth Irontower (Malither76): Jstorrie Cyalin Orndrill (King Uther) vs Azer Gyuriha (PsychicStrider): Cerebus13 Decius Oduran (Kingside Bishop) vs Hagrid II (Pittbull): Huan Va'ria Theladrais (Sindorin) vs Telveran Trueblade (Sunwolf): Kaigan Level 4 Arthemus Arctus (Arstimis) vs Nell Leonne (Huan): Iced [extended] Bael'ryl Mythus (Kaigan) vs Trokk the Eviscerator (Megrim Lord): Jindl Finael Owlguide (Spasheridan) vs The Ripper (Xanadu): OneWingedAngel Nyphanalith (TaggIIV) hunts a dire bat (short quest): Sindorin Level 5 Mer-Man (Caterane) vs Azriel (One_Winged_Angel): TaggIIV [extended] Uhmentarymster (Caterane) vs Zubair Suhaim (KerlanRayne): Xanadu Indri'ynar Per-El'ereth (Caterane) vs Necavi Omnes (Xanadu): Spasheridan Aeluath Dryearraheal (Kaigan) vs Ceres Solus (Sindorin): Xanadu Sokai Calanis (Sindorin) vs Legion (Spasheridan): Kaigan Level 6 Laph Jeirehneen (Pittbull) vs Rayos Athess (Kaigan): OneWingedAngel Pairings done by Caterane. As you can see, there are a lot of fights unfinished which may be blamed on the board malfunction which began late monday. Tuesday and a good part of wednesday same thing. For that reason I gave only 1 negative credit for the late posters and they also kept their credit because they still have to run their fights. I've also given a free week to our questers. And let's hope this version of the board software works reliably. About quests: there is still an offer from Megrim Lord to run a quest on the Roster. No one interested? :eek: Or do we have any new questlords? Ok, that's it so far. Good luck in your fights Cat Credit Changes: Credits for Arena Fights: +2: Jindl, Owa, Kaigan, Xanadu +1: Sindorin, Huan, Spash, Cerebus, Zyme, Mutilate, Jstorrie Credits for # of PCs, Quests: -2: Kaigan Special Credit: +1: Caterane (admin) Credits Changes: +2: Jindl, Owa, Xanadu +1: Sindorin, Huan, Spash, Cerebus, Zyme, Mutilate, Jstorrie, Caterane +0: Kaigan
Kaigan 04-21-05, 04:13 PM	Hey Cat, just wondering why I can't fight Laph? I'm training a trick, but I thought you could still fight?
Pitlords 04-21-05, 04:17 PM	Hey Cat, just wondering why I can't fight Laph? I'm training a trick, but I thought you could still fight? I don't know what you mean... it's all there ;)
spasheridan 04-21-05, 04:18 PM	Legion battled Sokai 2 weeks back, can we get reassigned?
Sindorin 04-21-05, 04:27 PM	Legion battled Sokai 2 weeks back, can we get reassigned? In a way, I second that. Fighting the same person at the same level twice isn't the best scenario. Whatever happens is okay with me since Sokai levels regardless of who he fights. I just want to make sure he gets 200 exp points somehow :). About quests: there is still an offer from Megrim Lord to run a quest on the Roster. No one interested? Or do we have any new questlords? Sokai is considering questing to get his cohort at sixth level if I decide to take Leadership as his 6th level feat. I'm strongly considering Imprint Stone, though... choices choices choices... either way, I was under the impression that Megrim would be running Nyphanalith's quest to rescue Zaqh'fool for TaggVII. I also can be marked standing by as a questlord for one or two players. The first time around was fun. Nyphanalith (TaggIIV) hunts a dire bat (short quest): Sindorin Yay, only one set of tactics!!! @Tagg I'll see about Instant Messaging you later, perhaps tomorrow, about this :).
Jindl 04-21-05, 04:36 PM	Bael'ryl Mythus (Kaigan) vs Trokk the Eviscerator (Megrim Lord): Jindl When writing tactics for this, both players should be aware that Bael'ryl has a significant violation. His animal companion is a medium sized wolf, not a large sized advanced wolf. Animal companions do NOT gain size for advancement from their bonus HD (per the Official WotC FAQ). I'll post audits of both Bael'ryl and Trokk on the Violations thread later... -Jindl
Sindorin 04-21-05, 04:39 PM	@Cat - Posting the pairings in the concerns thread was a great idea! :thumbsup:
Kaigan 04-21-05, 05:03 PM	When writing tactics for this, both players should be aware that Bael'ryl has a significant violation. His animal companion is a medium sized wolf, not a large sized advanced wolf. Animal companions do NOT gain size for advancement from their bonus HD (per the Official WotC FAQ). I'll post audits of both Bael'ryl and Trokk on the Violations thread later... -Jindl Really, I did not know that, and I have seen many druids do that. Well then, I guess Rayos' Wolf is wrong too, and I'll fix that. Jindl, do you have a link to that post? I guess it does make sense. Well then, I only took the wolf, because of the large factor, after this fight, I will be changing the animal companion to a light horse.
Arstimis 04-21-05, 05:08 PM	As I mentioned before. I think any fights that Iced is the pitlord for should be assigned to other pitlords. He is assigned 3 fights last week and hasnt posted so much as a "Hi" in at least a week.
TaggIIV 04-21-05, 05:12 PM	@Sindorin: cool. Oh, and my new AIM address is crooked09 I forgot to change it in my profile. Otherwise, you already know my Yahoo sn Also, Azriel vs Merman (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5968827&postcount=1472) is now finished. <_< Earliest fight ever!! ^^ If pairings werent delayed I might be able to claim the first Wednesday *afternoon* fight posted... ignoring the "extended" silver bar.. And, the Gatekeeper's (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5546443) title was overlooked for pairings and um if anyone would like to ready their ECL 3 character to fight him this week it would be good.. otherwise I'd like to at least get one of those * credits for next week. (or maybe a time credit instead for like free crafting sometime in the future? worth a try)
jstorrie 04-21-05, 05:26 PM	I finally managed to get Solrantol vs Hobo (ECL 3) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5991627&postcount=1485) up; maybe they could be assigned to fight some of Iced's late gladiators, if Iced's fights get finished soon?
Cerebus13 04-21-05, 05:32 PM	@jstorrie Thanks for pointing out that rather foolish error on my part for my animal companion :embarrass. Going to have to readjust everything to make him a normal heavy horse. @Rules peoples Can I "downgrade" Dr. Hobo's animal companion to a Heavy Horse without having to go on a quest? I didn't realize Warhorses were illegal companions so I would rather switch and not take the XP loss. Also, what are the rules for the number of tricks allowed to the FIRST animal companion that a Druid brings to the CoCo? Technically an infinite amount of time could have passed between when they gained the animal and when they joined the CoCo...so I'm just trying to retrain my horse so he just loses a few hitdice :P.
jstorrie 04-21-05, 05:45 PM	@Zyme, @Mutilate: Tactics for Aularyth, Zasko sent.
Kaigan 04-21-05, 06:06 PM	@jstorrie: sent tactics via PM for Eiletha. @Jindl: sent tacitcs via PM for Bael'ryl. @xanadu: attempted to send tactics however, your PM box if full. @OWA: will send tactics later when I'm done studying for math.
Caterane 04-21-05, 06:13 PM	@Owa: You haven't payed credits for the 2 ML 5 tattoos, nor do they cost 250 gp but 1000 gp together. I didn't even realize they are ML 5 because nothing appeared on the Blackmarket so I auto-assumed them minimum ML. @Tagg: The critical is not confirmed. And you forgot 5 AoO's because flyby is not spring attack (Round 7, 10, 13, 14, 15). I didn't renew the magic oil, and I didn't heal+vigor at 15 hp. Please correct that. Then, instead of wasting actions to "draw bow, store glaive, store bow, draw glaive" - ie doing nothing - I could have dropped the weapon (free), picked up the old one (move), and shoot (standard). That way I get off an attack while Azriel doesnt (she cannot drop her weapon from her altitude) plus I spoil Azriel's tactic. And I would also end this stalemate that you asked what you could do. As an alternative, I could just shoot on with the bow and attack by using AoO's. Even that's a hunnerd times better than standing there and doing nothing. So please do something instead of just switching weapons back and forth.
TaggIIV 04-21-05, 06:33 PM	@Owa: You haven't payed credits for the 2 ML 5 tattoos, nor do they cost 250 gp but 1000 gp together. I didn't even realize they are ML 5 because nothing appeared on the Blackmarket so I auto-assumed them minimum ML. @Tagg: The critical is not confirmed. And you forgot 5 AoO's because flyby is not spring attack (Round 7, 10, 13, 14, 15). Then, instead of wasting actions to "draw bow, store glaive, store bow, draw glaive" - ie doing nothing - I could have dropped the weapon (free), picked up the old one (move), and shoot (standard). That way I get off an attack while Azriel doesnt (she cannot drop her weapon from her altitude) plus I spoil Azriel's tactic. And I would also end this stalemate that you asked what you could do. As an alternative, I could just shoot on with the bow and attack by using AoO's. Even that's a hunnerd times better than standing there and doing nothing. So please do something instead of just switching weapons back and forth. I've been talking to Cat on IM and a bit of this is resolved- the 5 AoOs resulted in 2 hits for 5 damage with the DR included. The critical was not confirmed and dealt only 13 damage instead of 34. Because Merman was not supposed to be blinded during Round 6 his AC raised by 2 points and made the attack miss - his hp is restored 13 points. With these mistakes rectified, the fight continues at Round 16 with the hp totals Merman 3 and Azriel 9. - - - As for Caterane's proposition of weapon dropping, my hesistancy in implementing this was: its awfully specific, and was not mentioned in tactics - it never occurred to me or anyone who responded to my question in the fights thread, including Jindl. And, it is not necessarily fair to implement suggestions made in hindsight by the player to whom it is advantageous. Yes, it is obviously advantageous because Merman gets more attacks in, I'm not denying that. However the method to which you gain that advantage is not obvious, at least to me. Because tactics did not specify whether you wanted to drop or store, I opted to store because it seems the more common and obvious choice considering Merman would need to use that weapon again in the near future and dropping implies your giving that weapon up for awhile if not for the rest of the fight. To me thats what pitlord adaptation is - making obvious choices for a player when tactics are unclear. It is not to make advanced tactics to give a clear advantage, otherwise Azriel is unhappy and I face a problem like spasheridan the other week with Arstimis. I would like to hear from the public what they think of this.
Caterane 04-21-05, 06:37 PM	I suggested an alternative: just shoot on. Switching weapons back and forth - in effect: doing nothing - is definately the worst course of action possible.
Cerebus13 04-21-05, 06:47 PM	And, the Gatekeeper's (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5546443) title was overlooked for pairings and um if anyone would like to ready their ECL 3 character to fight him this week it would be good.. otherwise I'd like to at least get one of those * credits for next week. (or maybe a time credit instead for like free crafting sometime in the future? worth a try) @TaggIIV I can put Deedlit to ready if you would like a match...I would give Dr. Hobo the druid a try but he has some unfortunate animal companion issues to work out :P. Care to give her (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5856339&origin=) a try?
TaggIIV 04-21-05, 06:49 PM	@Cat: Yes, the weapon swapping did not really get you anywhere. And yet, that is what your tactics suggested. It was my adaptation in the first place to help you at all by eventually having Merman stop and just keep shooting after a couple of rounds of this. Things like this are always subjective ground... @Cerebus: Sure, if there is a willing pitlord.
spasheridan 04-21-05, 06:51 PM	I'll take an extra fight
Cerebus13 04-21-05, 06:54 PM	@TaggIIV Ok then Deedlit is ready for this week then, but I won't edit the sheet to say so to preserve what I had written.
Arstimis 04-21-05, 07:35 PM	are people just ignoring what I have said about Iced....and now Aramil says he wont be able to do my fight So some new pitlords need to be assigned, or there wont be fights for 8 gladiators 3 of Iced's fights +1 Aramil = 4
Kaigan 04-21-05, 07:37 PM	I'll take one or two of them
spasheridan 04-21-05, 07:47 PM	are people just ignoring what I have said about Iced....and now Aramil says he wont be able to do my fightNot ignoring, just that the general public is not who makes these changes.. So some new pitlords need to be assigned, or there wont be fights for 8 gladiators 3 of Iced's fights +1 Aramil = 4Where is Iced anyways? Cat, Jindl, isn't the general rule to reassign fights to new pitlords for the extended week? Best bet, Arstimis, is to send PM's to the Pitlord account to make sure that the Pitlord sees the request and responds. Otherwise it's completely likely that your post will get swallowed up in the general dull roar of this place.
King Uther 04-21-05, 08:35 PM	@Cerebus13 - tactics for Cyalin Orndrill have been sent via PM @Captain Mutilate - tactics for Virgo Arkazzan have been sent as well
Kingside_Bishop 04-21-05, 10:25 PM	Tactics for Decius Oduran (vs. Hagrid II) sent to Huan. If it's necessary, I can take a fight. I've never Pitlorded and I would prefer to use my home dice, but as long as no one's got a problem with those, I can take one to help out. Although I'll figure out how to work the online roller next week, but I'm too busy to bother with it this week.
One_Winged_Angel 04-21-05, 11:54 PM	@Owa: You haven't payed credits for the 2 ML 5 tattoos, nor do they cost 250 gp but 1000 gp together. I didn't even realize they are ML 5 because nothing appeared on the Blackmarket so I auto-assumed them minimum ML. @Tagg: The critical is not confirmed. And you forgot 5 AoO's because flyby is not spring attack (Round 7, 10, 13, 14, 15). I didn't renew the magic oil, and I didn't heal+vigor at 15 hp. Please correct that. Then, instead of wasting actions to "draw bow, store glaive, store bow, draw glaive" - ie doing nothing - I could have dropped the weapon (free), picked up the old one (move), and shoot (standard). That way I get off an attack while Azriel doesnt (she cannot drop her weapon from her altitude) plus I spoil Azriel's tactic. And I would also end this stalemate that you asked what you could do. As an alternative, I could just shoot on with the bow and attack by using AoO's. Even that's a hunnerd times better than standing there and doing nothing. So please do something instead of just switching weapons back and forth. Yeah, I got those tattoos before we implemented black market and missed it before the pairings. I guess I missed sending the info... Basically, this means that I was in error. You noticed in Azriel's prvious fight that she gained +5 hp. In other words, I screwed up, and lost this fight. Or, for the wordily challanged: Me=> :gah: Cat=> :ahem: I would like to say that custom tattoos costing a cred seems a bit...unreasonable. After all, a formula is provided. Still, I guess it's not my place. This leads to a question I'm putting into the tavern.
Sunwolf 04-22-05, 12:06 AM	@Kaigan tactics sent for Telveran by email and a couple of follow up messages too.
Sindorin 04-22-05, 12:22 AM	Tactics for Va'ria and Sokai both sent to Kaigan... and I still need to write the tactics against his other PC. Nyphanalith to the Rescue! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5994071&postcount=1486) is up, with a tentative story bit along the ride. To explain a bit, I was in a silly mood at the time...
Malither76 04-22-05, 02:05 AM	@jstorrie tactics for Gareth Irontower PM'd
Arstimis 04-22-05, 03:04 AM	Both set of tactics sent to the Pitlords who are not running my gladiator's fights....... Pitlord..Caterane: Please do something about this
Pittbull 04-22-05, 10:15 AM	@OWA and Huan: The tactics of my gladiators have been sent via PM.
Sunwolf 04-22-05, 10:36 AM	From April 13 concerns thread.... I seriously hate school... I'm sorry but I can't run my second fight even though it would be late, I just don't have any time now that finals are comming up, SAT's are getting close, and tons of homework... So please take me off pitlording for a little bit, and my characters while go inactive for a while also. Thanks -Aramil In case this wasn't seen by PITLORDS -- looks like we need someone(s) to pick up fights from Aramil for this week -- rerun and extended fight. If we know who is pitlording the fight Arstimis and I can resend our tactics to the new pitlord. Thanks, Sunwolf
Kaigan 04-22-05, 10:42 AM	I can take it, just PM the pitlord account
Sindorin 04-22-05, 10:43 AM	I'll take it. Send them to me, I can get started right away. EDIT: ooh, Kaigan fast
Sindorin 04-22-05, 11:15 AM	Tactics for Ceres sent = all of my tactics are sent.
Cerebus13 04-22-05, 11:15 AM	Tactics for Guts sent to Jindl via email. Tactics for Cyalin and Azer have been recieved from King Uther and PsychicStrider. @TaggIIV Has a Pitlord stepped forward to run an extra fight for us? I'm not sure if spasheridan volunteered or not. @Pitlords I can pick up one extra fight this week if we really really need it due to shortage of available Pitlords.
Pitlords 04-22-05, 11:39 AM	New Pitlords: En'Sidious Nyte (Arstimis) vs Brilf Zephyr (Sunwolf): Sindorin [extended] Hisoka the Clown (Salzorin) vs Daka (Zyme86): Cerebus13 [extended]
Cerebus13 04-22-05, 11:53 AM	@Salzorin & Zyme86 Please forward your tactics to me and I'll squeeze this fight in on the weekend.
Sindorin 04-22-05, 12:10 PM	Allrighty then, I need tactics from Arstimis and Sunwolf!
Pitlords 04-22-05, 12:10 PM	And the next ones: Keth'Arian'Kari (One_Winged_Angel) vs Cedric Fischer (Snommelp): Iced Spasheridan [extended] Horthek Bolgimzak (Salrantol) vs Rakkar the Reckless (Xanadu): Iced Zyme86 [extended] Arthemus Arctus (Arstimis) vs Nell Leonne (Huan): Iced OneWingedAngel [extended] Spashy, Zyme, and Owa +1 credit. Iced -3.
Sindorin 04-22-05, 12:27 PM	Hmm, I see that En'Sidious Nyte and Brilf Zephyr fought two weeks ago. Please send me tactics, or let me know if you would like me to use those tactics. Thanks!
Jindl 04-22-05, 12:44 PM	Tactics recieved for all of my fights. @Kaigan - Here's a link: v3.5 Main D&D FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) Look under the Druid section (pg 5 of 47). -Jindl
Snommelp 04-22-05, 12:50 PM	Spash, you're gonna have fun! Seriously; you must be the luckiest pitlord, because this week you get to try to make a healer build work in singles combat! I'll forward the tactics to you... now.
Sunwolf 04-22-05, 01:56 PM	@Sindorin updated tactics sent for Brilf by email
Sindorin 04-22-05, 02:04 PM	@Sindorin updated tactics sent for Brilf by email Hmm... I didn't get them. I'm not sure why. Could you perhaps send them by PM? I think it is probably more reliable... ~Sindorin
Sunwolf 04-22-05, 02:28 PM	@sindorin -- tactics for Brilf sent by PM
Sindorin 04-22-05, 02:28 PM	@Sunwolf - I got em now :) thanks, sorry for all the confusion.
Arstimis 04-22-05, 03:41 PM	Tactics for En'Sidious and Arstimis sent to thier respective Pitlords
TaggIIV 04-22-05, 04:26 PM	@TaggIIV Has a Pitlord stepped forward to run an extra fight for us? I'm not sure if spasheridan volunteered or not. No clue. Reposting for visibility. Anyone able to run Deedlit vs Gatekeeper this week?
Kaigan 04-22-05, 04:27 PM	I can take it if Pitlords lets me
Sindorin 04-22-05, 04:54 PM	Both sets of tactics for Nyte and Brilf have been received. Thank you both. ~Sindorin
Pitlords 04-22-05, 04:59 PM	Deedlit (Cerebus13) vs The Gatekeeper (TaggIIV): Kaigan has been added to the Roster. Kaigan+1, Cerebus-1
Zyme86 04-22-05, 05:32 PM	Inquisitor Valorum (Captain Mutilate) vs Aularyth (Jstorrie) is ready to rock and roll, the tatics look very interesting fight But I would like to have the tatics for the Arthemus Arctus (Arstimis) vs Nell Leonne (Huan) by this weekend
Sindorin 04-22-05, 05:41 PM	Do I get a credit for the fight I picked up :confused:
Caterane 04-22-05, 06:10 PM	@Sindorin: Yup, jsut didn't mention it. Tactics for Uhmentarymster and Indri'ynar sent.
Sindorin 04-22-05, 06:15 PM	@Sindorin: Yup, jsut didn't mention it. Tactics for Uhmentarymster and Indri'ynar sent. That's cool, I kinda figured so.
Cerebus13 04-22-05, 07:51 PM	Cyalin vs Azer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6001748&postcount=1488) is up. Fight came down to Will saves and surviving poison damage. Please let me know if there are any mistakes and I'll fix em.
Salrantol 04-23-05, 12:00 AM	Inquisitor Valorum (Captain Mutilate) vs Aularyth (Jstorrie) is ready to rock and roll, the tatics look very interesting fight But I would like to have the tatics for the Arthemus Arctus (Arstimis) vs Nell Leonne (Huan) by this weekend Do you need the Horthek vs. Rakkar tactics? I doubt Iced bothered to forward them to Pitlords.
spasheridan 04-23-05, 01:50 AM	Indri'ynar Per-El'ereth (Caterane) vs Necavi Omnes (Xanadu): Both Tactics Recieved Keth'Arian'Kari (One_Winged_Angel) vs Cedric Fischer (Snommelp): Cedric's recieved, waiting for Keth. @Kaigan & OWA: Tactics for Legion and Finael sent.
xanadu 04-23-05, 03:01 AM	Ceres Vs. Aeiou (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6004148) is up. Tarrasque AC 35 Solar AC 35 Ceres AC 34 Nightwalker AC 32 Iron Golem AC 30 Marilith AC 29 Death Slaad AC 28 Storm Giant AC 27 Beholder AC 26 I think we are asking a lot for "real life" ECL 5 characters to hit... On a side note, I guess cutting and pasting doesn't get images and sblocks; what exactly do i need to do to include them?
Sindorin 04-23-05, 03:08 AM	You pretty much have to copy and paste whatever is in the blocks. I'm not sure what to do about the images, quoting the character sheet then editing in whatever is in blocks is probably the most accurate, if not tedious, way to do it. And yes, Ceres likes high AC. It will only get higher.
jstorrie 04-23-05, 03:25 AM	Psh. I've had higher AC running across the street. Get it up around 70 or so and I'll be mildly impressed.
Sindorin 04-23-05, 03:58 AM	At level 5?
TaggIIV 04-23-05, 09:32 AM	On a side note, I guess cutting and pasting doesn't get images and sblocks; what exactly do i need to do to include them? Quote the character sheet post and then copy the text in there which will include all the formatting, images, etc.
Jindl 04-23-05, 12:45 PM	Aku routinely had AC 38 at ECL4. As for Ceres, His touch AC is only 12...
Captain Mutilate 04-23-05, 12:50 PM	I did ask for no fights this week... but ah well. I'll get to it now. In between painting Warhammer 40k models and playing Starcraft. I have both tactics, starting now.
Zyme86 04-23-05, 01:27 PM	Aularyth vs Inquisitor Valorum is up now (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6006441&postcount=1490) ps Cloudy, if you want I could take over your fight
Sindorin 04-23-05, 01:37 PM	Aku routinely had AC 38 at ECL4. As for Ceres, His touch AC is only 12... Okay, if you say so :) His Touch AC is 13.
Kaigan 04-23-05, 02:28 PM	Well Legion vs. Sokai is up. Please glance through it to see any mistakes.
Zyme86 04-23-05, 02:38 PM	Using all suplements, in the skinny Dwarf ECL 20 Dwarven paragon 3(UA)/fight 8/Deepwarden 2(RoS)/Dwarven defender2/ Battlesmith 4(RoS)/Dragon Deciple1 Con 42(18+2race+2paragon+5lev+5book+6amulet+ 4def) +16 AC= 128 (10+17arm+9shield+16con+5def g.axe+5def arm spikes+5def shi spike+5ring o/pro+5cloak of insight+5helmit of luck+5phalactery of sacred+5 robe of profane+1nat arm+5amulet of nat arm+2self crafted+3h.arm optmization+25dodge)
Cerebus13 04-23-05, 03:09 PM	Hisoka vs Daka (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6007162&postcount=1493) the rerun is up. Let me know if anything is incorrect and I'll fix it.
Zyme86 04-23-05, 03:14 PM	I'll have to do better next time, gg, the top -rnked 3rd level has been defeated all
jstorrie 04-23-05, 04:05 PM	Zyme: a couple comments on the fight, though they probably cancel each other out: First, grapplers take a -4 penalty to hit when they attack with a light weapon, so Aularyth would not have succesfully hit with his armor spikes. Second, if you're knocked unconscious during a round you lose your actions that round, so Valorum could not wake up and grapple that same round. You may or may not want to rerun from the round where Valorum wakes and grapples, I don't mind either way. If you do rerun, keep in mind that Aularyth's tactics suggest he'd move back and cast sleep again, not engage in melee.
jstorrie 04-23-05, 04:09 PM	@Cerebus: you can't fly into a rage in reaction to something; you have to do it on his turn. This doesn't alter the outcome of your match but now you know!
Kaigan 04-23-05, 04:12 PM	Va'ria vs. Telveran is up, Good solid tactics for both gladiators.
Cerebus13 04-23-05, 04:35 PM	@Cerebus: you can't fly into a rage in reaction to something; you have to do it on his turn. This doesn't alter the outcome of your match but now you know! Oh oops, I would have had him rage earlier then (since it doesn't take an action) to bump up the extra HPs. No biggie.
Zyme86 04-23-05, 04:39 PM	@Jstorrie. I will rerun from the time of the spike attack, there is no rule I have encountered that prohibited you from acting.
spasheridan 04-23-05, 04:46 PM	Well Legion vs. Sokai is up. Please glance through it to see any mistakes.L: Manifests Levitation, and floats up 10 feet, while drawing potion of Pro Law. You can't float around the ring using levitation, read the description only up and down 20ft. Unless there is something to push off of, and there is not around you. Hrm.. I always thought that... *checks SRD* well look at that. This power is signifintly less cool than I had thought it was! L: Waits for Sokai to get a bit closer while drawing a stone of extended energy ray (ML7), and drinks potion of Pro Law I don't know why you have a powerstone of extend energy ray. Extend doubles the duration of the power, and doesn't effect a duration of instantaneous, maybe you were thinking of enlarge?Absolutely, they are supposed to be enlarged. Some special kind of dyslexia hear.. swapping words instead of letters. SORRY! S: Shakes his head and is not dazed anymore, looks up and sees Legion floating there gets a little unnerved manifests an ego whip from stone at him, which triggers Legions readied action. I'm going to treat Legion's Extended Energy ray (ML7) as a normal energy ray (ML7), this is because it is impossible to have an extended energyray. [ML Check: 16+5=21 vs. DC 8 ,pass. Legion Touch Attack: 10+3+2+3electricityprecogoffense=18 vs. Touch Ac: 16, hit. Damage: 7d6: 15. Ml Check for Ego Whip: 20! vs. DC 8, pass. Will Save: 9+7+2prolaw=18 vs. DC 10+powerlevel2=12, pass. 2d4/2 Cha Damage: 6/2=3 Cha Damage.I interupt his spell so he should be forced to make a concentration check to cast it, correct? Or does that not apply to stones? Fight looks good, thanks for catching my mistakes on Legion. II'll have to look into replacing levitate now... Legion wins and gains 1500 xp, 1500 gpThat should be 1600 GP
jstorrie 04-23-05, 05:00 PM	@Jstorrie. I will rerun from the time of the spike attack, there is no rule I have encountered that prohibited you from acting. Valorum needs to make a DC 26 Fort save to survive the coup-de-grace, too (you have to make a Fort save of DC 10 + damage received whenever you are cdg'd, or die).
Kaigan 04-23-05, 05:07 PM	@Spash, your right, it is 1600 i think i need to check all my sheets. I think i got cheated out of 1000 each win for each level 5 character haha Edit: Darn it, nope all is correct. Booo!!!
Kaigan 04-23-05, 05:11 PM	I have received no tactics for both gladiators: Deedlit (Cerebus13) vs The Gatekeeper (TaggIIV): Kaigan I need them by tonight. Or else tonight, I'm running them off of default.
jstorrie 04-23-05, 05:12 PM	@Zyme: Actually, you're right about the inaction thing - I just looked it up. A character retains their initiative position even if rendered helpless.
Cerebus13 04-23-05, 05:21 PM	@Kaigan I sent tactics for Deedlit via email a few days ago but it may not have gone through so I just PM'd them to you as well. Let me know if you didn't get them yet.
TaggIIV 04-23-05, 05:33 PM	Just PMd tactics for the Gatekeeper as well.
Zyme86 04-23-05, 06:17 PM	corrections to IVvsAA fight made (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6006441&postcount=1490), 1-hit KO.
Jindl 04-23-05, 08:10 PM	Okay, if you say so :) His Touch AC is 13. Aku's ac = 10 +3 dex +2 protection from <alignment> +4 shield +4 mage armor +15 natural armor (alter self into ravid form) = AC 38. At ECL4 (as a Tiefling Wiz 3). -Jindl
Kaigan 04-23-05, 08:13 PM	Okay received Deedlit's and gatekeeper's tactics thanks
Sunwolf 04-23-05, 11:13 PM	@Zyme big issue with the Aularyth vs Inquisitor Valorum fight Sleep spell takes a round to cast -- So Aulrayth starts casting in round 3 and completes the spell on his init in round 4. Saving throw doesn't happen till round 4 which means that Valorum may be able to charge and damage/grapple Aularyth forcing a concentration check and possibly disrupting the spell before it goes off. As a side comment I think that Aularyth should be able to purchase his sleep scrolls at 25gp each -- 1st level arcane spell.
PsychicStrider 04-24-05, 12:53 AM	I found (actually my pitlord found :P ) some of my character's items are useless. Then can I exchange some items to money or other items?
Cerebus13 04-24-05, 01:09 AM	You can sell stuff at 50% of its normal market price, easiest way to swap out equipment you don't want anymore.
Salrantol 04-24-05, 01:30 AM	Do you need the Horthek vs. Rakkar tactics? I doubt Iced bothered to forward them to Pitlords. @Zyme86: Horthek tactics sent by e-mail. Side note, there are a couple of Pitlords in the Characters thread post about pitlording that say that they prefer e-mail, but none flagged saying they prefer PM. Could those that would prefer PM tactics inform Pitlords and get it added, for the benefit of those whose fights they'll be running?
Zyme86 04-24-05, 03:03 AM	@Zyme big issue with the Aularyth vs Inquisitor Valorum fight Sleep spell takes a round to cast -- So Aulrayth starts casting in round 3 and completes the spell on his init in round 4. Saving throw doesn't happen till round 4 which means that Valorum may be able to charge and damage/grapple Aularyth forcing a concentration check and possibly disrupting the spell before it goes off. As a side comment I think that Aularyth should be able to purchase his sleep scrolls at 25gp each -- 1st level arcane spell. 1 ROUND SPELL =1 FULL ROUND ACTION,IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE I RE-RAN FOR YOU ANYWAY(HAPPY NOW?). NEXT TIME LEARN THE RULES, IT MADE NO DIF
Salzorin 04-24-05, 03:31 AM	Woah Zyme, settle down buddy. While it didn't make a difference in the end in this fight, it is an important thing. Any damage taken during the time before a 1 round spell goes off can force a concentration check and possibly a fizzle. So it is important that the other character get their action and the attempt to cause damage if it's available...
spasheridan 04-24-05, 03:40 AM	1 ROUND SPELL =1 FULL ROUND ACTION,IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE I RE-RAN FOR YOU ANYWAY(HAPPY NOW?). NEXT TIME LEARN THE RULES, IT MADE NO DIFWow.. Zyme.. whats up? We all make mistakes, part of the fun of this place is learning the specifics of the game. Checking over your fight: Rnd 2 Valorum is at (10,4), then he runs to (-14,4). THe math is off on this, that's a move of 25 squares. You forgot that square 0 exists. He's actuallu in (-13,4) Rnd 3: IV-24/24 (-14,4) you have him here for rnd 3, you must have forgotten to make the move on the sheet.. In any event, his target is in (-15,-3) and he would start in (-13,4)so he would need to move at least 45 to base his opponent. The cover is in the way, so a charge is impossible, THere's no way for Valorum to get into base contact before the sleep spell hits, therefore there is no grapple. Even if there was a grapple, I see no touch attack roll to start the grapple. Rnd 5: The save for a CDG is fort, not Wil. And do you have to make an attack roll to hit a helpless opponent? If so then his AC would be as if his dex were 0, so thats 10+3 (armor)-5 dex for an 8. You had a 12 in there. Anywho, just an FYI, most fights around here have at least 2 mistakes in them when they first hit the board. We all make them, we all have misconceptions of how the game works, it's part of learning. None of the things listed above would make a diff in the fight in any way, but it's nice to know for next time.
Salzorin 04-24-05, 03:44 AM	no attack roll for CDG. It's an automatic crit with no roll needed.
Zyme86 04-24-05, 05:17 AM	sorry bout the caps, the button had gotten stuck down, it took some long-ovedue cleaning to fix the problem
Arstimis 04-24-05, 12:35 PM	1 ROUND SPELL =1 FULL ROUND ACTION,IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE I RE-RAN FOR YOU ANYWAY(HAPPY NOW?). NEXT TIME LEARN THE RULES, IT MADE NO DIF As it has always been run in the arena, as far as I have seen, A 1 round spell takes your whole round and ends on the next round .It doesnt take up any action time of your next round, but it still doesnt end till the next round That is why its a 1 round spell and not a full action spell
Zyme86 04-24-05, 12:49 PM	It makes no difference what has always been done, under the basics of spellcasting in the PHB, it states that a one round spell is equivlent to a full round action, you cant disrupt unless you got the spellcaster before he started the full round action
Salrantol 04-24-05, 01:04 PM	It makes no difference what has always been done, under the basics of spellcasting in the PHB, it states that a one round spell is equivlent to a full round action, you cant disrupt unless you got the spellcaster before he started the full round action A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed. ... When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell. Look under "Casting Time". (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MagicOverview.rtf)
spasheridan 04-24-05, 01:05 PM	A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.It clearly states here that a 1 round casting time means that you spend a full round action to cast the spell and FINISH casting it on your next turn. The last line... you then act normally after the spell is completed.. implies that until the spell is completed you don't act normally... it implies that you act as if you are casting a spell.
xanadu 04-24-05, 02:56 PM	Uhmentarymster vs Zubair (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6014918) is up. Concerned parties should check as always. I think the XP penalty for mounts should not scare mounted warriors from bringing their allies. Zubair won this fight with a single psionic shot when I originally assumed him wanted to bring Uday. Cat, can you check my credits please. I picked up Jindl's fight last week and can I get some love for my stories from last week :D
Arstimis 04-24-05, 03:17 PM	It makes no difference what has always been done, under the basics of spellcasting in the PHB, it states that a one round spell is equivlent to a full round action, you cant disrupt unless you got the spellcaster before he started the full round action If you read the entire thing, as the two above have posted, you would see that the PHB clearly backs up what has been done forever in the arena
One_Winged_Angel 04-24-05, 05:12 PM	I never get to the end of my problems. I have been patiently wating for tactics. I have 3 from PM, but I still have a big issue. I think my E-mail might be glitchy. I have tactics for Finael and Ripper. I also have them for Laph, but not his opponent. I'd like to request these other fights be done by some one else. Sorry. I was going to run yesterday, but lack of tactics worried me...
Arstimis 04-24-05, 05:38 PM	I never get to the end of my problems. I have been patiently wating for tactics. I have 3 from PM, but I still have a big issue. I think my E-mail might be glitchy. I have tactics for Finael and Ripper. I also have them for Laph, but not his opponent. I'd like to request these other fights be done by some one else. Sorry. I was going to run yesterday, but lack of tactics worried me... I sent my tactics to your via emial..like it was requested on the Pitlord list...I can send it to you PM right now if you need and from the looks of it..it doesnt seem like you realized you were assigned my fight.. Arthemus Arctus (Arstimis) vs Nell Leonne (Huan): OneWingedAngel [extended]
One_Winged_Angel 04-24-05, 05:45 PM	I sent my tactics to your via emial..like it was requested on the Pitlord list...I can send it to you PM right now if you need and from the looks of it..it doesnt seem like you realized you were assigned my fight.. Arthemus Arctus (Arstimis) vs Nell Leonne (Huan): OneWingedAngel [extended] ...Actually, no I didn't know that... Urk, this is what happens when the boards fritz like this! Can someone take that fight? I have the time for one fight, maybe two, but definatly not three.
Kaigan 04-24-05, 06:15 PM	@OWA: I sent tactics via email I don't have them any more.
Zyme86 04-24-05, 06:44 PM	...Actually, no I didn't know that... Urk, this is what happens when the boards fritz like this! Can someone take that fight? I have the time for one fight, maybe two, but definatly not three. I have the time to complete a pair in the marow, I wouldn't mind taking on the extra 1
Pitlords 04-24-05, 07:10 PM	Forgot to reward the stories! Honorable mentionings go to Sindorin for Nyphanalith vs Direbat and to Jstorrie for his story in the Hobo vs Salrantol fight. Not to forget: Owa's Pirate Story. And now on to Xanadu, who wrote a long story for Azer vs Griff and Nyphanalith vs Trokk. Both together are worth a credit.
spasheridan 04-25-05, 02:33 AM	Hiding displays, all that jazz: When a power is manifested, a display may accompany the primary effect. This secondary effect may be auditory, material, mental, olfactory, or visual. No power’s display is significant enough to create consequences for the psionic creatures, allies, or opponents during combat. Visual: The manifester’s eyes burn like points of silver fire while the power remains in effect. A rainbow-flash of light sweeps away from the manifester to a distance of 5 feet and then dissipates, unless a unique visual display is described. This is the case when the Display entry includes “see text,” which means that a visual effect is described somewhere in the text of the power.Astral Construct Metacreativity (Creation) Level: Shaper 1 Display: Visual; see text Manifesting Time: 1 round Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Effect: One created astral construct Duration: 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: None Power Resistance: No Power Points: 1 This power creates one 1st-level astral construct of solidified ectoplasm that attacks your enemies. It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. As a free action, you can mentally direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. The astral construct acts normally on the last round of the power’s duration and dissipates at the end of its turn. Astral constructs are not summoned; they are created on the plane you inhabit (using ectoplasm drawn from the Astral Plane). Thus, they are not subject to effects that hedge out or otherwise affect outsiders; they are constructs, not outsiders. Augment: For every 2 additional power points you spend, the level of the astral construct increases by one.SO, say you didn't hide this power's display. What would the viual display be? Since it says see text the display is not the standard spray of colors, but nothing is noted in the text of the power. Also, the display occurs when the power is manifested, would that be when the power is started or finished? THe obvious reason I ask is for this Fight. Any help?
jstorrie 04-25-05, 03:12 AM	The implication I'm gathering is that the visible display must be the construct itself - odd, since it's possible to make invisible astral constructs. That being said, the display is listed as 'Visual; see text' and not 'Visual: see text', which implies that there is a standard visual display and something else (namely a construct which may possibly be visible). So I would treat it as a standard visual display.
Caterane 04-25-05, 05:16 AM	It could be illuminated letters saying "RUN INDRI RUN!!" :D Whatever the display is, visual means visible. And since it is a 1 round visual thing, I would like to behave like written in my tactics: Oh, he has to use 1 full round to summon it, so if he draws a powerstone and concentrates for 1 round, attack once, then get away out of charge and sight line, or skate+move if necessary, or double move if I cannot do that with a skating single move. Since I am near the central obstacle I should be able to use skate and move 45 ft around to the other side so that the construct doesn't get me the next round.
Jindl 04-25-05, 12:36 PM	Has anyone else noticed that the Vaccuum Elemental Online Dice Roller is down?
spasheridan 04-25-05, 12:39 PM	(it looks like)...unless a unique visual display is described. This is the case when the Display entry includes “see text,” which means that a visual effect is described somewhere in the text of the power.andWhen a power is manifested, a display may accompany the primary effect.Are the 2 primary quotes of interest. Since AC display entry includes the term "see text" then the display is NOT the normal one, it is the one listed in the text. I'll have to dig through my psionics handbook tonight and see if it lists it in there, otherwise this seems to imply that the display is the appearance of the astral construct itself (that is the only thing described in the text of the SRD) THe 2nd quote says that the display accompanies the primary effect. Does that imply that the display occurs when the construct appears? I can see it both ways, 1 being the "swirling gathering of etheric ectoplasm for 6 seconds as the contruct forms to the whim of it's creator" which would be visible during the entire manifesting time. THe other way is that the construct "pop's into being, instantly created from surrounding etheric ectoplasm". THe important question here: 1) Can Indri see it happening before the power finishes 2) Can Indri tell where the construct is being placed or does Indri just see a display on NEcavi 3) Does Indri need to make a psicraft check to tell what power is being used. Once that is determined following tactics is easy.
Caterane 04-25-05, 12:54 PM	It's the "swirling gathering of etheric ectoplasm for 6 seconds as the contruct forms to the whim of it's creator" because the other option would be the same like no display at all. Compare it to other components, from spellcasting for example: Vocal: you sing the entire round, verbal: you wave your hands during the entire round, etc. There's no indication that psionics should be handled differently - to assume so would be completely pulled by the hair. And again: if the display only comes into effect at the exact splitsecond when the manifesting is finished ("is finished"... opposed to "when manifesting", see quote from the SRD) then the display entries would be pretty useless.
Jindl 04-25-05, 01:37 PM	Since AC display entry includes the term "see text" then the display is NOT the normal one, it is the one listed in the text. I'll have to dig through my psionics handbook tonight and see if it lists it in there, otherwise this seems to imply that the display is the appearance of the astral construct itself (that is the only thing described in the text of the SRD) THe 2nd quote says that the display accompanies the primary effect. Does that imply that the display occurs when the construct appears? I can see it both ways, 1 being the "swirling gathering of etheric ectoplasm for 6 seconds as the contruct forms to the whim of it's creator" which would be visible during the entire manifesting time. THe other way is that the construct "pop's into being, instantly created from surrounding etheric ectoplasm". THe important question here: 1) Can Indri see it happening before the power finishes 2) Can Indri tell where the construct is being placed or does Indri just see a display on NEcavi 3) Does Indri need to make a psicraft check to tell what power is being used. Once that is determined following tactics is easy. Cat is correct. The visual display is the swirling ectoplasm that forms into the construct (as opposed to the standard visual display, which is a ranbow of colors that spread from the manifester 5 ft towards the target.) Displays are equivalent to spell components (in other words, you can interrupt a power from an invisibly manifester by locating him via the display). So yes, the displays occur during the manifesting time. To answer your questions: 1. Yes 2. Display is where the construct will appear. 3. Yes. -Jindl
Cerebus13 04-25-05, 02:03 PM	Has anyone else noticed that the Vaccuum Elemental Online Dice Roller is down?Yes I noticed it as well, which is unfortunate because that was the best online roller I've seen in a while :/. Could try using: http://www14.brinkster.com/nadaka/DiceBoxDB.asp?Page=Add or http://invisiblecastle.com/rolldice.py
spasheridan 04-25-05, 02:07 PM	My only concern about the 2nd question, where does the display occur, is that the choice isn't made until the manifestation occurs. You are not committed to the location of the construct until you finish, just like you are not committed to the location of a summoned animal / monster until you finish the spell. SO, the display really should be near the caster. SO, I'll play it like this (I'll double check my copy of the psi book when I get home though 1st for a display on AC): 1) A visual display occurs near Necavi that Indri can see. 2) Indri will make a psi-craft check to determine if he can tell what kind of power the display implies 3) Indri will act based on the results of the psi-craft check.
Megrim_Lord 04-25-05, 03:06 PM	Jindl, not to rush you or anything, but by any chance will Trokk's fight be done tonight? because if it isn't I won't be here tomorrow or wednesday to edit Trokk's sheet, so I'd have to have him sit out a week otherwise
Jindl 04-25-05, 03:20 PM	Jindl, not to rush you or anything, but by any chance will Trokk's fight be done tonight? because if it isn't I won't be here tomorrow or wednesday to edit Trokk's sheet, so I'd have to have him sit out a week otherwise It'll be done + posted in the next 6 hours. :D
spasheridan 04-25-05, 03:40 PM	Say a PC has spellcraft ranks but none in psicraft. With magic / psionic transparency, can that PC make a spellcraft check in place of a psicraft check?
Caterane 04-25-05, 04:15 PM	Yes, he can. But that doesn't matter. I wrote in my tactics that I want to run if he manifests a 1 round power.
spasheridan 04-25-05, 04:58 PM	Yes, he can. But that doesn't matter. I wrote in my tactics that I want to run if he manifests a 1 round power.If he summons an astral construct, use skate and get the hell away from that beast.This is what you sent me, and it is a bit more reasonable. The strictest interpertation of your tactics are "if he summons" not "while he summons", but the intent is clear. You wish to avoid combat with the construct so even seeing him summoning the construct would be enough to triger this. Without a psicraft check claiming that any 1 round power means an astral construct is metagaming, isn't it? Psicraft checks are how characters gain in game understanding of psionic powers they see. We all metagame a bit in our tactics (he has all short range spells, so stay at long range) but this may be crossing the line. And I thought that psicraft and spellcraft were essentially the same skill, but I have seen a PC or 2 on the boards with max ranks in both for some reason.
Malither76 04-25-05, 05:32 PM	psicraft and spellcraft are not the same both are trained only skills, and one can identify spells and the other can identify powers being manifested. how are you guys getting they are the same thing
spasheridan 04-25-05, 05:45 PM	If you have magic / psychic transparency, the logic is as follows: 1) Psychic powers interact with the world just like spells do 2) Spellcraft ID's spells from Bards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, Wizards, Paladins, Rangers, Assasins... and any creature with spell like effects. In other words, Spellcraft let's you know ANY spell of ANY kind. 3) Powers are just like spells (you know, psychic / magic transparency) ... 4) Spellcraft should ID psionic powers just like it IDs spells from any other source. I do not believe that this is written down in any place, but I do believe it follows quite logicly from the rules, if you play a campaign where psioncs and magic are equally abundant and the tranparency rule is in effect.
Jindl 04-25-05, 05:45 PM	psicraft and spellcraft are not the same both are trained only skills, and one can identify spells and the other can identify powers being manifested. how are you guys getting they are the same thing I second that. Psicraft and Spellcraft are different skills and are not the same (which is why the cerebromancer needs both skills). No skills are transparent (although I think you could make a strong case for UMD and UPD to be). Also, no feats are transparent (you can't use craft wondrous to make universal items, or craft arms and armor to add psionic enhancements...) -Jindl
Jindl 04-25-05, 05:47 PM	If you have magic / psychic transparency, the logic is as follows: 1) Psychic powers interact with the world just like spells do 2) Spellcraft ID's spells from Bards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, Wizards, Paladins, Rangers, Assasins... and any creature with spell like effects. In other words, Spellcraft let's you know ANY spell of ANY kind. 3) Powers are just like spells (you know, psychic / magic transparency) ... 4) Spellcraft should ID psionic powers just like it IDs spells from any other source. I do not believe that this is written down in any place, but I do believe it follows quite logicly from the rules, if you play a campaign where psioncs and magic are equally abundant and the tranparency rule is in effect. 1. True 2. True 3. False. Power's are spell-like abilities, and spellcraft cannot identify a spell-like ability. 4. False (see #3).
spasheridan 04-25-05, 05:55 PM	The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura). Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas.Well, look at that. Psicraft and Spellcraft are absolutely differant skills with no overlap at all. Hrm, you learn something new every day!
Caterane 04-25-05, 06:46 PM	Without a psicraft check claiming that any 1 round power means an astral construct is metagaming, isn't it? Psicraft checks are how characters gain in game understanding of psionic powers they see. We all metagame a bit in our tactics (he has all short range spells, so stay at long range) but this may be crossing the line. Wait a second Spash! You can't just delete a (very important) line from my tactics! What I wrote is absolutely ok. 1. If I would play my character, I would certainly act that way. If I would play Indri in a Long Quest, no Questlord would forbid me to run away (or had the right to do that). 2. If someone tells me, Cat (no ranks in psionics) "run if his manifesting takes longer than a second or two" then I don't need to have psicraft. Any spectator meanwhile knows that summons take longer to complete. Having no ranks in psicraft doesn't mean "O_o" Besides, I even do have 4 ranks. 3. If that is metagaming for you, the please define metagaming. In that case every tactic includes metagaming! No "if I win/lose ini" anymore. No "if he readies" and a hundred similar expressions would from now on be forbidden because they are much more metagame than what I wrote. These terms are necessary though for proper execution of fight moderation. 4. I do have Spellcraft. Spellcraft/Psicraft are the same. So just because I fail this one check doesn't mean I have no idea about manifesting powers. Just because the level 15 cleric rolls a 1 on his spellcraft check and fails doesn't mean he suddenly forgot that summons take 1 round to complete and cannot run from 1 round spells. Besides, I wrote "run from 1 round powers" not "run from manifesting astral construct". If you have a problem with the way I wrote it then use this: "If he spends more time than the usual manifesting time - the usual time I myself need to manifest my own powers, then I am afraid something bad is on the way so please take my feet and run away". So please, execute my tactics. Sigh. :bored:
jstorrie 04-25-05, 07:22 PM	While we're on the subject, I am definitely against 'if I lose initiative...' clauses in tactics. A character might understand the concept of 'acting before the other guy did' - that's pretty simple - but there is no way a character can tell whether or not another character has acted unless he sees him. Since most gladiators don't see each other until second or third round, they don't know if they've acted first or not.
Cerebus13 04-25-05, 07:58 PM	I second that jstorrie, would make tactics a lot easier to write too :P.
Snommelp 04-25-05, 08:13 PM	After the first round, initiative isn't that important anyway. You'll notice that my tactics never mention initiative, because none of my characters have any maneuvers that need to be done first round under a specific initiative count. In fact, the only characters who would generally find initiative important would be people going for a round 1 kill. Then, initiative is very important, but jstorrie is right in that the character will have no way of knowing even what our concept of initiative is. Completely random tangent: spash, how's the progress on Cedric's fight?
spasheridan 04-25-05, 08:29 PM	15 + power level Identify a power being manifested. (You must sense the power’s display, or see some visible effect, to identify a power.) No action required. No retry.This is the skill check required to ID a power you can sense. This is using Psicraft. Psicraft is a trained skill only. The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura).This quote shows that spellcraft cannot be used to determine information about a power, only psicraft can be used to do so. SO, Psicraft and Spellcraft are completely differant. SO, the end result of this is: 1) If a player sees a display of a power they MUST make a psicraft check to determine what power that display represents. 2) Spellcraft checks cannot take the place of psicraft checks. 3) If a tactics entry calls for a specific power / spell, then for the tactics to be used the player must ID the spell somehow. Either by the results (the monster appears) or by an appropriate skill check. If he summons an astral construct, use skate and get the hell away from that beast. The best one lasts 7 rounds so that is well within the 10-round limit. Oh, he has to use 1 full round to summon it, so if he draws a powerstone and concentrates for 1 round, attack once, then get away out of charge and sight line, or skate+move if necessary, or double move if I cannot do that with a skating single move. Hrm, OK.. deconstructing very fragmented sentances... (my frst read of these a few posts back stopped after "attack once" because you wouldn't attack invisible and I didn't notice the 3rd option for the 2nd state.. ) 1) If I see Astral Contruct = Use Skate + run away. 2) If draw stone + concentrate for 1 round (splitting action into 2 rounds) = attack once then move out of charge / LOS. Or skate/move if necesarry, or double move if better. Generoulsy extending this to include if Necavi manifests the power himself (he's invisible, you don't know if he's using a stone), we're in section 2 (with 0 ranks in Psicraft there's no way for you to know that it's an AC power he's manifesting) and you have 2 choices. Attack + Move or run away. I would imagine that you would not attack Mr Invisibl, so you're going to run away. Remember, there still is the chance that the display is actually listed in the rule book, so it may be completely differant than what we're chatting about. On to metagaming.... I believe I started a small charge against metagaming in our readied action rules debate. We really do have to remember that this is a RPG and certain RP elements need to remain in the game. A fighter with 0 ranks in spellcraft would have no way of knowing that his wizard opponent's spells are all short range. The fighter would have no way of knowing (beyond the most basic of details) what spells a wizard CAN cast. I'm unsure of the exact line in metagaming vs player knowledge, it's very vague. My point though in mentioning this about Indri's tactics is that for Indri to know that powers that take full round actions are summoning spells is a bit of a stretch with 0 ranks in psicraft. There definitly are other powers that have full round manifestations, maybe Necavi is using one of them. All you are seeing is a display, not Necavi manifesting, so without psicraft you have little chance of reacting to this information. As far as our current "rules" for tactics goes yours are definitly fine. But it's a good example of player knowledge directing the PC in a way that the PC shouldn't be directed. There are some Int 6 gladiators out there that I have similar concerns about.
spasheridan 04-25-05, 08:31 PM	Completely random tangent: spash, how's the progress on Cedric's fight?Poorly, no tactics from OWA... I'll get something up tonight though.
Jindl 04-25-05, 08:37 PM	Wait a second Spash! You can't just delete a (very important) line from my tactics! What I wrote is absolutely ok. 1. If I would play my character, I would certainly act that way. If I would play Indri in a Long Quest, no Questlord would forbid me to run away (or had the right to do that). 2. If someone tells me, Cat (no ranks in psionics) "run if his manifesting takes longer than a second or two" then I don't need to have psicraft. Any spectator meanwhile knows that summons take longer to complete. Having no ranks in psicraft doesn't mean "O_o" Besides, I even do have 4 ranks. 3. If that is metagaming for you, the please define metagaming. In that case every tactic includes metagaming! No "if I win/lose ini" anymore. No "if he readies" and a hundred similar expressions would from now on be forbidden because they are much more metagame than what I wrote. These terms are necessary though for proper execution of fight moderation. 4. I do have Spellcraft. Spellcraft/Psicraft are the same. So just because I fail this one check doesn't mean I have no idea about manifesting powers. Just because the level 15 cleric rolls a 1 on his spellcraft check and fails doesn't mean he suddenly forgot that summons take 1 round to complete and cannot run from 1 round spells. Besides, I wrote "run from 1 round powers" not "run from manifesting astral construct". If you have a problem with the way I wrote it then use this: "If he spends more time than the usual manifesting time - the usual time I myself need to manifest my own powers, then I am afraid something bad is on the way so please take my feet and run away". So please, execute my tactics. Sigh. :bored: Easy there Cat. It's okay for Spasheridan to have concerns about metagaming. However, Caterane's tactics are acceptable. It's okay for a gladiator to say, "If he is casting/manifesting for a whole round, assume its a summons/sleep spell/astral construct/etc and run away. It's an assumption based on the gladiators prior experience (either watching his opponent's previous matches or from personal experience against other spellcasters). There's no guarantee that his assumption is correct, after all. As for "If I win initiative" tactics, they are here to stay. In most RL games, the players know if they won initiative or not. And it was decided a long time ago to always grant this information in the CoCo. Cat, you are wrong about Spellcraft and Psicraft being the same. They are completely different skills with no overlap. However, in this case it is irrelevant as Indri is acting on an assumption, not on actual knowledge of the power being manifested. -Jindl
TaggIIV 04-25-05, 09:16 PM	Azriel vs Merman (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5968827&postcount=1472) is now finished.
spasheridan 04-25-05, 10:43 PM	However, Caterane's tactics are acceptable. It's okay for a gladiator to say, "If he is casting/manifesting for a whole round, assume its a summons/sleep spell/astral construct/etc and run away. It's an assumption based on the gladiators prior experience (either watching his opponent's previous matches or from personal experience against other spellcasters). There's no guarantee that his assumption is correct, after all. The problem with this "personal experience" is that it invalidates several skills. This has been a raging debate on other parts of the boards, but to highlight a few examples: Knowledge: Nature checks are REQUIRED to know that fey are vulnerable to cold iron. Anyone who uses a cold iron weapon against Laph without that skill at+5 or so is metagaming. Or are they? Spellcraft checsk are REQUIRED to know what range or other limitations a spell has. Anyone who builds their tactics to stay out of a spells range without +6 in spellcraft is metagaming. Or are they? It's quite easy to give any PC about 15 ranks in Knowledge: Nature, Dungeoneering, Arcane, the Planes and 15 ranks in Spellcraft and Psicraft by simply saying "I watched the gladiator fights so I know that these spells have range X, these monsters are vulnerable to Y, and this kind of creature can only use it's breath weapon once a day." We would never allow a PC the benefit of 15 extra ranks to spot or hide by a simple statement like that, but we will allow it in these knowledge cases... It's a slippery slope, and it's tough to draw the line. I believe that we can get around some of these issues with some general knowledge rules, but we may have to insist on restrictions to tactics based on skill ranks in the future. Food for thought, yes?
spasheridan 04-25-05, 10:50 PM	So, reading the text of the XPH I find the following (pg 59) For instance, the Display entry for astral construct is "visual; see text". The text indicates that a construct is formed. The construct, as a visible object, is the visible display for the astral construct power.I guess no one can notice this until the power is finished because:It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn.So, it appears on your turn so until then it's nowhere.. and can not be seen,
Jindl 04-25-05, 11:30 PM	The problem with this "personal experience" is that it invalidates several skills. This has been a raging debate on other parts of the boards, but to highlight a few examples: Knowledge: Nature checks are REQUIRED to know that fey are vulnerable to cold iron. Anyone who uses a cold iron weapon against Laph without that skill at+5 or so is metagaming. Or are they? Spellcraft checsk are REQUIRED to know what range or other limitations a spell has. Anyone who builds their tactics to stay out of a spells range without +6 in spellcraft is metagaming. Or are they? It's quite easy to give any PC about 15 ranks in Knowledge: Nature, Dungeoneering, Arcane, the Planes and 15 ranks in Spellcraft and Psicraft by simply saying "I watched the gladiator fights so I know that these spells have range X, these monsters are vulnerable to Y, and this kind of creature can only use it's breath weapon once a day." We would never allow a PC the benefit of 15 extra ranks to spot or hide by a simple statement like that, but we will allow it in these knowledge cases... It's a slippery slope, and it's tough to draw the line. I believe that we can get around some of these issues with some general knowledge rules, but we may have to insist on restrictions to tactics based on skill ranks in the future. Food for thought, yes? In a campaign, if you knew you would be facing pixies, you would have already found out with research that you need cold iron to damage them. If you knew you would be facing a troll, you'd know to bring fire and acid. And if you knew that Psion the psion only had close range powers, then you'd know to ambush him from range. The arena eliminates the need pre-fight divinations and research by granting their benefits to everyone. It's an educated, pre-planned fighting event. However, the best plans still go wrong. Shapeshifters may assume forms that you don't expect (just wait until the Elder starts polymorphing...) and its risky to base assumptions on spell effects from their casting times. I'm not saying that I wouldn't love to implement a "fog of war" effect. It's just that we have no way of doing so, and to try and have the pitlord adjucate such a thing onto tactics that were PM'd in days ago would create more problems and controversy than it solves. -Jindl EDIT: On a side note, Bael'ryl Mythus (Kaigan) vs Trokk the Eviscerator (Megrim Lord): Jindl is posted. Looks like somebody has been reading up on Alathar Vierce.
Megrim_Lord 04-25-05, 11:38 PM	Trokk is on a frickin roll, If I keep this up I might just lose my self confidence problems! :D
Jindl 04-26-05, 12:13 AM	Brogan Galanodel (bgt) vs Guts (Cerebus13): Jindl is up. Levitate sucks.
Cerebus13 04-26-05, 12:28 AM	You apply your character’s Strength modifier to: * Melee attack rolls. * Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon (including a sling). (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive one and a half times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.) * Climb, Jump, and Swim checks. These are the skills that have Strength as their key ability. * Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like). This line from the SRD led me to think that Strength penalties do not apply to composite bows, but after reading it again all this rule says is that Strength bonuses do not apply to normal bows...silly me :P Probably was a bit overdone on the buffs, but I wanted to jack up my Touch AC so all of his rays would miss me.
Kaigan 04-26-05, 01:19 AM	quick quetsion if someone fires an energy ray, and they crit and the crit is confirmed, does the ray do double damage? Edit: Well the fight is up. Deedlit vs. Gatekeeper. Check it out. And off to bed for me!
jstorrie 04-26-05, 01:44 AM	@Kaigan: yes. Rays are 20/x2 unless specifically stated otherwise.
Malither76 04-26-05, 01:46 AM	yep all weapon like spells and powers such as rays can crit and do double damage when they do.
jstorrie 04-26-05, 01:51 AM	also @Kaigan: I can not find anything in the CoCo rules to suggest that spellcasters cannot choose which spells to prepare for specific matches. Preparing spells seems to fit under the condition for allowable prebuffs; Deedlit's spell choice directly impacts her ability to fight. @Pitlords: Can you confirm or deny the spell preparation issue? It does critically influence the outcome of this match.
spasheridan 04-26-05, 02:31 AM	Cedric v Keth is up. Fixes and completions to Necavi v Indri are also up.
Huan 04-26-05, 02:35 AM	Unexpectedly long Decius vs Hagrid (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6029598) is up. ETA of expansion... 2 weeks, likely. :(
spasheridan 04-26-05, 02:39 AM	I'm not saying that I wouldn't love to implement a "fog of war" effect. It's just that we have no way of doing so, and to try and have the pitlord adjucate such a thing onto tactics that were PM'd in days ago would create more problems and controversy than it solves. I see that. OK, so.. anything about a PC BEFORE they enter the ring is common knowledge, like what spells they know or have memmed, the casting time, range, and effects of all the spells known, memmed, or in an item they carry. Also, any vulnerabilities, weaknesses, or equipment special powers are known. I don't think I could memorize all of the scrolls / spells / stones / powes that say Ulhyne knows. Anything summoned AFTER the fight starts (say a PC summons a fey with a spell) and the gladiator must make the appropriate knowledge check to know what weapon to use to defeat it's DR or what the monster can do. Hrm. And the subterfuge continues. SO, I prep / learn 2 spells with full round casting times. One is a buff, the other is a nuke or a summons. Now I can outfox all my opponents into dodging behind pillars to get out of the way of my buff...
Pittbull 04-26-05, 03:00 AM	Unexpectedly long Decius vs Hagrid (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6029598) is up. ETA of expansion... 2 weeks, likely. :( Sorry, that was a tough job. Thanks a lot! Only, slight mistakes have been made, which don't change the outcome: - An ability score of 15 costs 8 points. - See invisible has a longer duration (CL/10min).
jstorrie 04-26-05, 03:37 AM	Ugghhhhh. I am having major problems with the Eiletha vs Gareth fight: nearly all of Gareth's tattoos and powerstones are wrong, and I can't even figure out what they're supposed to be because the prices don't match up with the specified prices for other tattoos or powerstones. For example, he has a powerstone of expansion with 30 minute duration for 75 gp. Expansion is normally 1 round/lvl, and to extend it all the way to 30 minutes would make it much more expensive than 75gp; on top of that, there aren't any 75 gp powerstones. Pitlords, what am I to do? Gareth's tactics specifically hinge on activating several of these invalid buffs and then making a charge attack; if I run him without the items his tactics will likely fall apart. His opponent's tactics already fell apart at round 1, no less.
Pittbull 04-26-05, 03:43 AM	Ugghhhhh. I am having major problems with the Eiletha vs Gareth fight: nearly all of Gareth's tattoos and powerstones are wrong, and I can't even figure out what they're supposed to be because the prices don't match up with the specified prices for other tattoos or powerstones. For example, he has a powerstone of expansion with 30 minute duration for 75 gp. Expansion is normally 1 round/lvl, and to extend it all the way to 30 minutes would make it much more expensive than 75gp; on top of that, there aren't any 75 gp powerstones. Pitlords, what am I to do? Gareth's tactics specifically hinge on activating several of these invalid buffs and then making a charge attack; if I run him without the items his tactics will likely fall apart. His opponent's tactics already fell apart at round 1, no less. The price is right! A powerstone (1lvl/ML3) costs 25gpx3=75gp. The powerstone of expansion is used this way: 1PP to activate the power, 2PPs to augment it for duration (not one 1round, but 10min per ML), ML3 gives 30 min. Expansion Psychometabolism Level: Psychic warrior 1 Display: Olfactory Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 round./level (D) Power Points: 1 This power causes instant growth, doubling your height, length, and width and multiplying your weight by 8. This increase changes your size category to the next larger one. You gain a +2 size bonus to Strength, a -2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum effective Dexterity score of 1), a -1 size penalty on attack rolls, and a -1 size penalty to Armor Class due to your increased size. If your new size is Large or larger, you have a space of at least 10 feet and a natural reach of at least 10 feet. This power doesn’t change your speed. If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, you attain the maximum possible size and can make a Strength check (using your increased Strength score) to burst any enclosures in the process. If you fail, you are constrained without harm by the materials enclosing you - you cannot crush yourself to death by increasing your size. All your equipment, worn or carried, is similarly expanded by this power. Melee and projectile weapons deal more damage. Other psionic or magical properties are not affected by this power. Any affected item that leaves your possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them). Multiple effects that increase size do not stack, which means (among other things) that you can’t use a second manifestation of this power to further expand yourself. Augment: You can augment this power in one or more of the following ways. 1. If you spend 6 additional power points, this power increases your size by two size categories instead of one. You gain a +4 size bonus to Strength, a -4 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum effective Dexterity score of 1), a -2 size penalty on attack rolls, and a -2 size penalty to Armor Class due to your increased size. 2. If you spend 6 additional power points, you can manifest this power as a swift action instead of a standard action. 3. If you spend 2 additional power points, this power’s duration is 10 minutes per level rather than 1 round per level.
Snommelp 04-26-05, 03:51 AM	Thanks, spash. Cedric's really meant to be a team player. That's why I bought him the horse; the horse which is now too big for Cedric to use until next level. Oh well. On a side note, why can't you flank with a spiritual weapon? Oh, wait... just read the description. "The weapon always strikes from your direction." Seems sort of silly that it can't flank with other people, though. I mean, if you think about it, it's an attacker that the opponent is trying to avoid, and flanking is when two attackers are on opposite sides, which causes the opponent to need to split his attention, which is less effective. That's the reasoning behind flanking bonuses, right? If the spiritual weapon doesn't get or grant flanking bonuses, that would imply that the opponent ignores it, which should mean that the opponent loses his Dex modifier to AC against attacks made by the spiritual weapon. But I'll stop arguing against the RAW now, and just add it to my list of potential house-rules.
Captain Mutilate 04-26-05, 08:08 AM	Except isn't it a standard action to control it or something?
Cerebus13 04-26-05, 08:14 AM	also @Kaigan: I can not find anything in the CoCo rules to suggest that spellcasters cannot choose which spells to prepare for specific matches. Preparing spells seems to fit under the condition for allowable prebuffs; Deedlit's spell choice directly impacts her ability to fight. @Pitlords: Can you confirm or deny the spell preparation issue? It does critically influence the outcome of this match.@jstorrie Unfortunately even with the two extra buffs I could have tossed on, Aid & Cat's Grace, I would still be a mighty big stain on the arena floor. He confirmed the crit with a 19 vs my AC 16 (AC 18 with Cat's Grace), and reduced me to -20 hps (a possible -9 with Aid if I got lucky) with that critical. @All: The spell preparation thing isn't listed in the FAQ anywhere that I can see, could someone point me where to look or perhaps add it to the FAQ for future reference?
TaggIIV 04-26-05, 08:23 AM	Spells used to be able to be listed in tactics, in old COCO, but even then you had to list i think 1/2 spells per spell level on character sheet. In LG you have to have all of your spells listed on sheet, I guess I don't exactly where this is mentioned I'll have to leave that to Cat. edit: caterane: but you haven't memorized all spells with Farore caterane: Druid Spells Memorized (4/3) 0 DC 13: Resistance, Guidance, x, x 1 DC 14: Shillelagh, Entangle, x BurningDragon22: i thought i saw somewhere that you memorize half and you show the rest with tactics or something? caterane: oh god the old FAQ. Forget about them caterane: they ain't updated in a year or so caterane: the new ones will be out soon BurningDragon22: lol.. BurningDragon22: k caterane: tomorow probably BurningDragon22: so i prepare all normally on sheet, but then i can only cast 1/3rd of the total spells? caterane: Ask me if anything is unclear caterane: yes, prepare all spells ((from a long time ago... beginning of LG))
Cerebus13 04-26-05, 08:39 AM	@TaggIIV It's probably for the best that we list spells before each match, or tactics for higher level gladiators could end up being a big mess. @Pitlords Could this be added to the FAQ somewhere for future players?
Jindl 04-26-05, 08:50 AM	@All: The spell preparation thing isn't listed in the FAQ anywhere that I can see, could someone point me where to look or perhaps add it to the FAQ for future reference? Although it should also be listed in the FAQ, I think if you check the Quickstart Guide, it is listed as the first Important Basic Rule. -Jindl
Caterane 04-26-05, 11:55 AM	@Spash: Necavi attempts to manifest AC from the stone (ML check 12 v 8, pass) and hide his display as he manifests AC from the stone (15 v 16, fail). The display of AC, however, is the construct itself and it has not appeared yet. Indri searches for his opponent and decides that the best offense is a good defense.. and activates his tattoo of biofeedback. I thought we agreed that the manifesting is visible? Even Jindl confirmed that. That means I would've activated the skate tattoo plus move away. And I don't know how the slower construct could attack every round, even charge me. Oh and one final note about metagaming. In the last fight you moderated for me, you had Ceres ride exactly 80ft in a semi-circle around the central obstacle so that I couldn't reach him by exactly 5 ft. So unless Ceres is a mathematical genius who can triangulate as a swift action, you METAGAMED for him.
Jindl 04-26-05, 12:08 PM	I thought we agreed that the manifesting is visible? Even Jindl confirmed that. I just confirmed that the construct was the special visible display for the astral construct power. I never stated that I thought the visible display for that power would give away the position of the manifester. I hope you both are still getting along well. Remember to BE NICE !!
Caterane 04-26-05, 12:33 PM	Yes, visible display during the manifesting time, you know, the gathering of swirling ectoplasm the whole round. I wanted to use skate and run away in that case, but Spash had Indri stand still and manifest biofeedback. Nice: don't worry.
Pittbull 04-26-05, 01:04 PM	There is the visible effect of manifesting constructs: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/xph_gallery/33175.jpg
spasheridan 04-26-05, 01:49 PM	I thought we agreed that the manifesting is visible? Even Jindl confirmed that. That means I would've activated the skate tattoo plus move away. And I don't know how the slower construct could attack every round, even charge me. Check my post from the last page: So, reading the text of the XPH I find the following (pg 59) For instance, the Display entry for astral construct is "visual; see text". The text indicates that a construct is formed. The construct, as a visible object, is the visible display for the astral construct power.I guess no one can notice this until the power is finished because:It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn.So, it appears on your turn so until then it's nowhere.. and can not be seen, If you read my posts I said several times that I may find some additional information in the actual rulebook, and I did. If that line hadn't been in the book then I would have agreed with Jindl and you about how it works, but the rules are clear... if you know where to look. About the monsters: Rnd 9: AC 1 appears, attacks. You cast skate and move away. Rnd 10: AC 1 can only circle around and base, AC 2 appears and charges. You move away so you can't be charged / attacked. Rnd 11: AC 1 bases you, AC 2 gets near you. You cannot avoid being hit, so you move so only the least likely to hit you can attack. You move so you get COVER vs this charge instead of being in the open. You could have moved farther but you still would have been attacked and not had cover. Rnd 12: The charge from AC 1 hits. AC2 bases you. I spent over an hour going over these 4 rounds, I tried a slew of differant moves for Indri to escape with. He was just to slow, speed 55 v speed 50 works in a foot race but when Indri is forced to take a step or two in the wrong direction to avoid AoO's and there are 2 opponents so 1 is always at least 5 feet closer to you destination than you are.. well, it's not pretty. If you could have gotten into the open you would have been able to make a run, but the arena isn't designed for fleeing. If you can find a better position for Indri to have moved to please let me know, I can make some fixes tonight. Remember that a 3rd AC is coming in round 13 so... Oh and one final note about metagaming. In the last fight you moderated for me, you had Ceres ride exactly 80ft in a semi-circle around the central obstacle so that I couldn't reach him by exactly 5 ft. So unless Ceres is a mathematical genius who can triangulate as a swift action, you METAGAMED for him.Well, I do it for everyone. Beyond moves on rnd 2 or so I usually plot out 2 or 3 positiosn for each gladiator to move to and then check how known gladiators can interact with that. Most tactics include some line like "move so I can't be charged" so I do take the time to move so they can't be charged. Like I said, metagaming is a fine line. I have Finael drink potions of protection from (x) anytime a summoned creature appears in a battle, yet Finael doesn't have any ranks in spellcraft. That's probably metagaming, or is it? Look back a few posts Cat, I said that by our current standards your tactics are completely fine. I missed the final part of you tactics that said the bit about running from a multi-round manifested power because I stopped after you said attack. Since I was chatting about it instead of lording the fight I did a quick scan of the section instead of giving it a careful read. I was saying that: 1) Your tactics say run away from astral construct 2) You see a display, not an astral construct 3) SO, to run away, you need to make a psi-craft check to understand the display is astral construct. THEN I saw that you had a section that said if you see a multi-round display you would run away. So you were going to run away on rnd 8. THEN I saw that AC's display is the construct, and the construct does not appear until the spell is fully manifested, so you stayed on round 8 because there was nothing to see. My concern was a more general one, like how far does general knowledge go? Can Finael drink potions of protection vs summoned animals? Can Indri ID an Astral Construct power? Does Legion know that Laph is vulnerable to cold iron?
Caterane 04-26-05, 01:59 PM	If I have faced 10 trolls or seen 10 troll fights, I certainly know that fire harms them; no matter if I have knowledge (troll) or not. And I don't get any ranks in knowledge troll. We played it like that until now and I have to rely on that fact. If you don't agree on a part that has been handled like that all the time, then state your concerns, wait a year or three until the Elders have decided ( :P ), and then enforce the rule from then on; not making impromptu changes during the fight. Btw, the ACs have a speed of 40 not 50. That's double move 80 vs 110 (Indri) or run 160 vs 220.
Snommelp 04-26-05, 02:08 PM	Except isn't it a standard action to control it or something? Nope. It's a move action to change targets, but if you don't make the effort to change targets it just keeps attacking the old one. But whatever. Poor Cedric wasn't really built for singles combat anyway.
Huan 04-26-05, 02:10 PM	Nope. It's a move action to change targets, but if you don't make the effort to change targets it just keeps attacking the old one. But whatever. Poor Cedric wasn't really built for singles combat anyway. Maybe you can put Cedric up as "Healer-for-hire" for quests? :D
spasheridan 04-26-05, 02:21 PM	If I have faced 10 trolls or seen 10 troll fights, I certainly know that fire harms them; no matter if I have knowledge (troll) or not. And I don't get any ranks in knowledge troll. And how many Shapers has Indri battled so far? Has Indri battled 10 to know that multi-round manifestations are always astral constructs? By the letter of the rules, you would need to make a DC (Troll HD+10) Knowledge check to know that fire hurt trolls, unless the DM rules it common knowledge in which case it's an untrained DC 10 check. Like I said, it's a vague line that kind of moves here and there. I just have certain.. expectations that int 6 PC's don't have the ranges of their opponents spells memorized. That 0 rank spellcraft PC's can't take actions based on specific spells being cast, they can only react based on spellcating or the effects of the spells. I'm bringing it up to see how the rest of you feel about. We played it like that until now and I have to rely on that fact. If you don't agree on a part that has been handled like that all the time, then state your concerns, wait a year or three until the Elders have decided ( :P ), and then enforce the rule from then on; not making impromptu changes during the fight. And I agreed with you, your tactics are fine as is. The miscommunication here is based on my imperfect reading of your tactcs.. I explained that above. Btw, the ACs have a speed of 40 not 50. That's double move 80 vs 110 (Indri) or run 160 vs 220. What powers did AC 1 have and how did they effect his speed?
jstorrie 04-27-05, 04:49 AM	Eiletha vs Gareth (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6039694&postcount=1502) is late, but up.
Salrantol 04-27-05, 08:12 AM	If I ever manage to get close enough (30ft), use the tanglefoot bag on the horse. If successful, engage in melee. @Zyme86: Why did I then engage him in melee after unsuccessfully attacking with the tanglefoot bag? Especially considering... Can't reasonably expect to walk up and hit him a bunch of times. ?
Cerebus13 04-27-05, 08:21 AM	@jstorrie I know we had this discussion last week (and I'm not sure what the resolution really was :P) but according to the SRD: Ranged Attacks With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is ten range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions. you can't shoot a target if you do not have line of sight to them. It makes no difference to the outcome of the fight of course, but I wanted to point the rule out for possible discussion. Edit: Also, did Kaigan have tactics? You may have forgotten to post them if he did :P.
Salrantol 04-27-05, 08:44 AM	I know I'm being a bit nitpicky, but I stumbled across this last night, while perusing the "Special Materials" part of the SRD (for nothing related to the discussion I'll relate it to)... Knowledge: Nature checks are REQUIRED to know that fey are vulnerable to cold iron. Anyone who uses a cold iron weapon against Laph without that skill at+5 or so is metagaming. Or are they? Iron, Cold: This iron, mined deep underground, known for its effectiveness against fey creatures, is forged at a lower temperature to preserve its delicate properties. Weapons made of cold iron cost twice as much to make as their normal counterparts. Also, any magical enhancements cost an additional 2,000 gp. Items without metal parts cannot be made from cold iron. An arrow could be made of cold iron, but a quarterstaff could not. A double weapon that has only half of it made of cold iron increases its cost by 50%. Cold iron has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 10.
Caterane 04-27-05, 09:17 AM	And how many Shapers has Indri battled so far? Has Indri battled 10 to know that multi-round manifestations are always astral constructs? Yes, he has. Before he came to the arena. Point is that the enemies character sheet is visible and common knowledge. I know that he has 1 single one-round power and that is coincidently the one I am worried about. So if I write "run if he manifests a 1 round power" is absolutely ok, as are similar things that you deem metagaming. By the letter of the rules, you would need to make a DC (Troll HD+10) Knowledge check to know that fire hurt trolls, unless the DM rules it common knowledge in which case it's an untrained DC 10 check. So if my character has 15 ranks in troll knowledge, and he faced 20 Troll encounters, and in the 21st he rolls a 1 and fails the check. Does that mean he suddenly forgot everything? In any case, in the arena, I don't have to have 15 ranks in a knowledge skill to find out that certain creatures are vulnerable to certain things. Would you forbid someone to use cold iron arrows when he faces Laph in the arena just because he has no knowledge nature? Then please roll a trained knowledge planes check for everyone who faces Ixenthor. You would have to analyze every action the gladiator wants to do in his tactics wether he has the appropriate knowledge or not, and if not you have to forbid the player to use certain tactics. Clearly that is not possible and only leads to bad feelings. PS: It's a different thing with Quests though.
Captain Mutilate 04-27-05, 09:23 AM	All I'm going to say is that this forum has more of an emphasis on Character Optimization then on Roleplaying. We do have roleplaying threads and quests and stuff (breathing more life into the Coliseum), but this forum has its roots in Character Optimization. That said, I agree that it should be a different story during quests.
Kaigan 04-27-05, 10:03 AM	@jstorrie I know we had this discussion last week (and I'm not sure what the resolution really was :P) but according to the SRD: you can't shoot a target if you do not have line of sight to them. It makes no difference to the outcome of the fight of course, but I wanted to point the rule out for possible discussion. Edit: Also, did Kaigan have tactics? You may have forgotten to post them if he did :P. We said that you cna shoot the square. That's different, we did talk about that last week. With listen you pinpoint the square he is in, then shoot that square, and in effect, him.
Zyme86 04-27-05, 10:58 AM	tis up (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6040092&postcount=1503)
Zyme86 04-27-05, 11:05 AM	@Zyme86: Why did I then engage him in melee after unsuccessfully attacking with the tanglefoot bag? Especially considering... I read you tatics as if you wanted to enguage in melee if possible. He had the oppertunity to take down his opponent with one attack. I appologize if you ment it differently but when the text also reads If I'm blessed enough to get melee combat with him, switch to heavy flail & Power Attack for 2 until he's unquestionably defeated, then switch to axe and shield to face Dauntless. I took that as when you got the chance, move in. You got the chance, but sorry it didn't work out.
Jindl 04-27-05, 11:35 AM	We said that you cna shoot the square. That's different, we did talk about that last week. With listen you pinpoint the square he is in, then shoot that square, and in effect, him. I stand by the Core rules which say that you cannot shoot or throw a ranged weapon without LOS. Cat and others pointed out another rule that says you can attack a square, but that rule doesn't override or negate this rule. It says you can attack a square, which refers to melee attacks and spells that require attack rolls. Noone has providing convincing evidence to overide this core rule. -Jindl
jstorrie 04-27-05, 11:50 AM	I stand by the Core rules which say that you cannot shoot or throw a ranged weapon without LOS. Cat and others pointed out another rule that says you can attack a square, but that rule doesn't override or negate this rule. It says you can attack a square, which refers to melee attacks and spells that require attack rolls. Noone has providing convincing evidence to overide this core rule. -Jindl You're right, you can't target the character - but you can always shoot into a space that you have LOS to, and if there's a character in that square, you have a 50% chance to hit them (full concealment). If you have good reason to think there's an invisible person taking up one or more squares, you're perfectly justified in firing at the space you think they occupy. RAW, as long as you're targetting a space and not a person you can do it.
Cerebus13 04-27-05, 11:53 AM	I stand by the Core rules which say that you cannot shoot or throw a ranged weapon without LOS. Cat and others pointed out another rule that says you can attack a square, but that rule doesn't override or negate this rule. It says you can attack a square, which refers to melee attacks and spells that require attack rolls. Noone has providing convincing evidence to overide this core rule. -JindlExactly why I wanted to bring this up again, because it seems like we have yet to come to a consensus on this :/. Perhaps the Elders should vote on it?
Salrantol 04-27-05, 12:33 PM	@Zyme86: I can understand that misread for a later point, perhaps, but immediately after the action where I said, "If successful, engage in melee." was unsuccessful, you have me engage in melee? If I'm blessed enough to get melee combat with him I would like to add that I didn't say "a chance at melee combat", but "melee combat". I meant that if I had successfully glued his horse or if he actually came to melee me himself. Again, I do understand the misread and apologize for not being perfectly clear.
xanadu 04-27-05, 12:40 PM	Zyme86 - RakkaR's prize xp & gp should be 675 each because of the 25% penalty for allies.
spasheridan 04-27-05, 12:56 PM	Cat and others pointed out another rule that says you can attack a square, but that rule doesn't override or negate this rule. It says you can attack a square, which refers to melee attacks and spells that require attack rolls. Noone has providing convincing evidence to overide this core rule. THe end effect of this rule, no attacking (ranged) without LOS: 1) If a wall was invisible, it could not be shot at with a bow. 2) If you were trapped inside an invisible sphere it would be illegal for you to throw ANYTHING 3) Blind creatures cannot fire ranged weapons 4) You cannot fire ranged weapons in the dark WHile I believe that bringing real life examples into the game for rules debate is silly, all of the above are possible actions. IMO it's absurd to say that a pixie can't fire it's bow at an invisible dinosaur that's crashing through a forest. Once you can show that a rule has absurd side effects.. well, it really should be fixed. I feel that pinpoint listen checks and deductive reasoning are pefectly valid targetting senses. Of course, feelings are not rules so.. I would like to add that I didn't say "a chance at melee combat", but "melee combat". I meant that if I had successfully glued his horse or if he actually came to melee me himself. Again, I do understand the misread and apologize for not being perfectly clear.Tactics writing is a bit of an art. How to be clear and still convey all of your possible actions? I still find it very tough. I tend to write my tactics in this format: Tactic 1: 1) Do X 2) If X failed goto tactic 2. Else do Y 3) If Y falied goto tactic 2. Else do Z 4) Goto tactic 3 Tacitc 2: 1) Do X... I find that it helps me, but I'm into that kind of structured format.
Pitlords 04-27-05, 02:03 PM	Jindl, that's nonsense, sorry to say that. Jstorrie explained the difference like I did earlier, and if that didn't convince you Spash's examples clealy should. @Cerebus: there's definately no need for that. Anyway, I wanted to tell you something else. I got a message from OWA: Well, it finally happened. My computer decided it would stop working. This is likely the last message that you'll get from me in a good, long time until my computer is repaired. I would first like to ask you to convey my apologies to everyone who's fight I can't finish, especially the one I got that was delayed as is. Second, please remove me as a Pitord for a while. I have the two week penalty, but I have exams to study for, finals to take, AP exams, and Track finals. If I mistakingly set a character active, just ignore it. I should be back and ready to go in about a month or so. With any form of luck, I'll have my nice, new laptop by then. Til then, good luck, and may the dice roll in your favor! -Sean I feel sorry for the extended fights but sometimes bad things happen. That's why I always preach to have more than one or two characters so that a substitute Pc can jump in. Lets hope your fights will get finished during the 3rd week.
Malither76 04-27-05, 02:16 PM	@jstorrie, thanks for putting the fight up and running it there was a few errors but none change the fight, the major one that is important for all pitlords is dealing with invisibility in order to pinpoint an invisible creature you have to beat the DC by 20 with a listen check now of course its easy to hear and pinpoint someone that charges since they get the negative 20, but the one attack that did hit me would not have since the cleric did not beat my move silent by 20 on that check this info is on page 295 of the DMG. And remember there is also the -1 penelty per 10" away applied to the listen check also so yeah its hard to pinpoint them unless they run right up to you. Thanks again.
Cerebus13 04-27-05, 02:24 PM	@jstorrie, thanks for putting the fight up and running it there was a few errors but none change the fight, the major one that is important for all pitlords is dealing with invisibility in order to pinpoint an invisible creature you have to beat the DC by 20 with a listen check now of course its easy to hear and pinpoint someone that charges since they get the negative 20, but the one attack that did hit me would not have since the cleric did not beat my move silent by 20 on that check this info is on page 295 of the DMG. And remember there is also the -1 penelty per 10" away applied to the listen check also so yeah its hard to pinpoint them unless they run right up to you. Thanks again.Check out this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5222306) post for a more detailed description of how the CoCo handles listen checks. It's true that you need to beat the target DC by 20 to exactly pinpoint a person's location, however the CoCo expanded on this rule by adding a random roll to determine a person's location in a certain range...if they only pass the check by 1-19. With this roll it is possible to "think" that a target is in their own square if you get lucky, and the area covered by this random roll gets smaller as you pass the check by higher amounts. It is far from the best way to detect an invisible opponent, but if they decide to cast a spell with a verbal component (giving a DC 0 listen check) it can be pretty easy to find them even with the -1 per 10' of distance penalty. Edit: @Pitlords I can pick up an extra fight this week for OWA if needed. Wife is going out of town so I'll have extra time for it.
Jindl 04-27-05, 03:09 PM	Re: LOS needed for ranged weapons - So what your saying is that if you have LOS to the square you think your opponent is in, then you can shoot/throw at that square and if your opponent is there, you can hit them by passing a total concealment check? So if you pinpoint an invisible opponent with listen, you can shoot their space (if you can see it). I guess I'll believe that. I do think it is cheesy to shoot a hidden foe at the starting position, just because you know that its the starting position and you won initiative. I think you should have to detect your opponent's location using some in game skill, spell, etc; as opposed to using the player's knowledge that you won init and that your opponent must be at the starting position. Also, keep in mind that by your reasoning, you must be able to see the target's space. That means you can't shoot at a foe in the center of an obscurring mist, or while you're in the middle of a fog cloud, or at a foe protected by a blacklight spell, etc. Do I understand this right? -Jindl
Pitlords 04-27-05, 03:26 PM	Nothing says that you have to see the square. Why shouldn't you be able to shoot into a mist? It would also be more realistic to check the flight path of the arrow. After all, the arrow doesn't drop to the ground after it "hit" the square you aimed at. But that would be houseruling. I thought about something else: if we would change the knowledge of won/lost ini, then you cannot base your tactics on 1 round kills. You could write "ride out and attack him or the starting position if I cannot see him" but then you wouldn't know when you lost ini and the opponoment has moved. With the knowledge of lost ini (and the possibility to write it in your tactics) you can write something else for lost ini behaviour because you know that he won't be at the starting position. Thoughts?
Jindl 04-27-05, 03:54 PM	Nothing says that you have to see the square. Why shouldn't you be able to shoot into a mist? Because the Core Rules say you have to have LOS at your target to shoot/throw a ranged weapon. If you are declaring that the square is your target, then you must have LOS to the square. It would also be more realistic to check the flight path of the arrow. After all, the arrow doesn't drop to the ground after it "hit" the square you aimed at. But that would be houseruling. It would be more realistic to say that magic doesn't work. This isn't about realism. It's about following the Core Rules. Allowing ranged weapon attacks without LOS is houseruling. I thought about something else: if we would change the knowledge of won/lost ini, then you cannot base your tactics on 1 round kills. You could write "ride out and attack him or the starting position if I cannot see him" but then you wouldn't know when you lost ini and the opponoment has moved. With the knowledge of lost ini (and the possibility to write it in your tactics) you can write something else for lost ini behaviour because you know that he won't be at the starting position. Thoughts? I don't think it would change what happens in the fights however. What we need to do is to implement the 4 random starting positions that we have talked about so many times before. -Jindl
spasheridan 04-27-05, 04:10 PM	Because the Core Rules say you have to have LOS at your target to shoot/throw a ranged weapon. If you are declaring that the square is your target, then you must have LOS to the square. The core rules also say that you may attack(shoot) an opponent with total concealment. But total concealment means you don't see them, which means you cannot have LOS. But, you are allowed to shoot an opponent with total concealment. However, if you don't have LOS then you cannot.... the twistings of the logic continue in mind dizzying fury. I believe the best solution is that: 1) You may attack (shoot/smash/target with spell) any square that you have line of effect to. 2) LOS only matters for dealing with concealment/hiding issues. 3) Targetting with deductive reasoning is fair, but deductive reasoning the starting square is a bit much. It would be more realistic to say that magic doesn't work. This isn't about realism. It's about following the Core Rules. Allowing ranged weapon attacks without LOS is houseruling.THere is a small degree of wiggle room built into the rules. A hard line stance like yours has several inonsistancies: 1) All towns have infinite wealth (GP limit of each item, so a fishing village with 100 gp limit has 4 of every 1st level scroll, 1 of every 2nd level scroll, 2 of every 1st level potion, 100,000 torches... ) 2) An archer inside an invisible cage cannot fire arrows. 3) If a giant was attacking your city with bolders all you have to do is cast invisibility on the city walls / gates and the boulders can no longer even be thrown at the city walls / gates. Realism is a poor choice of words, rather we should attempt to achieve internal consistancy. I believe that shooting at invisible targets via listen checks or deductive reasoning enters a grey area of the rules. It is allowed to fire at targets with total concealment, but not without LOS...
Jindl 04-27-05, 04:36 PM	The core rules also say that you may attack(shoot) an opponent with total concealment. But total concealment means you don't see them, which means you cannot have LOS. But, you are allowed to shoot an opponent with total concealment. However, if you don't have LOS then you cannot.... The Core rules in a completely different section say that you can attack an opponent with total concealment by aiming at their square. It never says shoot or make a ranged attack or anything like that. It simply says attack. However, the key is that you aim at their square. In the Ranged Attack section of combat, the first sentence says that you must have LOS at your target to make a ranged weapon attack. If the square is your target, you must have LOS to the square. That works with the other rule because you must have LOS to "aim at their square". THere is a small degree of wiggle room built into the rules. A hard line stance like yours has several inonsistancies: 1) All towns have infinite wealth (GP limit of each item, so a fishing village with 100 gp limit has 4 of every 1st level scroll, 1 of every 2nd level scroll, 2 of every 1st level potion, 100,000 torches... ) 2) An archer inside an invisible cage cannot fire arrows. 3) If a giant was attacking your city with bolders all you have to do is cast invisibility on the city walls / gates and the boulders can no longer even be thrown at the city walls / gates. Realism is a poor choice of words, rather we should attempt to achieve internal consistancy. I believe that shooting at invisible targets via listen checks or deductive reasoning enters a grey area of the rules. It is allowed to fire at targets with total concealment, but not without LOS... 1. This is a seperate issue entirely, and the core rules have always handled econimic issues poorly (why else would NPC's always have less wealth than PC's?) 2. Since the cage is invisible, the archer can see through it and target opponents on the other side. The targets would have cover from the invisible cage's walls, however. 3. By attacking the square occupied by the invisible walls, the giants could throw boulders at the wall. However, if the town was covered by a huge fog cloud, the giants would not have LOS to the squares occupied by the wall, and thus could not aim their boulders at the wall's location. -Jindl