Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sindorin 02-24-05, 09:27 AM	This thread is for House of Commons Members only! ;) This thread is intended to give 'voices' to those not in the Council of Elders. If you have an opinion about an issue that is being debated here or in the Elders Discussion Forum, you should post it here.
T'Var 02-24-05, 09:32 AM	Now, I have created what I feel is a much more deadly build, and I do believe that it is Core legal, seeing as how I followed all the rules straight out of the SRD, Monster Manual, etc. If my pegasus gets taken away until 5th level, I will probably leave and look for fun elsewhere because my ideas aren't appreciated here. It really is not fun when every good idea you have that works is complained about by whiny people who think they know the game too well. I have to agree, with the attacks on casters, then horses and now this. it seems as though the higher powers are trying to strangle strong builds to give weaker one a better chance. if you spend the money you are entitled to the benifits not punished. not have that power taken away to give someone who didnt think of it a better chance.
Pittbull 02-24-05, 10:06 AM	Oh, Sindorin, I'm last who wants to destroy your build. But there has been the discussion that you can have only an ECL-2 mount or ally. Because there been lots of complains about Archangel Ixidor with his maxed out Handle Animal. If this rule doesn't exist anymore, I'm fine with that, I didn't like it either. Remember, we both used Pegasi in the old CoCo and I'm big fan of your tactic. The question is: does this rule exist in the CoCo or not. If yes, the Pegasus is too strong, if no just go on.
Sindorin 02-24-05, 10:25 AM	Oh, Sindorin, I'm last who wants to destroy your build. But there has been the discussion that you can have only an ECL-2 mount or ally. Because there been lots of complains about Archangel Ixidor with his maxed out Handle Animal. If this rule doesn't exist anymore, I'm fine with that, I didn't like it either. Remember, we both used Pegasi in the old CoCo and I'm big fan of your tactic. The question is: does this rule exist in the CoCo or not. If yes, the Pegasus is too strong, if no just go on. I know you don't want to destroy the build. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, really. I just wanted to point out that whenever we have proven time and again that there are ways you can make a really powerful build without cheap shots like Hold Person and Sleep (which have been nerfed), sparks fly and discussions break the levees of fairness to those who had the good idea. Ceres is not even a caster, so I figured that could help him avoid some previous nerfings. Is the Pegasus too strong? My answer is very similar, if not the same, as T'Var's. No, because I paid the gold for it and already suffer the exp/gp penalties for using it in matches. Does this rule exist in the CoCo or not? I asked Caterane right from the start if I could use the Pegasus in Arena Combat and he said yes, but it would not advance. If he forgot the rule, and it does exist, then I have been in error and will correct things accordingly. The way it sounded, if it isn't advancing it hit die as a cohort then it shouldn't count against the ECL -2 requirement, wherever that is. In terms of Archangel Ixenthor, I wasn't ever really sure what the point of a monster fight was. It just seemed to me like Ix knew something I didn't, and that was okay to me because I was new at it back then. I am not sure what class Ix was, but fundamental code of ethics or conduct depending on his alignment should have been factors back then as they are now with Anna not being allowed to use poison arrows that she bought because of her paladinship. Originally, nearly a year ago when I first started playing here, I thought this place was for 1 vs. 1 battles. mono a mono. No allies. All I knew was the basic Player's Handbook at the time. I had no knowledge of the Leadership feat or Handle Animal whatnot (still don't, really.) It was all so simple back then :) I probably could figure out a way to make Ceres effective without all his feats until next level (I can just buy him a warhorse if the rulings are made to where I can't use the Pegasus until ECL 5).
Pittbull 02-24-05, 10:49 AM	OK, let's wait what the GM's have to say. I think it'll soon when Cat wakes up after his birthday-party :D . If there is no such rule for mounts, many people should be afraid of your build, he's a killer. I think the handle-animal-discussion wasn't for Ixenthor but for Ixidor. But it's long time ago and I'm not sure. Are Pegasi too strong? -They are by far stronger than horses. ;)
Beldin 02-24-05, 10:54 AM	re: Nerfing of casters: I you look at the win-loose stats of pure casters you can see that most casters are not weakened at all. The only thing that has changed is that some just use more expensive one shot items to win, like the Elder. A scroll level cap would be a good solution against that, but the Elders were against it. The problem I see with our solution is that it may weaken pure casters a little bit, but it will hurt secondary casters - like my charakter Hakatri - very much.
spasheridan 02-24-05, 11:14 AM	[size=6] [b]Win Initiative=Win match Builds The problem with the win init / win match build is that it shows us nothing. We artificially restrict pre-buffs, positioning, and initial conditions. A win init / win match build just takes advantage of the starting conditions to win, it doesn't show that it is a stronger build. and then, there is the all important Pegasus that flies too fast No, it's not that the Peg is so fast, it's that a pegasus is stronger then the PC. Honestly, have you seen matches where the 8 hp mage tells his horse to go kill the other guy and then the mage hides? It's a lot like that.. if the mount is better than the gladiator then we're not testing builds we're testing monsters. People have only been talking about restricting mounts by ECL not by speed, Now, I have created what I feel is a much more deadly build, and I do believe that it is Core legal, seeing as how I followed all the rules straight out of the SRD, Monster Manual, etc. If my pegasus gets taken away until 5th level, I will probably leave and look for fun elsewhere because my ideas aren't appreciated here. It really is not fun when every good idea you have that works is complained about by whiny people who think they know the game too well. Look, there are good ideas and then there are ideas that simply take advantage of the rules. I'm not going to say that the pegasus is one or the other, but if the rules change a bit to prevent you from: 1) Breathing on rnd 1 2) Having the pegasus at lvl 5 understand that the rules will have changed for EVERYONE and not just for you... it's not a slap Sindorin with a nerf it's a let's balance the game change.
Jindl 02-24-05, 11:15 AM	I asked Caterane right from the start if I could use the Pegasus in Arena Combat and he said yes, but it would not advance. If he forgot the rule, and it does exist, then I have been in error and will correct things accordingly. The way it sounded, if it isn't advancing it hit die as a cohort then it shouldn't count against the ECL -2 requirement, wherever that is. Let's have a look at the rule, then. Per the FAQ: How many cohorts/allies can I have? You may have any number of cohorts or allies. However, there is a limit to how many you can have helping you in any given battle. ("helping" means anything from actually being present in the Arena or quest to fight with you, to just casting a pre-buff on you. If a cohort or ally had anything to do with your victory, it will count against the limit). The limit can be calculated as follows. If all of your allies have LA and ECL, then you should simply add the ECLs together. The result must be at least 2 less than your own ECL. So, for example, an ECL 12 character could have a single ECL 10 cohort, or three ECL 3 and one ECL 1 allies, or any other combination adding up to 10. If at least one of your allies or cohorts has no ECL, then add together all of your allies' ECL (for those that have it) and CR (for those that don't). The result must be at least 5 less than your own ECL. For instance, the level 12 character in the previous example could have a single CR 7 monster ally, or a CR 4 and six CR 1/2 allies, or an ECL 2 cohort and a CR 5 ally, or any other combination adding up to 7. Note that there are two exceptions. Firstly, you can always have one of the nine basic animals you can buy (guard dog (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#dog), riding dog (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#riding-dog), donkey (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#donkey), heavy horse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse), light horse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse), heavy warhorse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse), light warhorse (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#horse), pony (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#pony), and warpony (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monstersAnimal.html#war-pony)), wihtout it counting against the limit. In both the above examples, the level 12 character could bring a heavy warhorse along if he wants; it makes no difference. However, this only applies to one such animal. Any bought animals after the first one count against the limit normally. The second exception is if a class feature specifically allows a certain cohort, then it is allowed, even if the ECL or CR is higher than what the above calculations would allow. For example, a level 7 Druid could have a Dire Wolf animal companion, even though a Dire Wolf is CR 3, and would thus only be allowed for a level 8 character otherwise. Similarly, an ECL 10 Thrallherd with a Leadership score of 13 or more could have an ECL 9 thrall. Note, though, that these exceptional allies still count against the CR or ECL limit. In other words, the Druid and the Thrallherd in the examples above could enter into battle with their animal ally (or thrall), but they can take no other allies along (except a single basic animal they bought, see above). So, since your pegasus is your only ally, and it has LA, then it must have an ECL of 2 less than your pc's ECL. A pegasus is ECL 6, so you must be ECL 8 to have one. The only exceptions to this rule are: the nine basic animals (and pegasus is not one of the nine) and class feature allies (and unless you are at least a 7th level paladin or at least an ECL 7 thrallherd, a pegasus cannot be a class feature ally). Your pegasus does not meet either exception, so you should have waited until ECL 8 to get him. Now as you said, Caterane gave you an exception and allowed you to get him at ECL 5. The point of my pitlord note at the end of your fight was to ask him to reconsider giving the exception to the rule. -Jindl
Sindorin 02-24-05, 12:31 PM	Like I said, if Cat was wrong or changes his mind about letting me have it, then I was simply going by what answers I got for my precautions. If Snark does not want Evram to have the loss this past week, that is fine by me. I guess that's another idea down the tubes.
Jindl 02-24-05, 12:49 PM	Like I said, if Cat was wrong or changes his mind about letting me have it, then I was simply going by what answers I got for my precautions. If Snark does not want Evram to have the loss this past week, that is fine by me. I guess that's another idea down the tubes. I think the fight stands as is, regardless of whether you have to wait until ECL 8 to get the pegasus. As for your idea, I think it is an excellent one, that will still be very effective at ECL 8 and beyond.
Sindorin 02-24-05, 12:57 PM	I think the fight stands as is, regardless of whether you have to wait until ECL 8 to get the pegasus. As for your idea, I think it is an excellent one, that will still be very effective at ECL 8 and beyond. Well that is good I guess, but I probably should change Ceres' status for this week's pairings because I have massive edit to do (I need to buy a warhorse, but will probably have the pegasus stand by for about a year). Thanks for helping me with this.
Dalton Onestone 02-24-05, 02:12 PM	Since we're all on the Wizards of the Coast site, there's an obvious analogy here: Magic the Gathering. For those of you don't play, the basics is that there are a lot of possible cards. You assemble your choice of cards into a deck, and play that deck against your opponent. Luck is a big factor in any match, but in many cases it is still true that Deck A beats Deck B most of the time. There can be a scissors-paper-rock element in which Deck A beats Deck B, Deck B beats Deck C, and Deck C beats Deck A. While there is a near countless number of possible decks and strategies in Magic, most of them fall into one of three broad categories: 1. Speed. Damage your opponent to death before whatever his strategy was has time to work. 2. Combo. Win with a specific very powerful set of spells/tactics. 3. Defense. Defend against whatever your opponent does, then eventually kill him. Does all that sound like what we do around here? I think it does. Well, what happens in the game Magic is that the list of available cards (spells) keeps changing. Part of that is planned obsolescence, but if a card is so powerful that it dominates the environment, it gets banned. Players who won with certain strategies get lots of acclaim for innovating them, or playing well with them, and then they move on to other strategies. And so the game keeps morphing. True, we wouldn't want that degree of rapid change here. We have characters, who we are RPing, and we'd like to each play the same characters for -- probably a couple of years is the plan, eh? Still, not all change is to be feared. If you come up with a great idea that dominates the arena, you should be applauded as a brilliant strategist, and then the idea should be banned and retired, perhaps with your name permanently attached to it.
Naerdaloth 02-24-05, 05:05 PM	OK, I have a lot to say about this, so dont mock my poor organization of sentences. :p * * * Simple math. A pegasus is CR 3. That means by itself a pegasus is built to be a moderate challenge for four ECL 3 characters. Which means, an ECL 3 plus a CR 3 monster, far outweighs the single ECL 3 on the otherside of the scale. (Essentially, the pegasus side is the equivalent of 5 ECL 3s.) It's such a huge factor its ridiculous to even consider. "Is the pegasus to strong?" No, because I paid the gold for it and already suffer the exp/gp penalties for using it in matches. *cough* look at my first 2 paragraphs. Yes it is too strong. Far too strong. What would be fair and balanced would be if there were a handful of gladiators fighting the pegasus. Just because you paid for it is irrelevant to whether or not it is too strong to compete with other level 4 gladiators. It has the hp of a level 4 fighter, speed and maneueverability beyond the capabilities of any playable race, at any level, and attack power and strength of a barbarian. Justify to me how this is balanced. Oh wait, did I mention that its owner is also an ECL 4 character, with equipment and all? Forget the terms "nerfing," or "punishing the strong." Indeed, it was a brilliant idea. Dalton made a good analogy when he compared it to Magic. This isnt a normal campaign, this is a player-vs-player coliseum. Forget what the SRD says is fair or equal, its honestly irrelevant. We need to make our own changes to make things fair and equal in this setting which is far from what the DMG assumed when it wrote these rules. I have to agree, with the attacks on casters, then horses and now this. it seems as though the higher powers are trying to strangle strong builds to give weaker one a better chance. if you spend the money you are entitled to the benifits not punished. not have that power taken away to give someone who didnt think of it a better chance. Hm, the attack on casters... Well, casters dont seem so crippled, some of the most succesful builds have been with these so called "nerfed" wizards.Its not nerfing, or punishing, its balancing. Basically, by your reasonings, someone who doesnt want to play a pegasus owning wizard is deservingly predestined a failure in the COCO for being "weak"? Point: It doesnt matter if its legal, if it makes ALL other builds obsolete in its wake, its broken. (Challenge: SHow me a way to overcome a pegasus at ECL 4. NOt possible really without a few lucky longbow criticals, which by the time you get attacks off will probably have head lopped off by the rider of said pegasus.)
Caterane 02-24-05, 06:00 PM	@Sindorin: As I wrote earlier in a PM, you can't have a pegasus. Don't know why I said something else previously (can't even remember :( ) but I must've confused it with something else. Sorry but only basic bought animals are free ...for the time being.
Sindorin 02-24-05, 11:40 PM	@Sindorin: As I wrote earlier in a PM, you can't have a pegasus. Don't know why I said something else previously (can't even remember :( ) but I must've confused it with something else. Sorry but only basic bought animals are free ...for the time being. It's not a big deal anymore, Cat. It's in the past. It was fun being able to use it at least in one fight though. Now I can't get a full refund for him though. I guess he stays until later... Ceres should be just fine for next week's pairings, he just has to get a new horsey.
Snommelp 02-25-05, 03:40 PM	I find it interesting that people are still griping about the 1/3 rule, even though casters are still effective. Some might look at that argument and think that those complaining want an easy win, without the challenge of building a good character. As for the "attack" on horses, notice that no changes were made, even though the horses of CoCo aren't the horses of a normal DnD game and thus change could be justified. T'Var stated that it seemed as though the higher powers were trying to "strangle" strong builds. My argument against that is this: when all spellcasters win against non-spellcasters, the strength of the build doesn't matter, just the fact that the character can cast spells. When all mounted characters win against all non-mounted characters, it is not the strength of the build but the strength of the horse being tested. This is not to say that mounted characters have not lost to mountless characters, but rather is an attempt to make the point that if one thing always wins, regardless of the strength of the build and the player's tactics, one should question the power of that one thing.
One_Winged_Angel 02-26-05, 12:55 AM	Sindorin, I'd first like to say thanks for opening this thread. I have to agree with there being a lot of complaints here lately. I heard no complaints from anyone before about horses. I don't even know what brought that up. I'd like to open a new thread of complaint: one kill archer nerfing. Ok, look. I recently saw Mystic win a match in half a round. You know what? He's never done that before. I'd personally like to tip my hat to him. He's finally stopped taking advice from me and his friends and, hey! he made a good build. As I said in the tavern, I hate it when people say, "YOU HAD AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE!!!" when they get their butts handed to them because the guy they were facing was a brilliant tactician. I've had it happen to me. Look at Kage vs. Anna sometime. Did Kage stand a chance? No. Did I complain. No. I congratulated Jindl on a fight well done. When I have a legit argument that might help, then, yah, I send it in. But saying that someone abuses the rules just because they know them better is not a legit argument. Non mounted characters can win. I have no idea where this argument came from. I've seen non mounted characters take out mounted characters. Again, this just sounds like complaining about how characters who win having unfair advantages. Unless you are nobility and have proof that we are peasents, winning is not an unfair advantage :). I just saw a non-mounted character DESTROY a mounted build, BTW, so forget arguing that point. No offense, Odin. My reason for defending casting builds is that Kage had whooped on them in the past. Granted, they didn't always get off 1/3 of their spells (most of the time they didn't get off 3 spells...) but it does weaken the build a bit. In psionic cases, it just doesn't seem right. And sorcerer's just kinda went down the drain. I'm not gonna argue it anymoe since Cat and Ash seem stalwart in their stand.
Sindorin 02-26-05, 01:51 AM	Along with what OWA said, I'd like to put up a slight disclaimer. I did not create this thread with the intention for it to be a complaint/protest thread. I created it to give myself and others like me a voice. I am glad that people are continuing to post in it after my own confusion has settled. I think Ceres will possibly be just as potent with his new warhorse as he was with the pegasus. I actually was thinking about the 1/3 rule a bit while I ran the match assigned to me this week. The 1/3 rule has not hurt wizards much, but it seriously has hurt the psionic builds. I seriously think we should reopen the discussion to limit the CL or ML on scrolls and power stones.
Snommelp 02-26-05, 02:04 AM	I was unaware that there was a discussion on limiting the CL and ML of scrolls and stones. What's the argument?
Sindorin 02-26-05, 02:19 AM	The original proposition was to limit the ability to purchase, say, a CL 9 Magic Missile Scroll (225 gp). the boundary would be set to either equal to caster level, or caster level +2 being the maximum level of scroll able to be bought. This still would have meant though that at the start you can buy level 3 spell scrolls. The other proposals at this time were making a 5x cost to all consumables, and the 2/3 spell level rule, which evolved to 1/3, and still doesn't help much. If anything, casters do BETTER than they used to nowadays.
Sindorin 02-26-05, 02:23 AM	As a slight addendum to my disclaimer, I would also like to say that I did not create this thread in response TO complaints. I had been contemplating it's creation, but did not feel it was my place to create it. It probably still wasn't, but at least someone did it.
Snommelp 02-26-05, 02:28 AM	Can't say that I like the "fixes" for scrolls, moreso since I don't see scrolls as needing to be fixed anyways. It doesn't fit with the reasons for "fixing" everything else, which is to make things more in line with the play-tested campaign functionality. Scrolls and stones work in CoCo exactly like they work in a campaign: use it once for an advantage, then buy a new one if you want it. As far as casters doing better, I can't say. I came in near the end of the old CoCo, and as far as I knew Cedric was the first caster to lose against a non-caster in a long time. However, it's not surprising if the few casters around are doing better than the old casters. Thanks to the 1/3 rule, people who don't think casters can survive without all of their spells for one fight aren't playing casters; those left over are thinking about their tactics and coming up with good ideas. I don't think casters need any further "nerfing," because they now look balanced with the campaign-tested casters in the PHB.
Snommelp 02-26-05, 02:30 AM	As a slight addendum to my disclaimer, I would also like to say that I did not create this thread in response TO complaints. I had been contemplating it's creation, but did not feel it was my place to create it. It probably still wasn't, but at least someone did it. I am glad you created it, Sin. The quote from Socrates in my sig should tell you how I feel about honest debate.
spasheridan 02-26-05, 02:39 AM	Can't say that I like the "fixes" for scrolls, moreso since I don't see scrolls as needing to be fixed anyways. It doesn't fit with the reasons for "fixing" everything else, which is to make things more in line with the play-tested campaign functionality. Scrolls and stones work in CoCo exactly like they work in a campaign: use it once for an advantage, then buy a new one if you want it. Well, that's not quite how I look at it. In campaign play you actually start in town and head to the monsters.. you don't know how many battles are between now and the next trip to town, so you conserve the wands / potions / scrolls. You use them as a last resort and it's a tough call to choose between saving up for a few more spells in the books or an upgrade on your weapons vs some 1 shot items. In this genre of game the 1 shot items are VERY powerful, maybe too powerful. As far as casters doing better, I can't say. I came in near the end of the old CoCo, and as far as I knew Cedric was the first caster to lose against a non-caster in a long time. However, it's not surprising if the few casters around are doing better than the old casters. Thanks to the 1/3 rule, people who don't think casters can survive without all of their spells for one fight aren't playing casters; those left over are thinking about their tactics and coming up with good ideas. I don't think casters need any further "nerfing," because they now look balanced with the campaign-tested casters in the PHB. I'm on the fence with this rule. Either it doesn't matter because 1/3 of your spells is more then enough for any fight... in which case it's not a limit at all... or else it's just a limit to partial casters (bards and psychics come to mind). We'll see in a few months how it went.
Snommelp 02-26-05, 02:54 AM	Well, that's not quite how I look at it. In campaign play you actually start in town and head to the monsters.. you don't know how many battles are between now and the next trip to town, so you conserve the wands / potions / scrolls. You use them as a last resort and it's a tough call to choose between saving up for a few more spells in the books or an upgrade on your weapons vs some 1 shot items. In this genre of game the 1 shot items are VERY powerful, maybe too powerful. I am inclined to disagree with you, spash. Even here, it's often a tough call on whether or not to use that expensive scroll/potion/stone. If the item is not enough or you fail the caster level check, you could lose the fight and that expensive item. The only difference I see between using the item here and using it in a campaign is that, here, you know exactly how much money you will be recieving from your encounter. However, here you are also forced to make all of your decisions in advance, which negates that advantage somewhat since you can't decide right at the end of the fight "the heck with it" and use that item you were saving for later. If it's an expensive item, I can't think of any pitlord who will use it without permission. It's not worth the trouble it might cause. And I just re-read your post and noticed the "unknown number of fights" bit. Forgive me, but I'm not going to go through that whole big paragraph to decide where to fit my refutation in. While it is true that you do not know in a campaign how many fights you will go through before your next visit to town, you also have the advantage (presumably) that the DM doesn't want to kill your character. Sure, he might if your character does something stupid, but in my experience most DMs want their players to win, with perhaps a few near-death experiences during the "boss" fights. Here in CoCo, you have no nice DM to fudge rolls. In the pitlord's eyes, neither character gets special treatment. One will live, one will die, and all is decided by tactics and the neutral third party: the dice.
spasheridan 02-26-05, 04:32 AM	I agree that there's always a tough choice to be made, how many potions of bull strength should you buy before you get that +2 str glove. DO I want 3 scrolls of invis or a cloak of resistance +1. most other living campaigns price single shot items at 5x cost for balance reasons, we'll see in a few months if that's how gladius should be as well. Even right now, how many matches go by without gladiators usings their a potion or scroll? In my TT games I seem to spend levels without using up a charged item...
Naerdaloth 02-26-05, 08:55 AM	Well, youve brought up a good point. With wizards no longer to cast, theyve turned to scrolls, which incidentally does better at this level. But, where the heck did you get x5 from? Players paying 100gp for a scroll of mage armor?? Anyway, if you block scrolls too, and dont loosen the 1/3 rule, that is nerfing. Its unecessary, because without it what do wizards have left to do? They cant cast, they cant use scrolls... they take out an axe... against a foe that actually has training on how to use an axe... well it doesnt work..
One_Winged_Angel 02-26-05, 10:48 AM	Can't say that I like the "fixes" for scrolls, moreso since I don't see scrolls as needing to be fixed anyways. It doesn't fit with the reasons for "fixing" everything else, which is to make things more in line with the play-tested campaign functionality. Scrolls and stones work in CoCo exactly like they work in a campaign: use it once for an advantage, then buy a new one if you want it. True, but I've found that, among players I play with, these are actually used as a resort. Granted, we work as a party and basically pool our resources. This typically leads not only to an internal debate about whether to use it, but a group discussion as well. As far as casters doing better, I can't say. I came in near the end of the old CoCo, and as far as I knew Cedric was the first caster to lose against a non-caster in a long time. However, it's not surprising if the few casters around are doing better than the old casters. Thanks to the 1/3 rule, people who don't think casters can survive without all of their spells for one fight aren't playing casters; those left over are thinking about their tactics and coming up with good ideas. I don't think casters need any further "nerfing," because they now look balanced with the campaign-tested casters in the PHB. Listen, look at Kage (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=2874698) for a second. Go on, just go to some of his fights. Notice a lot of them are casters. Granted, I didn't win every single one, but I did win a lot. You'll notice his win/loss ratio is better than some of the caster builds. No, Cedric was not the first, last, in between, or even in a long while to lose a caster/fighter match when he was the caster. Kage is not even an anti-caster build! The only piece of equipment he bought to counter casters is that hand of glory. BTW, Sin, I'm inclined to agree that psions 1/3 pp is not equivilant of wizards 1/3 spells. Naerdaloth, you are speaking to the choir with me. If you ban scrolls/powerstones (I like psions better than wizards, in case you didn't already notice), you give unfair advantage to fighters. Kinda like affermative action. Reverse discrimination. Whee, mister wizard gets to cast about, oh, 1 level 2 spell, 2 level 1 spells, then he gets to kill you with ray of frost!?!? I don't know about other's, but in campaigns, I actually gauge my enemy. If it's a tough opponent, then I just MIGHT use all my spells/resources to kill it. If its a choice between death or a spell, I think most people aren't going to say, "Oh, but if I use this potion of Cure Light Wounds now, I won't get it later!" Heck no! They will cast the spell or use the potion to save their lives and worry later if they are going to get killed by something later!
Snommelp 02-26-05, 11:22 AM	Listen, look at Kage (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=2874698) for a second. Go on, just go to some of his fights. Notice a lot of them are casters. Granted, I didn't win every single one, but I did win a lot. You'll notice his win/loss ratio is better than some of the caster builds. No, Cedric was not the first, last, in between, or even in a long while to lose a caster/fighter match when he was the caster. Kage is not even an anti-caster build! The only piece of equipment he bought to counter casters is that hand of glory. Hmm... fair enough. Like I said, I missed much of the old CoCo, so most of my arguments about the "old days" are just regurgitation of what has been told to me. Other than this disparity, I think you and I are in agreement, Sean.
OdinTheReaper 02-26-05, 03:23 PM	Well i can give more spellcaster input after this weeks match Alexis vs Vyncent. Also i didnt even have a clue as to what this was until i asked Sindorin...Ill give you all more input after my match.
OdinTheReaper 02-26-05, 03:29 PM	Where do u find the different CL and ML levels? Im having trouble looking for them. I found some in the spell list but where are the others (i.e. is there a chart?)? Along with what OWA said, I'd like to put up a slight disclaimer. I did not create this thread with the intention for it to be a complaint/protest thread. I created it to give myself and others like me a voice. I am glad that people are continuing to post in it after my own confusion has settled. I think Ceres will possibly be just as potent with his new warhorse as he was with the pegasus. I actually was thinking about the 1/3 rule a bit while I ran the match assigned to me this week. The 1/3 rule has not hurt wizards much, but it seriously has hurt the psionic builds. I seriously think we should reopen the discussion to limit the CL or ML on scrolls and power stones.
Caterane 02-26-05, 03:56 PM	House of Commons: http://home.arcor.de/caterane/Miscellaneous%20Pictures/Students.jpg Elder's Forum: http://maisnam.net/7/bored/001.gif
Huan 02-26-05, 04:33 PM	:heehee
Sindorin 02-26-05, 05:48 PM	Where do u find the different CL and ML levels? Im having trouble looking for them. I found some in the spell list but where are the others (i.e. is there a chart?)? The ML/CL level is always the minimum required level to be able to scribe or cast it - thus a 1st level scroll is CL 1, a 2nd level scroll is CL 3 (because a wizard can scribe it at level 3), and a 3rd level scroll would be CL 5, and you kind of get the idea by looking at the wizard progression table in the class section of the SRD.
Jindl 02-26-05, 06:00 PM	The ML/CL level is always the minimum required level to be able to scribe or cast it - thus a 1st level scroll is CL 1, a 2nd level scroll is CL 3 (because a wizard can scribe it at level 3), and a 3rd level scroll would be CL 5, and you kind of get the idea by looking at the wizard progression table in the class section of the SRD. Well, not always. Unless written otherwise, the CL/ML is assumed to be the minimum required to cast/manifest the spell/power. But it is possible (and common) to buy/craft scrolls of higher than the minimum CL/ML. But remember, regardless of the CL/ML, the ability score associated with the spell/power's saving through remains the minimum score needed to cast/manifest that effect. What some players are complaining about is that casters can use scrolls/powerstones of higher level effects. But it is important to note that this may give short term success but it comes with a long term cost. Those one shots get very expensive. Take a look at the past expenditures of many of the casters, compared to the archers and mounted builds. Where Lissa Longfellow may have used a couple of arrows, the Elder has used almost 2000 gp of items in his past fights. That's a pretty significant difference in wealth. And as we all know, wealth increases power. -Jindl
spasheridan 02-26-05, 06:22 PM	Take a look at the past expenditures of many of the casters, compared to the archers and mounted builds. Where Lissa Longfellow may have used a couple of arrows, the Elder has used almost 2000 gp of items in his past fights. That's a pretty significant difference in wealth. And as we all know, wealth increases power. -Jindl Yes & no. Take the caster build. He has an option, spend no cash and have a poor win chance at low levels. So he'll need 3x the battles to gain levels. OR he can spend lots on early levels with scrolls until he gets to high levels and have the personel power to not need scrolls anymore. After a few levels that 2 or 4 k is chump change, especially if the PC can craft their own items. I think the best comparison is to do a quick "Average" expenditure per battle. I would imagine that most people will consume at least 100gp per fight in potions / scrolls / stuff. SO, if you spend 300gp a fight and WIN you actually come out even because of the 3x reward that a win gives. If you spend 250 gp a fight to win you come out ahead. But, if some builds can actually win consitinly with their expenditure being only arrows then that build wins vs the builds that spend money. Well, youve brought up a good point. With wizards no longer to cast, theyve turned to scrolls, which incidentally does better at this level. But, where the heck did you get x5 from? Players paying 100gp for a scroll of mage armor?? Anyway, if you block scrolls too, and dont loosen the 1/3 rule, that is nerfing. Its unecessary, because without it what do wizards have left to do? They cant cast, they cant use scrolls... they take out an axe... against a foe that actually has training on how to use an axe... well it doesnt work.. The 5x cost for single shot items comes from one of the living campaigns that the RPGA is running. Like I said, we'll find out in a few months what the balance is. If the vast majority of battles are dedided by 1 shot items then 1 shot items are to good. But it'll take a large sample to make that determination
Dalton Onestone 02-26-05, 07:01 PM	Wizards can easily spend 1/3 of the gold or more per level that they are awarded in battle on expendable items. That's even with scribing their own scrolls. That could get up to many thousands of GP in a great hurry. Yes, they can save money by crafting their own permanents. But each 7,000 GP they save (over the 1,000 GP crafting/week limit) causes them to sit out a week. Will my casters sit out a week or two and craft 4 different 4000 GP items at 2000 GP each? Probably, and that may make up for a lot of the consumables used in the first few levels. Will one of them craft 32000 GP of upgrade for 16000 GP, and miss five bouts just to save the 16000 GP (and give up some XP too, by the way)? Probably not.
One_Winged_Angel 02-27-05, 01:11 AM	... ... For the love of all that is good and pure in the world, would either spasheridan or Jindl please change avatars?!?! My little brain just can't take it!!!
Snommelp 02-27-05, 01:16 AM	Heh. I spend most of my waking life confused. Welcome to my world.
TaggIIV 02-27-05, 09:47 AM	I propose that Jindl use green text. ... :D
One_Winged_Angel 02-27-05, 11:51 PM	The 5x cost for single shot items comes from one of the living campaigns that the RPGA is running. Like I said, we'll find out in a few months what the balance is. If the vast majority of battles are dedided by 1 shot items then 1 shot items are to good. But it'll take a large sample to make that determination That is a dumb reason. Ok, so lets take something of an odd case. Lets say that Tagg's Zak starts dominating (which he is) and runs rampent getting a 7-0 record. Following your logic, that means we must ban all half dragons because "they are too powerful." Course, if we ban that, then we have to ban casters past level, oh, 7 or so because that's when they get death spells and they become to powerful. Then, because of that, we need to ban casters altogether because the scrolls they use are too powerful. Then we need to ban archers because they are too powerful. Then we need to ban Barbarians. Then rogues because fighters can't spot. Before you know it, everyone is playing a half-elf bard who cannot have any ranks in perform, scrolls, can't cast magic and has taken the vow of non-violence feat.
Snommelp 02-28-05, 12:29 AM	That is a dumb reason. Ok, so lets take something of an odd case. Lets say that Tagg's Zak starts dominating (which he is) and runs rampent getting a 7-0 record. Following your logic, that means we must ban all half dragons because "they are too powerful." That's not what he's saying, though. If Zak gets a 7-0 record, that means Zak is a good character. If Zak gets a 20-0 record purely based off of his half-dragon-ness, then we should consider that half-dragons may be too powerful.
Pittbull 02-28-05, 08:55 AM	I believed, it's more balanced than the old CoCo. Please do not even think of 5xcost for expandable items. Personally, I hate this idea.
One_Winged_Angel 02-28-05, 11:32 PM	I believed, it's more balanced than the old CoCo. Please do not even think of 5xcost for expandable items. Personally, I hate this idea. Agreed. I think that having a 5x item cost for one shot items is also NOT WELL THOUGHT THROUGH!!! Ok, so we implement a 5x gold cost for one use items. Now, anyone consider how it is that fighters heal/buff themselves. a) Spells b) natural regeneration c) Potions d) They can't with this new rule being considered!!! Answer: Either C or D. Fighter now must pay 250 for a potion of CLW. 500 for a potion of SoF. 1500 for a potion of Aid or Bull's Str. Hmm...yah. That looks good. It'll only retire a few fighters who worry about HP.
Dalton Onestone 03-01-05, 12:04 AM	Suppose five half-dragon characters all run up terrific records. I frankly don't think this will happen. A majority of gladiators at Level 4 can cast Resist Energy, and by Level 5 the pure casters have Protection From Energy, and everybody has enough gold for antienergy potions, and the whole breathweapon thing doesn't really look that scary after all. Take away the breath weapon, and the halfdragons are worthy opponents but not terrifying ones. But suppose it did. One fix might be to ban halfdragons. Another might be to reconsider short-term prebuffs; having a round or three at the start of the bout that can ONLY be spent on buffing might be a good thing anyways. Every class likes an AC or HP booster, at the very minimum. Another might be just to fix win init/win fight. There are lots of ways to deal with proven imbalance. As another example -- if archers as a group become too weak at high levels, make it possible to buy magic ammo in any quantity, rather than just lots of 50. That would help them out some.
spasheridan 03-01-05, 12:24 AM	That is a dumb reason. THe reason you think I said might have been dumb, but not the reason I stated. And, thanks! :pbbbtt: Ok, so lets take something of an odd case. Lets say that Tagg's Zak starts dominating (which he is) and runs rampent getting a 7-0 record. Following your logic, that means we must ban all half dragons because "they are too powerful." OWA, take a breath, calm down, and read what I said. The 5x cost for single shot items comes from one of the living campaigns that the RPGA is running. Like I said, we'll find out in a few months what the balance is. If the vast majority of battles are dedided by 1 shot items then 1 shot items are to good. But it'll take a large sample to make that determination My point is that IF the vast majority of battles (say 3 out of 4) are won SIMPLY by the use of a 1 shot item, and the sample size is large (months of combat, say 300 fights) then we can determine that 1 shot items are too good for their cost. Large sample size, vast majority. Course, if we ban that, then we have to ban casters past level, oh, 7 or so because that's when they get death spells and they become to powerful. Then, because of that, we need to ban casters altogether because the scrolls they use are too powerful. Then we need to ban archers because they are too powerful. Then we need to ban Barbarians. Then rogues because fighters can't spot. Before you know it, everyone is playing a half-elf bard who cannot have any ranks in perform, scrolls, can't cast magic and has taken the vow of non-violence feat. Wow.
Pittbull 03-01-05, 03:21 AM	I have no problem with Half-dragons, they are only realy dangerous when they win the initiative. Casters are at least as dangerous in this level, perhaps even more, but in higher levels for sure. I know, we need mounts in the CoCo, to make the non-casters stronger, but horses become a little bit too important for a successful gladiator. Even for my newest build Laph (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5203480&postcount=161) I'm thinking of buying a warhorse. They bring in additional HP and attacks, but he won't ride it.- Crazy world! All in all, we have to accept, that some builds are stronger than others, but is that so important, does every build need to win all the time?- I would say no. Fun in the CoCo is far beyond winning and losing! PS: Perhaps next week, my pixie will be active. Then the dicussion about "too strong" builds will start again! ;)
Snommelp 03-01-05, 02:23 PM	PS: Perhaps next week, my pixie will be active. Then the dicussion about "too strong" builds will start again! ;) You think your pixie is going to be bad... just wait until you see my ECL 5 creation!
One_Winged_Angel 03-01-05, 09:47 PM	My point is that IF the vast majority of battles (say 3 out of 4) are won SIMPLY by the use of a 1 shot item, and the sample size is large (months of combat, say 300 fights) then we can determine that 1 shot items are too good for their cost. Large sample size, vast majority. Sorry, but the logic seems faulty. I am tired, overtaxed, and my life in general hurts a lot right now (I just started running track again, preparing for AP tests, and I have not been asked to the Sadie Hawkin's dance. :weep: ) Sorry if I sound blunt, but I don't think that this is a good consideration. Maybe a limit on how many can be used per fight, something. If you think about it though, the fact remains that some one shot items are better than others. With the 1/3 spell rule going, casters are in desperate need of expansion. It is highly doubtful that Rex, the raging dwarven barbarian, is going to succumb to a few magic missiles. And when he closes, game over. Out of context, is 60 damage with one attack a record at these levels? The fact is that caster's already pay their gold (and sometimes experience, highly more valuble) in their one shot items. If we increase the gold output, crafting is also more difficult since the XP cost goes up as well. Since the cost only goes up with manifester level, so does the XP cost. In cost/benifit, the ratio is drastically tilted. The fact remains that this just hurt's everyone in the end, not just the casters. Fighters now pay 5x for potions. I don't know about everyone else, but I like being able to heal after I get hit by a fireball without having to pay 250 gp. I also like paying 300 for the ability to enhance one of my stats for 30 rounds as opposed to 1500 for the same benifit. Rogues and elixers of hiding/sneaking are also way, way up. All casters use one shot items. It's something they do. I personally never have a wizard who does not have a good respritore of scrolls on hand in case a situation arises. I once had a wizard who carried no less than 10 scrolls of mage armor to free up space on my spellbook. He used 1/encounter and typically was never strained for gold. This was a real camp. and he did use a one shot item every encounter. BTW, in case you didn't notice, the last was a figure of speach. Most notably, a hyperbole (overstatement, for those of you who hate poetry). I don't think that everything is going to get banned/restricted, and I know that sometimes it's necessary, but this particular doesn't make sense in my mind for the reasons I stated above.
spasheridan 03-01-05, 10:23 PM	Sorry, but the logic seems faulty. I am tired, overtaxed, and my life in general hurts a lot right now (I just started running track again, preparing for AP tests, and I have not been asked to the Sadie Hawkin's dance. :weep: ) Sorry if I sound blunt, but I don't think that this is a good consideration. Maybe a limit on how many can be used per fight, something. If you think about it though, the fact remains that some one shot items are better than others. Sorry about the dance! Everything else aside, are you saying that no matter what, if 90% of all matches are decided by a single 1 shot item, and the other 10% are not decided by a 1 shot item because neither combatant rememberd to take any, you still stick buy your argument that single shot items are not overpowered? Because that's what I'm looking for.. a preponderance of evidence that a single item / class of items is overpowered. If that evidence exists... why would you ignore it? With the 1/3 spell rule going, casters are in desperate need of expansion. It is highly doubtful that Rex, the raging dwarven barbarian, is going to succumb to a few magic missiles. And when he closes, game over. Out of context, is 60 damage with one attack a record at these levels? *SNIP* BTW, in case you didn't notice, the last was a figure of speach. Most notably, a hyperbole (overstatement, for those of you who hate poetry). I don't think that everything is going to get banned/restricted, and I know that sometimes it's necessary, but this particular doesn't make sense in my mind for the reasons I stated above. I wont go through yer post point by point. Let's just say that I didn't have casters OR non-casters in mind when I commented on single shot items, both rely on them. A nerf for single shot items is a nerf for everyone. As far as sarcasm / hyperbole.. toss a smiley face in or some of those silly tags in. It helps!
One_Winged_Angel 03-01-05, 10:46 PM	Sorry about the dance! Everything else aside, are you saying that no matter what, if 90% of all matches are decided by a single 1 shot item, and the other 10% are not decided by a 1 shot item because neither combatant rememberd to take any, you still stick buy your argument that single shot items are not overpowered? Because that's what I'm looking for.. a preponderance of evidence that a single item / class of items is overpowered. If that evidence exists... why would you ignore it? Actually, it's my opinion that this argument will start to fade as time goes on. See, at higher levels, everyone is using one shot items or buying items that do the one shot for them. Caster's will still be using scrolls, though. The fact is that if the tactics take into account one shot items (if mystic would finish the re-run of the half dragon I so often mention, I'll have an example), they can be avioded. Scrolls can be sundered, lit on fire, etc, etc. Like any other spell, they require that a concentration check is made if struck by damage. My point is that we are nerfing something because people don't read other's character's sheets and take measures to avoid stuff. I wont go through yer post point by point. Let's just say that I didn't have casters OR non-casters in mind when I commented on single shot items, both rely on them. A nerf for single shot items is a nerf for everyone. Let's face it. A potion of CLW does not end a match. We are talking about hindering casters. Lets stay on that point. As far as sarcasm / hyperbole.. toss a smiley face in or some of those silly tags in. It helps! What, the half elf bard vow of non-violence who couldn't cast wasn't sufficently dumb sounding enough? Huh. I guess I need to try harder next time. :)
Snommelp 03-01-05, 11:55 PM	You know, this doesn't have to be all or nothing. If we determine eventually that, say, buffing potions are too powerful, we could increase the cost of buffing potions without effecting scrolls or even other potions.
Caterane 03-02-05, 05:38 AM	Making expendable items cost 5 times as much is not going to work and that's not even necessary because Living Gladius will become more and more like a campaign (infact, there will be campaigns eventually). Still, one-shot items and mounts are the items that decide fights at this level. Either your lvl 3 barbarian gets trampled by a heavy warhorse because he foolishly got into melee, or he is killed by 2 barrages of CL 9 magic missiles/energy rays. This however should not be the case. I'd like to see fights being won because of your own abilities. Mounts will be taken care of soon, either with Cellardweller's XP sucking calculation or Jindl's ECL=Mount HD proposal; perhaps both. Expendable Items need to be looked closer at; perhaps it is time to revisit the level cap on scrolls; ECL+2 sounds like a good compromise. In a campaign, you'll seldomly have access to CL 9 scrolls at lvl 3 nor would many DMs hand out such items at this level which takes us away from the reality of D&D. Yes, high CL scrolls/stones are expensive but they make your character win and this in no way can't be the optimal scenario. I still want to discuss this with Ash and the Elders first.
Khaz_Gu 03-03-05, 02:46 AM	Pairings on Thursday of this week? Checks... Well nevermind, taking the week off then.
Caterane 03-06-05, 03:25 PM	For your convenience: Caster Level Cap for Scrolls and Powerstones Happy discussing :)
Sindorin 03-06-05, 03:38 PM	I'll help make it easy for everyone, some of us have trashy internet connections and like to keep things as simple as possible. I am seriously considering a revision of the maximum caster level for scrolls and powerstones. These items have been problematic in the Classic Arena but now they are utterly game-deciding. Wizards win because of their CL 9 Magic missiles, Psionic characters suddenly have 40 hp at lvl 3 because of a cheap vigor powerstone (which they can renew), and dozens of other spells and powers that are way too powerful for such a level. While it is not strictly against the rules to have more powerful spells, no DM would hand out a CL 9 scroll at lvl 3 ...not to mention enough CL 9 scrolls to fight with them every battle! This is not realistic and doesn't confirm the effectivity of your build. In a real campaign you cannot rely on such items. As you can see there are very good arguments for both the balance guys and the real campaign style faction. To me it is pretty obvious that these items need a cap, and soon. From next wednesday on I'll finally have much more time on my hands and will finish the FAQ. It would be good if I have your opinions on that. The question is: what kind of cap? Caster Level = ECL? ECL+2? +x? I see little reason why a scroll should be available in higher versions when tattoos and potions are not. I don't want to see higher caster level scrolls completely barred but we could probably add them to the list of items that can be bought with credits. For those who now say that would be unfair to those that don't moderate, please note that paying 1 credit per custom scroll will get quickly very expensive, is another way to spend credits, encourages to pitlord, and rewards those who do. Ok, please tell me what you think about that The main reason that this has become an issue is because of the 1/3 rule. That discussion has been dealt with and was ruled as fair. I like the possibility of ECL+2. It is like the 1/3 rule. If we go max level = ECL that would be kind of magnifying the 1/3 rule. ECL+2 please. This from the creator of Sokai who has started using ML7 stones of Ego Whip and ML8 stones of Vigor. Cat, when you finsh the updates to the FAQ would you please post them here? I don't think everyone else is quite aware of some of the changes that are being implemented. Thanks for all the hard work!
Snommelp 03-06-05, 04:13 PM	Truthfully, I don't really see them as such a big problem. Granted, I did lose to a wizard who shot me with two level 9 Magic Missiles, but that was because my second PM to T'Var (which stated that I would heal if one of the big missiles hit me) got lost. My only caster is Cedric, though, and he isn't so good with singles combat anyways, so this won't really affect me that much.
Sindorin 05-09-05, 12:23 PM	:bump: Since this thread is mentioned in the FAQ I figured I would bring her back to the top. There aren't really many things to debate at this point in time except for the Arena Reshaping Thread. If anyone comes up with something, feel free to ask or post here or wherever you would normally :).
Sindorin 05-09-05, 12:33 PM	Okay, one thing I have noticed that is different than before - Guilds. With the first appearance of an 'organization' in Living Gladius, we are presented with a less-sanctioned guild that is totally focused on roleplaying. The East Habari Trading Company (or The Enlightened Ones) seems to have more members than our old guilds ever did. Also, the simple prerequisite is "any evil alignment". Compared to the old way of doing guilds (putting it together and then submitting a request to the guild master), is this better or worse? IMO, it serves the same purpose that the old guilds did with a bit more flexibility. In a sense it is giving non-credit people a chance to roleplay their characters more effectively while not being fully able to send their PC's on quests. If anyone has an opinion about this (or even cares at all ;)) feel free to comment or respond.
King Uther 05-10-05, 04:04 PM	Well, I am new to this and didn't think there would be any real protocol. And the main purpose of it is for roleplay, to make Living Gladius more...living. And I think in the weeks following it will definitely do that. Especially if a couple of other guilds surface. I hope the idea of a manipulative evil guild making secret changes within Gladius society becomes a welcome addition to the overall storyline. It's been fun so far.
SoulLord 06-17-05, 11:40 AM	Okay guys, I really do need some help here, so I am going to have to expand this one. First off, go look at my previous post on this same topic to see the beginning of this. This is going to be the rest of that discussion and some of my thoughts on it. Favored Enemy grants: +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills against creatures of this type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against such creatures. Scenario <sniped> Questions Question 1: Does the use of Alter Self negate the +2 bonus from Favored Enemy? i.e. - Does Theron lose his +2 boni vs Cormac? Question 2a: If Q1 = Yes, then explain why mental skills would no longer get a bonus considering that underneath the new exterior the personality is still the same as the base race. Human looking Cormac still thinks like an Elf, so shouldn't Theron still get +2 bonus to Bluff and sense Motive? Although he looks different, the way he moves and acts would still be the same as an elf. Question 2b: If Q1 = No, then explain why physical aspects would still get a bonus considering that the physical body is completely different from the Favored Enemy creature type; how does a Ranger proficient in hunting Elves get a +2 bonus on Listening, Spoting, [Tracking] or Damaging a race that he is not used to? Question 2c: If Q1 = Partial, would you agree with the following statement, or something similar? Regarding Rangers & Favored Enemies: When a Favored Enemy changes into another form, the Ranger retains their Favored Enemy bonus to Bluff and Sense Motive, but loses all others. Conversely, when a creature changes form into another form that is of a Rangers Favored Enemy, the Ranger will only get their Favored Enemy Bonus to Listen, Spot, Survival and Damage. Notes 1.- favored enemy is an EX ability 2.- alter self " You retain all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels." heres a good link that explains this http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040518a so. 1.-NO 2.- it is not very clear here but if you know where to strike an elven body better. 'the heart is a little bit more to the center than in other races' if your enemy is currently in lizard form, your knowledage of where to hit their vital organs would no longer apply
Tellish_of_Ket 06-26-05, 02:54 PM	I may be posting in a place i'm not allowed, just curious if i can also post my opinion here. Curious minds want to know. Kelek
Caterane 06-26-05, 03:00 PM	The House of Commons is open for everyone. It is the "Elders Discussion Forum" for non-Elders. Ex-GMs are of course invited to post in the Elders Forum ;)
King Uther 06-26-05, 11:54 PM	Well, I'm not very special and get to post opinions here. Hmmmm....I think by far and wide watermelons are a good fruit.
SoulLord 06-27-05, 09:56 AM	But you have to take into account all the sugar the watermelons have. If you intend to lose some weight it would not be advisable to eat them.
Caterane 06-29-05, 03:04 PM	Hey guys, you're invited to join the discussion about Diplomacy or Corpses here. I'm sure you have some good ideas on your own.
Luni 06-29-05, 06:18 PM	From Diplomacy Discusion e) The alignment of the ally must be within one step of yours, and must match at least one aspect of your alignment. There might be other limitations, for example, certain races might not work together (elf/drow, githyanki/githzerai, etc) while other receive boni even (githyanki/red dragon). I'm certain a LG dwarf, and a CG elf could work together, even though they are 2 steps apart. About Undead, I think you should just use the standard race for undead, not a 25 point buy or Elite array. Maybe if you want an Elite Array corpse, you should quest for it.
Zerone 06-29-05, 07:20 PM	Concerning Diplomacy vs. Handle Animal... Diplomacy is for PC vs. NPC, not PC vs. PC. PC to PC is the Leadership feat, or role playing. Let me explain... Deinonychus (CR3) vs. Pegasus (CR3) Which one do you choose and by what method (for example you are a LG whatever)? Deino: Doesn't care about alignment and only needs a +9 HA or a +? Dip. Pegasus: Needs +25 HA, or +7 Leadership, or the same if not easier +? Dip as the Deino because your alignments are closer. Or am I missing something? *•. Z