| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Sindorin04-13-05, 12:31 PM | Hier gehen wir wieder! Erinnern Sie sich, an NETT ZU SEIN!!!!111eins |
| Salzorin04-13-05, 12:46 PM | germans have taken over Sindorin! ZOMG! |
| Snommelp04-13-05, 06:07 PM | Ja... was Er gesagt hat... I'm slowly forgetting my German... do you capitalize pronouns, or just nouns? |
| Sindorin04-13-05, 06:21 PM | hehe, only nouns |
| Snommelp04-13-05, 07:19 PM | hmm... just noticed that Don Quixote has Improved Overrun, but not its prerequisite, Power Attack. It's not too late to edit, is it? |
| Snommelp04-13-05, 07:32 PM | Silence... I'll take that as a "yes, you're too late." I will therefore announce right here and right now that Don Quixote will be switching out his illegal Improved Overrun in favor of Quick Draw. I will be sure to PM my pitlord and opponent, as well. |
| Pitlords04-13-05, 07:58 PM | @Sindorin: :cool: PAIRINGS DONE Characters on Quests: Rook Devange (Huan) and Fyhir (Spasheridan) seek mithral and knowledge: Jindl Characters otherwise occupied: Uhmentarymster (Caterane) upgrades his cloak of resistance to +2 Characters training animals: Archangel Ixenthor (Caterane) trains 'seek' to Umbrahlok the Direbat The Ripper (Xanadu) trains 'seek' to Fleshgrinder the Direbat Arena Fights: Level 3 Aramil Belha’doon (Aramil Dunskar) vs Gareth Irontower (Malither76): OneWingedAngel En'Sidious Nyte (Arstimis) vs Brilf Zephyr (Sunwolf): Caterane Brogan Galanodel (bgt) vs Don Quixote de la Mancha (Snommelp): Jstorrie Cloudy Sky (Captain Mutilate) vs Eiletha Surion (Kaigan): Zyme86 Inquisitor Valorum (Captain Mutilate) vs Decius Oduran (Kingside Bishop): Spasheridan Dr.Hobo (Cerebus13) vs Salrantol os`du'Vakt (Salrantol): Captain Mutilate Griff Mythral (Iced) vs Azer Gyuriha (PsychicStrider): Xanadu Zasko Kesferon (Jstorrie) vs Cyalin Orndrill (King Uther): Cerebus13 Keth'Arian'Kari (One_Winged_Angel) vs Cedric Fischer (Snommelp): Iced Hagrid II (Pittbull) vs Telveran Trueblade (Sunwolf): Kaigan Horthek Bolgimzak (Salrantol) vs Rakkar the Reckless (Xanadu): Iced Hisoka the Clown (Salzorin) vs Daka (Zyme86): OneWingedAngel Level 4 [Finael Owlguide (Spasheridan) out (# of PCs)] Arthemus Arctus (Arstimis) vs Nell Leonne (Huan): Iced Trokk the Eviscerator (Megrim Lord) vs Nyphanalith (TaggIIV): Xanadu Rex the Kuldjargh (Stinkygoblin) vs The Ripper (Xanadu): Kaigan Level 5 Grakk Mightyfist (Aramil Dunskar) vs Legion (Spasheridan): Jindl Mer-Man (Caterane) vs Azriel (One_Winged_Angel): TaggIIV Indri'ynar Per-El'ereth (Caterane) vs Boraxx (Pittbull): OneWingedAngel Aeluath Dryearraheal (Kaigan) vs Sokai Calanis (Sindorin): OneWingedAngel Zubair Suhaim (KerlanRayne) vs Ceres Solus (Sindorin): Caterane Level 6 Eniolissaryn the Elder (Jindl) vs Rayos Atess (Kaigan): Huan Jindl of the High Forest (Jindl) vs Laph Jeirehneen (Pittbull): Spasheridan Send 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 where Cellardweller is right now. Late penalties after that deadline, and another one if you don't post the fight at all. If you cannot run your fight please tell us so that it can be reassigned. No late penalties in case of reassignment. Credit Changes: Credits for running fights: +4: OneWingedAngel +3: Iced +2: Caterane, Kaigan, Spasheridan, Xanadu +1: Jindl, Huan, Tagg, Cerebus, Zyme, Mutilate, Jstorrie Credits for quests: +2: Jindl -1: Huan, Spasheridan Credits for active characters: -1: Caterane, Kaigan, Pittbull Special Credits: +1: Caterane (admin) Overall Credit Changes: +4: OneWingedAngel +3: Jindl, Iced +2: Caterane, Xanadu +1: Tagg, Cerebus, Kaigan, Zyme, Mutilate, Spasheridan, Jstorrie +0: Huan -1: Pittbull Notes: Due to the board downtime, I had to roll the lvl 3 pairings offline so I cannot guarantee that there are no rematches. The higher level pairings were also difficult to roll because the boards were very unreliable today. I hope there are no mistakes. It's also past 2 AM here :/ Honorable mentionings go to Aramil Dunskar's story about Inquisitor Valorum vs Telveran Trueblade. Small but nice. There's also a place for Sean's Uhmentarymster vs Aeiou where I had the luck to have a character in there. Thanks for writing these stories! Ok no big speech today except: Seid nett zueinander :) Cat @Arti: It's april, not may! |
| Megrim_Lord04-13-05, 08:23 PM | Xanadu, trokk's tactics are sent via PM |
| Sunwolf04-13-05, 08:30 PM | En'Sidious Nyte (Arstimis) vs Brilf Zephyr (Sunwolf) Brilf got this guy last week. Sigh. If noone else got a rematch, I guess I'll have to try to come up with better tactics this week.... Darn rogues :eek: @Cat -- thanks for the effort and hope you get a good nights rest. |
| Snommelp04-13-05, 08:33 PM | Tactics have been sent, but I'll offer up my gladiators to trade opponents with Brilf if you need it. They don't have rematches, though, so anyone else who does should probably get priority. Feat correction also sent to opponent and pitlord. |
| Aramil Dunskar04-13-05, 09:23 PM | @Caterane: I'm sure you just skipped me or something, but just to let you know, I should be on the credit changes list for running 2 fights. ;) Which I think also meant that you forgot to give me any fights to run... oh well... I'm available to run any fights if someone can't do one. Let me know. -Aramil |
| Aramil Dunskar04-13-05, 09:26 PM | Honorable mentionings go to Aramil Dunskar's story about Inquisitor Valorum vs Telveran Trueblade. Small but nice. If either of you like, I could write up a bigger story. Just let me know. -Aramil |
| Aramil Dunskar04-13-05, 09:55 PM | @Jindl: Tatics for Grakk sent to you via pm. @OWA: Tatics for Aramil sent to you via pm. -Aramil |
| Salrantol04-13-05, 10:16 PM | @Captain Mutilate: Tactics sent for Salrantol os`du'Vakt via e-mail. @Iced: Tactics sent for Horthek Bolgimzak via e-mail. Maybe having tactics will help me. :rolleyes: |
| jstorrie04-13-05, 11:48 PM | @Cat: I didn't request my PC Aularyth be marked as inactive. Can he get a pairing, or is he odd man out this week? |
| Pittbull04-14-05, 02:51 AM | @Cat/Pitlord: Boraxx hasn't been ready, but now he's paired, so you get the fight! |
| Pitlords04-14-05, 07:17 AM | En'Sidious Nyte (Arstimis) vs Brilf Zephyr (Sunwolf) Brilf got this guy last week. Sigh. As I said, I had to roll the level 3 league offline. Sorry :( I promise you won't see him again for some time ;) @Caterane: I'm sure you just skipped me or something, but just to let you know, I should be on the credit changes list for running 2 fights. ;) Which I think also meant that you forgot to give me any fights to run... oh well... I'm available to run any fights if someone can't do one. Let me know. -Aramil Indeed. You can have one from Owa. He has 4 fights. Hisoka the Clown (Salzorin) vs Daka (Zyme86): OneWingedAngel Aramil @Cat: I didn't request my PC Aularyth be marked as inactive. Can he get a pairing, or is he odd man out this week? Your headline says: Ready for Wednesday, April 6th If anyone wants to get paired with August, he should speak now or be silent forever :D @Cat/Pitlord: Boraxx hasn't been ready, but now he's paired, so you get the fight! :cool: |
| Sunwolf04-14-05, 08:38 AM | If either of you like, I could write up a bigger story. Just let me know. -Aramil If you have the time and inclination to write up a bigger story, I would certainly like that. Sunwolf |
| Pittbull04-14-05, 08:43 AM | @Kagain/OWA: The tactics of my gladiators have been sent to you via E-Mail. @Spash: Would you roll initiative in advance for the Jindl vs. Laph rematch. Again Jindl, grrr, is there any more dangerous opponent for Laph in this league? :( |
| Captain Mutilate04-14-05, 08:45 AM | Ach du Lieber! (did I say that right? I know one other German word, and that's against the CoC... well... two.) Kopf? |
| Jindl04-14-05, 10:36 AM | @Cat: I didn't request my PC Aularyth be marked as inactive. Can he get a pairing, or is he odd man out this week?Your headline says: Ready for Wednesday, April 6th If anyone wants to get paired with August, he should speak now or be silent forever :D I can set Anna ready to face Aularyth. -Jindl |
| Jindl04-14-05, 11:12 AM | @Huan - Would you please roll init for the Elder vs Rayos? -Jindl |
| Pittbull04-14-05, 11:23 AM | I can set Anna ready to face Aularyth. -Jindl And here is my dice! :dice: I'll do the pitlord, if you want. No need to hurry, I'll run the fight on monday. |
| Huan04-14-05, 11:27 AM | Rolled here (http://krisinchico.brinkster.net/searchroll.asp?username=Elder_vs_Rayos): Elder: 6 Rayos: 18 |
| Cerebus1304-14-05, 12:01 PM | Sent off my tactics for this week to Captain Mutilate via email. I have recieved tactics from jstorrie so far via PM, but haven't gotten anything from King Uther yet. Edit: Uther is on the ball and just sent em to me via PM :). |
| King Uther04-14-05, 12:21 PM | @Cerebus13: Tactics for CYalin Orndrill have been sent via PM |
| Jindl04-14-05, 12:48 PM | Rolled here (http://krisinchico.brinkster.net/searchroll.asp?username=Elder_vs_Rayos): Elder: 6 Rayos: 18 Hrm, the Elder got a natural 1! ... well, I guess you can see why I called it "unlucky 13". I don't think its coincidence that his 13th fight was paired on the 13th day of the month. I'm gonna go get my lucky rabbit's foot now ... |
| Jindl04-14-05, 12:53 PM | @Pitlords - For your convenience (to add Anna back to the roster for her pairing this week against Aularyth). Anna (Jindl) [Power: 1100 (1100); 1 won, 0 lost] (I'm not sure what happened to her old link on the roster. Hopefully she won't disappear again ;)) |
| Pitlords04-14-05, 12:57 PM | New Pairing: Aularyth the August (Jstorrie) vs Anna (Jindl): Pittbull and a new pitlord: En'Sidious Nyte (Arstimis) vs Brilf Zephyr (Sunwolf): Caterane Aramil Dunskar Credit Changes: Cat-1, Jindl-1, Pittbull+1, Aramil+1 @Pitlords - For your convenience (to add Anna back to the roster for her pairing this week against Aularyth). Anna (Jindl) [Power: 1100 (1100); 1 won, 0 lost] (I'm not sure what happened to her old link on the roster. Hopefully she won't disappear again ) Don't worry, I save every deleted character including Powerrating and all. She has been deleted because of inactivity. |
| xanadu04-14-05, 01:08 PM | @ Megrim_Lord - got your tactics @ all my other gladiators, I am going away this weekend, if you can get tactics to me earlier, that would be most appreciated. |
| Sindorin04-14-05, 01:34 PM | Tactics for Ceres PM'd to Caterane... hopefully Ceres' record won't influence the fight or anything. ;) Tactics for Sokai emailed to One_Winged_Angel. If anyone needs to give up a fight, I can pick one up for this weekend if needed! |
| Pittbull04-14-05, 01:57 PM | @Spash: Would you roll initiative in advance for the Jindl vs. Laph rematch. Again Jindl, grrr, is there any more dangerous opponent for Laph in this league? :( Only as a reminder. :) Writing tactic against a Jindl-character is always so exhausting,.... I need a drink...., tactics will be sent tomorrow. |
| Jindl04-14-05, 02:07 PM | Only as a reminder. :) Writing tactic against a Jindl-character is always so exhausting,.... I need a drink...., tactics will be sent tomorrow. Try writing tactics against a pixie sometime ... yeesh!! |
| Sunwolf04-14-05, 02:54 PM | @Kaigan tactics for Telveran sent by email |
| Aramil Dunskar04-14-05, 03:23 PM | So I have 2 fights and a story to right over the weekend, nice. This should solve my usually boring weekends :D Fights: Hisoka the Clown (Salzorin) vs Daka (Zyme86): OneWingedAngel En'Sidious Nyte (Arstimis) vs Brilf Zephyr (Sunwolf): Caterane Story: Inquisitor Valorum vs Telveran Trueblade -Aramil |
| Cerebus1304-14-05, 04:10 PM | An odd question: What type of action is required in order to use the Track feat in combat? Is it a standard/move/full round/free action? Or something else? The SRD is rather cryptic here with no more useful input than this: To find tracks or to follow them for 1 mile requires a successful Survival check. You must make another Survival check every time the tracks become difficult to follow. You move at half your normal speed (or at your normal speed with a -5 penalty on the check, or at up to twice your normal speed with a -20 penalty on the check). The DC depends on the surface and the prevailing conditions, as given on Table: Track DC. It tells you have fast you can move while tracking, but not what action is required :(. |
| Sunwolf04-14-05, 04:12 PM | @Aramil Tactics for Brilf sent by email and PM |
| Aramil Dunskar04-14-05, 04:21 PM | Story for Valorum and Telveran is up! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=5912727#post5912727) It's not that long, but I still think it's pretty good. @Sunwolf: Tatics recieved. -Aramil |
| spasheridan04-14-05, 05:07 PM | DIce will be rolled late tonight, sorry! |
| Caterane04-14-05, 05:10 PM | @Sindorin: You mean I could run Ceres the Most Lucky One with extreme prejudice and hateful longing for just vengeance? :devil: @Cerebus: It's part of your movement although you can only move at half speed. |
| Sindorin04-14-05, 05:36 PM | I guess we'll just have to see what Mr. Kirischinco.net online roller has to say for you :) |
| Caterane04-14-05, 06:21 PM | Pfft, Sindorin doesn't trust me :noway: I use the online roller in most of my fights anyway but I tell you, another lucky match of yours and the world ends in a cloud of illogicality :eek: PS: Vacuum Elemental Dice sounds way cooler than krzsischniko :cool: |
| jstorrie04-14-05, 06:38 PM | @Cerebus13 & Pittbull: tactics for Zasko and Aularyth sent. @snommelp: tactics for Don Quixote received. @bgt: still waiting on tactics for Brogan. |
| Sindorin04-14-05, 07:10 PM | Pfft, Sindorin doesn't trust me :noway: I use the online roller in most of my fights anyway but I tell you, another lucky match of yours and the world ends in a cloud of illogicality :eek: PS: Vacuum Elemental Dice sounds way cooler than krzsischniko :cool: I only said that because that's what I thought you used, I wasn't saying that I wanted you to use it. I trust you :) |
| Kingside_Bishop04-14-05, 07:13 PM | @ spasheridan: Tactics for Decius Oduran (vs. Inquisitor Valorum) PMd. |
| spasheridan04-14-05, 07:55 PM | @jindl- tactics for legion will be sent late tonight. Any chance you could roll init for him? @my gladiators: Tactics recieved. Kingside, plz respond to my questions when you get a chance. @Init Jindl: 17+1 = 18 Laph: 10+7 = 17 |
| Salzorin04-14-05, 11:38 PM | @OneWingedAngel - Tactics for Hisoka the Clown have been sent. Sorry for the delay. |
| Caterane04-15-05, 12:51 AM | I only said that because that's what I thought you used, I wasn't saying that I wanted you to use it. I trust you :) :evillaugh Ok, enough stupid talk. Tactics sent for Indri and Mer-Man. Received Zubair and Ceres. Good luck to all four characters |
| Salzorin04-15-05, 01:22 AM | Just noticed on page one that you reassigned the Hisoka vs. Daka fight to Aramil... whoops. @OWA - sorry for sending you the tactics by mistake @Aramil - tactics for Hisoka have been sent |
| Pittbull04-15-05, 03:35 AM | @jindl- tactics for legion will be sent late tonight. Any chance you could roll init for him? @my gladiators: Tactics recieved. Kingside, plz respond to my questions when you get a chance. @Init Jindl: 17+1 = 18 Laph: 10+7 = 17 Thanks, wrong result, but still a great help. That'll save us much time. :) Tactics will be sent this afternoon. |
| Malither7604-15-05, 03:40 AM | @one_winged_angel tactics for Gareth Irontower were emailed |
| Huan04-15-05, 09:02 AM | *steps out of shadows* @Iced Tactics for Nell sent. *steps back into shadows and remains quiet...* |
| Jindl04-15-05, 11:09 AM | @jindl- tactics for legion will be sent late tonight. Any chance you could roll init for him? Legion: 11 +1 = 12 |
| Pittbull04-15-05, 11:21 AM | @Spash: Laph's tactic has been sent! |
| Cerebus1304-15-05, 12:26 PM | ECL 3 - Zasko Kesferon vs. Cyalin Orndrill (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5949500&postcount=1467) is up, and boy is the online dice roller tired. I hate spot so much I swear any new toons I make will poke out their own eyes :P. As always if you have any comments/questions/concerns let me know immediately by posting a reply here, PMing me, or emailing me and I'll try to work out a solution. |
| Zyme8604-15-05, 12:39 PM | Still waiting for captain's mutalates tatics |
| TaggIIV04-15-05, 01:32 PM | Tactics for Nyphanalith PMd to Xanadu. Also, I finished this new character (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5546443&postcount=217). I know its a little late but if any other ECL 3 player would want to fight him this week still with a willing pitlord that would be cool. Otherwise I'll just wait until Wednesday. :p |
| spasheridan04-15-05, 01:45 PM | Legion: 11 +1 = 12 Just mine? What about Graak? Did I need to say "could you roll for both of us?" :p |
| King Uther04-15-05, 02:00 PM | In my tactics I listed that if my wolf didn't trip him I'd cast True Strike on myself before using Scorching Ray. Just wondering why that wasn't done...... |
| Jindl04-15-05, 02:08 PM | Just mine? What about Graak? Did I need to say "could you roll for both of us?" :p LOL :-> Grakk: 16 +3 = 19 |
| Salzorin04-15-05, 03:09 PM | "With that finished he resorts to attacking Z directly with magic and cast's True Strike [CL 3] from memory. Forgot C was out of spells at this point so he does nothing this round instead." Looks like he was going to use true strike as per the tactics, but that your character had already used up his spell levels available in combat |
| Aramil Dunskar04-15-05, 03:11 PM | LOL :-> Grakk: 16 +3 = 19 Initiative? Did I miss something? :confused: |
| Salzorin04-15-05, 03:12 PM | Looks like you hit even without the true strike though, so I guess it doesn't really matter. |
| King Uther04-15-05, 04:19 PM | But even so I shouldn't have been out of spells, unless I misunderstand the 1/3 rule. Keep in mind also after becoming visible and knowing I would be targeted, my tactics explicitly say I'd use a scroll to return to invisibility. Maybe I am nitpicking, especially since I believe the fight was run rather smoothly, barring the terrible luck I displayed. Essentially I was relying on my summons to take care of him, with a backup of killing him myself while trying to say out of danger as much as possible. Rebuke me if I am wrong. I am new and still learning, after all. |
| Jindl04-15-05, 04:28 PM | Initiative? Did I miss something? :confused: Just rolling init for Grakk and Legion as requested. Feel free to modify your tactics based upon the knowledge that Grakk won init. |
| spasheridan04-15-05, 04:32 PM | @King Uther: Looks like you get: 2*2nd + 4*1st = 4+4=8 spell levels/day. 8/3 = 2.66, rounded to 3 spell levels a match. You cast: Invisibility (2nd level) & Summon I (1st level) for a total of 3 spell levels from memory. SO, you're all out of spells and nothing left for true strike. Keep in mind also after becoming visible and knowing I would be targeted, my tactics explicitly say I'd use a scroll to return to invisibility I'll stay out of this ... :D |
| Kaigan04-15-05, 04:52 PM | All tactics sent, all tactics received |
| jstorrie04-15-05, 05:55 PM | In my tactics I listed that if my wolf didn't trip him I'd cast True Strike on myself before using Scorching Ray. Just wondering why that wasn't done...... It looks like he ran out of spell levels, and thus didn't have a true strike available to cast at that point. |
| Cerebus1304-15-05, 06:20 PM | I got rather busy at work today so couldn't look to see any replies to this, but I've realized that I shouldn't have skipped Cyalin's turn when I realized he was out of spells. I'm going to rerun from that point keeping as many rolls paired with the correct results as possible, and just throw out ones that are no longer needed. At King Uther's recommendation I will attempt to have him invis again first as well. |
| spasheridan04-15-05, 06:29 PM | what could he have done that turn? His opponent was still invisible... |
| Cerebus1304-15-05, 06:56 PM | He has see invisibility on him, and according to his tactics he is supposed to recast invis if his opponent can target him. |
| Cerebus1304-15-05, 07:32 PM | Question: Does casting a spell with a verbal component (from a scroll OR from memory) count as a "Person is Talking: DC 0" for a listen check? |
| Jindl04-15-05, 07:33 PM | Question: Does casting a spell with a verbal component (from a scroll OR from memory) count as a "Person is Talking: DC 0" for a listen check? Yes. |
| jstorrie04-15-05, 07:34 PM | Cerebus, when you do the rounds, keep in mind that Cyalin (nor any-nonmonkone else) does not threaten with his unarmed strike. There were a couple points where you gave flanking bonuses and unarmed strike AoO's. Also, where was his familiar during this match? Zasko doesn't have one, but did Cyalin bring his? If so, his familiar could have been making Listen/Spots too. |
| Cerebus1304-15-05, 07:35 PM | Sigh, more changes to this fight :(. Edit: Doh, forgot that unarmed guys don't threaten. I'll adjust for that. He never mentioned the familiar so I allowed him to have it carried in his clothing, giving him the Alertness feat but not allowing it to do anything. |
| Aramil Dunskar04-15-05, 09:22 PM | Just rolling init for Grakk and Legion as requested. Feel free to modify your tactics based upon the knowledge that Grakk won init. Nah, keep with my tatics. -Aramil |
| Cerebus1304-15-05, 09:38 PM | Fight has been modified to make up for the True Strike mistake, Listen checks of DC 0 when casting, and to use Cyalin's tactic of recasting invisibility. The result is basically still the same as Zasko was able to get off the same Scorching Ray at Cyalin, but he had to pass a 51+ concealment roll this time. He passed it and the critical still occured. Zasko was able to locate Cyalin easier than I thought while he was casting because the DC to listen to someone speaking is 0. Cyalin was forced to cast his last summon at a distance of 30' or less because the range on the summon is very short...so he would want to try and summon it adjacent to Zasko. Any further distance away and the summon would likely spend more time moving and tracking Zasko than attacking him. If there are any other questions/concerns please post here or email me...the boards are being rather crappy today so an email may be the best method. |
| Jindl04-16-05, 10:01 AM | @Pittbull - Tactics for Anna have been PM'd. @Huan/Spasheridan - I'm working on tactics for JotHF and the Elder now. @Spasheridan/Aramil - Tactics for Grakk and Legion have been recieved. -Jindl |
| Caterane04-16-05, 11:16 AM | Zubair vs Ceres |
| Aramil Dunskar04-16-05, 12:24 PM | Just wonderin, how did I do on my story that I wrote for Valorum vs Telveran? -Aramil |
| Captain Mutilate04-16-05, 12:57 PM | Wonderful! Delightful! The best thing since sliced bread! An excellent story for a one-attack battle. :P >claps< |
| Jindl04-16-05, 01:25 PM | Tactics for the Elder have been PM'd. Finishing up tactics for JotHF now... and the tactics for JotHF have been PM'd. -Jindl |
| Snommelp04-16-05, 04:25 PM | Zyme86, Salzorin, and Aramil Dunskar: all three of you will probably be interested to take note of the problems that I have found on Daka's character sheet. Some of them may be fixable for this fight, Aramil, and hopefully none of the violations will be so great as to completely ruin Daka's plans for the fight. |
| xanadu04-17-05, 12:28 AM | Trokk vs. Naphanalith (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5962558) is up. Added a backstory which I hope fits what Megrim had in mind for Trokk and Trokk's feelings over a previous fight and hence, his tactics. Gold is power; this fight is a classic example. |
| xanadu04-17-05, 03:15 AM | griff vs. Azer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5963367) is up as well. A llllooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnggggg fight I tried to invigorate with a backstory about the gambling that goes on at Gladius and the view of the disgruntled fan. Also, Griff resorted to some shall we say unusual tactics towards then end that I'd think are unprecedented. Err, forgot about vigor. Editing. Ok, it is done. 55 rounds and I had to do a lot of thinking! I think I deserve an extra credit :D Seriously. My story got tanked so I'll fix that tomorrow. Someone might want to make sure I didn't make a critical mistake. 55 rounds is long and I'm tired. |
| TaggIIV04-17-05, 09:25 AM | @Xanadu: Don't forget his potion of invisibility added to his expenditure list. ;) That pops the total up to.. 1550gp for a total net of gold in the fight of -350gp. >_> :D Nevertheless, I thought the fight was well run |
| xanadu04-17-05, 12:57 PM | @Xanadu: Don't forget his potion of invisibility added to his expenditure list. ;) That pops the total up to.. 1550gp for a total net of gold in the fight of -350gp. >_> :D Nevertheless, I thought the fight was well run Ahh quite right. Will do, thanks. |
| King Uther04-17-05, 05:29 PM | So I learned a lot this week. Quick question for everyone: What are the rules for resetting initiative? The round I got knocked unconscious the initiative reset and I didn't get my action. Round 24 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5949500&postcount=1467 |
| One_Winged_Angel04-17-05, 05:40 PM | Aeluath vs. Sokai is now posted. |
| Cerebus1304-17-05, 05:52 PM | So I learned a lot this week. Quick question for everyone: What are the rules for resetting initiative? The round I got knocked unconscious the initiative reset and I didn't get my action. Round 24 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5949500&postcount=1467 Ready and Delay actions can reset initiative. |
| jstorrie04-17-05, 06:23 PM | @bgt: still waiting on tactics for Brogan... |
| King Uther04-17-05, 06:24 PM | Yeah, I didn't even think about it. But I sure like waffles. |
| Pittbull04-18-05, 05:59 AM | Anna vs. Auralyth (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5970997&postcount=1473) is posted! |
| jstorrie04-18-05, 06:34 AM | @Pittbull: Aularyth's tactics hadn't broken down at the point where you started playing him for himself - he was specifically set to grapple if he couldn't sunder, and was within range to attempt to grapple. Would you mind changing his action in Round 6 to reflect that? |
| Pittbull04-18-05, 06:39 AM | @Pittbull: Aularyth's tactics hadn't broken down at the point where you started playing him for himself - he was specifically set to grapple if he couldn't sunder, and was within range to attempt to grapple. Would you mind changing his action in Round 6 to reflect that? Since you didn't realize that you can't sunder with a longspear, I decided that Aularyth doesn't know that either, I decided that he realizes that during the action and directed the attack to Anna not to the x-bow. There was no chance to grapple her, because he attacked from 10ft reach, which was necessary for the Longspear. In the next round he would have grappled her. |
| jstorrie04-18-05, 06:50 AM | That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but it's your call. Thanks for pitlording the match! |
| Sunwolf04-18-05, 09:05 AM | @Pittbull One comment on the Anna Vs Auralyth fight. Anna needs to active the wand of true strike with the Use Magic Devices skill since Truestrike is not on the Paladin spell list. Dunno if you did that roll since I didn't see it listed. Her skill is +8 vs a DC 20 so it shouldn't be too hard but it is not automatic. On the other hand, she would have hit on her first shot anyway so I don't believe it alters the fight whether she actived the wand or not except for resource usage. |
| Pittbull04-18-05, 09:28 AM | @Pittbull One comment on the Anna Vs Auralyth fight. Anna needs to active the wand of true strike with the Use Magic Devices skill since Truestrike is not on the Paladin spell list. Dunno if you did that roll since I didn't see it listed. Her skill is +8 vs a DC 20 so it shouldn't be too hard but it is not automatic. On the other hand, she would have hit on her first shot anyway so I don't believe it alters the fight whether she actived the wand or not except for resource usage. UMD: 12+8=20 (http://krisinchico.brinkster.net/searchroll.asp?username=a&a+#159000) You're right, I forgot that. Thanks! With the result of 20 nothing changes in the fight, but the roll has been added. |
| Huan04-18-05, 09:46 AM | Bare-bones of Rayos vs Elder (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5971685) is up. Short version: :mymy: |
| Jindl04-18-05, 10:49 AM | @Huan - Rayos can't fire a ranged weapon at the Elder if the Elder is hidden. From the PHB, pg 139: "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." Hidden means no LOS. Rayos would have to spot the Elder before shooting. -Jindl |
| Huan04-18-05, 11:10 AM | @Huan - Rayos can't fire a ranged weapon at the Elder if the Elder is hidden. From the PHB, pg 139: "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." Hidden means no LOS. Rayos would have to spot the Elder before shooting. -Jindl Well, was Elder really "Hiding"? He had total concealment, yes, and from that Rayos could not have attacked him, but he still could have attacked the square you were in. The SRD says: You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. Rayos did not need a LOS ... only a Line of Effect. |
| Sunwolf04-18-05, 11:14 AM | I would guess that the question is "Can a gladiator be hidden even if he hasn't acted yet?" In this case, Elder certainly has concealment (from the deeper darkness) but if he hasn't acted yet does he get a hide roll -- forcing a spot check? |
| Huan04-18-05, 11:21 AM | I would guess that the question is "Can a gladiator be hidden even if he hasn't acted yet?" In this case, Elder certainly has concealment (from the deeper darkness) but if he hasn't acted yet does he get a hide roll -- forcing a spot check? An interesting idea, but that would not really matter, since Rayos cannot spot through the darkness anyway. Explicitly hiding is pointless since there is nothing to prevent him from simply firing into that space regardless. |
| Jindl04-18-05, 11:23 AM | Well, was Elder really "Hiding"? He had total concealment, yes, and from that Rayos could not have attacked him, but he still could have attacked the square you were in. The SRD says: You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. Rayos did not need a LOS ... only a Line of Effect. Yes, the Elder was hiding. It was listed as one of his prebuffs. And as I already quoted in the Core Rules, you need LOS to shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target. LOS not LOE. It's the first sentence of the section on Ranged Attacks. |
| Jindl04-18-05, 11:24 AM | I would guess that the question is "Can a gladiator be hidden even if he hasn't acted yet?" In this case, Elder certainly has concealment (from the deeper darkness) but if he hasn't acted yet does he get a hide roll -- forcing a spot check? Yes, hiding qualifies as a valid prebuff (ie, it does not have a time limit of less than 16 hours.) Most gladiators are unable to do it, because there is no cover at the starting position, which means they would have to have a concealment effect that lasts 16 hours. But the Elder prepared that as well, by having deeper darkness cast (duration of 5 days). |
| Jindl04-18-05, 11:25 AM | An interesting idea, but that would not really matter, since Rayos cannot spot through the darkness anyway. Explicitly hiding is pointless since there is nothing to prevent him from simply firing into that space regardless. The darkness is only concealment (20% miss chance), and Rayos can see through it. It is not the 3.0 version of darkness. Hiding has a point, as it prevents LOS so that he cannot shoot or throw a ranged weapon at the Elder. -Jindl |
| Huan04-18-05, 11:27 AM | Yes, the Elder was hiding. It was listed as one of his prebuffs. And as I already quoted in the Core Rules, you need LOS to shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target. LOS not LOE. Yes, you're right on hiding, as well as the the attacking without LOS (and I indeed did confuse the Darkness for 3.0). I agree with you on all that. But, as I too quoted from Core rules, you can attack a space as long as you have a LOE. Whether or not you hit anything there is up to chance. (and knowing that miss chance was only 20%, then all three arrows would have passed the miss chance) |
| Pittbull04-18-05, 12:08 PM | @Jindl: Is casting Deeper Darkness on a shield a valid prebuff? After the Angosh vs. Harvester -Fights the GMs stated that only prebuffs that affect the gladiators themselves are valid. No prebuffs that affect the arena. I'm not sure if deeper darkness is counted as valid or not. Now the pitlord has made the decission, but for later there should be an official ruling. |
| Jindl04-18-05, 12:20 PM | @Jindl: Is casting Deeper Darkness on a shield a valid prebuff? After the Angosh vs. Harvester -Fights the GMs stated that only prebuffs that affect the gladiators themselves are valid. No prebuffs that affect the arena. I'm not sure if deeper darkness is counted as valid or not. Now the pitlord has made the decission, but for later there should be an official ruling. You can cast prebuffs on your equipment. You cannot target any part of the arena as a prebuff. So yes, deeper darkness on the tower shield is a valid prebuff. |
| Pittbull04-18-05, 12:23 PM | OK! I wasn't sure about that! I only remembered the discussion, but not the result! Thanks! |
| Jindl04-18-05, 12:26 PM | Yes, you're right on hiding, as well as the the attacking without LOS (and I indeed did confuse the Darkness for 3.0). I agree with you on all that. But, as I too quoted from Core rules, you can attack a space as long as you have a LOE. Whether or not you hit anything there is up to chance. (and knowing that miss chance was only 20%, then all three arrows would have passed the miss chance) Huan- The rules are very specifc on attacking with a ranged weapon. You must have line of sight. If Rayos cannot spot the Elder, he cannot shoot at the Elder with his bow. Very clearly the rules say that you cannot make a ranged attack with a weapon unless you have LOS. This has come up in a fight before (about a year ago). An invisible barbarian charged an archer. The archer heard the barbarian charging and shot him dead. The issue was raised that since the archer does not have LOS, he cannot shoot the invisible barbarian. The result was that a spot check was rolled to see if the archer could "see" the invisible barbarian. Because the barbarian had both an armor check penalty and a -20 to hide for charging, and the archer had a good spot check, the archer was able to see the barbarian and the attack stood. This is an example in CoCo history where the requirement for LOS to make a ranged attack was enforced. FYI: The barbarian in this case was my own pc, Karse (duergar barbarian2). The rules are very clear on this issue. No LOS means you cannot shoot or throw a melee weapon at that target. You can make other attacks at a target with total concealment by aiming at their square. For example, you could attack with a spell that uses ranged touch attacks (you'll note that a ranged touch spell does not have a LOS requirement). For an example: see the Elder vs Bruno Willikens, where Bruno was blinded yet still managed to hit the Elder with a ray of exhaustion by pinpointing his location with listen. You could also use ranged area attacks (such as faerie firing an invisible opponent). The passage you quoted makes these things possible. But it does not negate the LOS requirement needed to shoot or throw a ranged weapon. The LOS requirement on ranged weapons is still required. -Jindl |
| Malither7604-18-05, 01:02 PM | yep he is 100% right here, you can only fire a ranged weapon at what you can see according to the phb he needs LOS, the LOE works for melee attacks not ranged. |
| spasheridan04-18-05, 01:19 PM | This is an intereting question. Imagine there's a wall in the yard. Imagine that an archer has stood and stared at that wall for a day or so. The archer leaves the yard, a wizard casts invisibility on the wall. The archer comes back to the yard. Can the archer shoot the invisible wall if he doesn't make a spot check? Do the rules say that since he can't spot the wall he can't shoot a wall with an arrow? I don't think that is possibly true. IN other words, is it possible to pinpoint a targets location with intelligence rather than listen / spot? Is it possible to say something like "Listen, I cast hold person on the guy, then he turned invisible. I'm not even rolling a spot, I'm attacking the square he was in!" Fyhir's tactic vs invisible foes (never been needed so far) has always been to back up into a corner, drop a smoke stick, and lay caltrops on the ground around him. The invisible foe must then walk onto the caltops, allowing Fyhir to attack him with a readied action (he targets the square where the bloody caltrop is). Sure, this is a bit riduclous, but the point is vald. If you know where the target is by virtue of reasoning, you should be able to target him. Since the elder is still in his original square, Rayos simply shoots that square. OF course, this is dependant on the time freezing qualities of turn based combat so the analogy to the real world breaks down here and this is a poor arguement for this scenario. Finally, for the hiding pre-buff, that is a bit dependant on the state of the hider and the action they took the previous round. The only way for you to be hiding is for you to have a move action to hide with. IF you are teleported into the ring you've moved to a new location, and are not hiding. If you walk into the ring then you do have the move action to hide with. HOWEVER, since wizards aren't allowed to cast spells while they are walking into the ring, bards aren't allowed to be singing as they walk into the ring, barbarians aren't allowed to be raging while they walk into the ring, it seems a bit... unfair to allow them to hide while they walk into the ring. I would call foul on hiding as a pre-buff. |
| Kaigan04-18-05, 02:01 PM | Okay, I just want to make a few comments. I agree with Jindl in that I need LOS, and not LOE to make my ranged attack. It says so in the PHB and in the SRD. Now what I don't agree with. Jindl does not have total concealment. He does have concealment, but not total. Darkness, and deeper darkness only give a concealment bonus, so only 20% miss chance. Now as to the idea of being able to hide right from the start, I do not think that is a valid "pre-buff". Buffs and prebuffs were, I believe, meant for spells, and being psionically focused, but being able to use a skill as a prebuff I don't believe is fair. However, what I want to know, does concealment block LOS? I don't think so. You get a miss chance percentage. That means that someone can attack you, and that means there is LOS. Jindl you bring up the archer vs. Invis Barbarian. You said he heard the barbarian and shot him, and had no LOS. But then, what's the point of the listen skill? If he pinpoints, then why not. Sure he has not LOS to the actual character, but he has LOS to his square. Gladiators know their oppenents starting position, why can you not target the square? And since concealment does not hamper LOS, then why can I not target the Elder's starting square? |
| Jindl04-18-05, 02:15 PM | Now what I don't agree with. Jindl does not have total concealment. He does have concealment, but not total. Darkness, and deeper darkness only give a concealment bonus, so only 20% miss chance. Now as to the idea of being able to hide right from the start, I do not think that is a valid "pre-buff". Buffs and prebuffs were, I believe, meant for spells, and being psionically focused, but being able to use a skill as a prebuff I don't believe is fair. Yes, it is certainly a valid prebuff. Any action/effect that has a duration of longer than 16 hours can be used as a prebuff. Some examples: being mounted, starting with your weapon and shield drawn, having an extended mage armor (CL8), or having deeper darkness on you tower shield. Hiding outside of combat can be done by taking 10. And a single result is used until the hiding person takes another significant action. Characters can hide for an indefinate amount of time, waiting in ambush. Its a valid prebuff because it can have a duration of longer than 16 hours. However, what I want to know, does concealment block LOS? I don't think so. You get a miss chance percentage. That means that someone can attack you, and that means there is LOS. Jindl you bring up the archer vs. Invis Barbarian. You said he heard the barbarian and shot him, and had no LOS. But then, what's the point of the listen skill? If he pinpoints, then why not. Sure he has not LOS to the actual character, but he has LOS to his square. Gladiators know their oppenents starting position, why can you not target the square? And since concealment does not hamper LOS, then why can I not target the Elder's starting square? Concealment does not hamper LOS. But total concealment does because it prevents LOS. In this fight, prebuffing concealment through the deeper darkness allowed the Elder to prebuff a hiding condition, so unless Rayos passes a spot check, he does not have line of sight. You cannot make a ranged attack with a weapon without LOS. Nor can you target their square with an arrow. Only splash weapons, certain spells, and melee attacks have the ability to "target a square". Ranged weapons require LOS. In the archer vs the invisible barbarian, the point of the listen skill was that the archer could have readied an action to move away, could have readied an action to use a melee weapon (such as armor spikes), or could have readied an action to use a spell (such as entangle). But you can't use listen to get LOS, and you must have LOS to use a ranged weapon. You must use spot to get LOS, and the archer was able to do that on the invisible barbarian because of the hide penalties for wearing armor and for charging. Since the archer made his spot check, he was able to establish LOS and fire. Note that I have repeatedly said that Rayos must pass a spot check to spot the Elder before firing. This is by no means an impossible check. The Elder has no ranks of hide and a 12 dex, giving him a hide of +1. Rayoss has a +12 spot +4 for the Elder being an elf, giving him a +16 -19 distance = -3. Rayos could still win an opposed spot vs hide check. All I'm saying is that the check is required before Rayos can shoot. -Jindl |
| Huan04-18-05, 02:16 PM | Allow me to add that if Hide/Spot is an issue, I just rolled (http://krisinchico.brinkster.net/searchroll.asp?username=Elder_vs_Rayos) for it. Elder hid (Hide 14) and Rayos spotted (Spot 36 vs DC 33 (14 + 19 distance)), so Rayos did see Elder. |
| Jindl04-18-05, 02:17 PM | @Spasheridan - You bring up real life examples, which are all logical. However, the Core rules don't always follow real life rules. We have to follow the Core rules here, and they say that you must have LOS to your target to attack with a ranged weapon. As for hiding as a prebuff, if the barbarian's rage could last 16 hours, then he could use it as a prebuff. A character can hide for 16 hours, so it is a valid prebuff. -Jindl |
| Jindl04-18-05, 02:22 PM | Allow me to add that if Hide/Spot is an issue, I just rolled (http://krisinchico.brinkster.net/searchroll.asp?username=Elder_vs_Rayos) for it. Elder hid (Hide 14) and Rayos spotted (Spot 36 vs DC 33 (14 + 19 distance)), so Rayos did see Elder. Thanks for rolling it and resolving the fight! Although as a prebuff, I think the Elder would have taken 10 on the hide check and used an 11 instead of rolling for it (and getting a 14). Of course it would figure that Rayos needs a 15 or more on the d20 and gets a 19 :( @All - As for the LOS issue and hiding as a prebuff, both of these points are within the Core rules and the CoCo rules (unless the Elder's or the GM changes it). Please keep them in mind in the future, especially as more archers face more invisible/hidden opponents :D -Jindl |
| Kaigan04-18-05, 02:26 PM | Okay, thanks Jindl. And let me just say, that your characters are scary. All of them! Scary in a good, powerful, crazy, death and destruction sort of way :D |
| Huan04-18-05, 02:26 PM | @Jindl Sorry to give you a hard time .... and (no offense to Kaigan) but Rayos was extremely lucky. Guess you better burn that rabbit's foot, Jindl. |
| Kaigan04-18-05, 04:10 PM | Quick Question: Okay say gladiator A is about to start a grapple, and gladiator B is on horse back. Now both gladiators have force screen. A successfully grapples B, and now B's horse is defending the master. So A loses dex to Ac against attacks from the horse. Does A still have the AC bonus from force screen against the horse, even though the description of force screen says that it is a disk of force that hovers In Front of you? thanks. |
| Sindorin04-18-05, 04:13 PM | Wow, Rayos' power rating is going to jump up a bit after that... |
| Sunwolf04-18-05, 05:13 PM | Quick Question: Okay say gladiator A is about to start a grapple, and gladiator B is on horse back. Now both gladiators have force screen. A successfully grapples B, and now B's horse is defending the master. So A loses dex to Ac against attacks from the horse. Does A still have the AC bonus from force screen against the horse, even though the description of force screen says that it is a disk of force that hovers In Front of you? thanks. Generally Force Screen is equivalent to the shield spell w/o the ability to stop magic missles. It is also like a normal worn shield in that it gives a shield bonus. Since characters don't lose their shield bonus while in a grapple, I would say that force screen *does* apply vs attacks from the horse regardless of what the flavor text describes. |
| spasheridan04-18-05, 06:34 PM | @Spasheridan - You bring up real life examples, which are all logical. However, the Core rules don't always follow real life rules. We have to follow the Core rules here, and they say that you must have LOS to your target to attack with a ranged weapon. Yes, real life - ish examples. I did use archers and invisibility so it's not THAT real life. I would imagine that in all campaigns the archer would be allowed to fire his bow / throw a rock at the invisible wall. My point though is that if I dig a 5 foot wide, 50 foot deep hole and toss a wizard down it, even if he's invisible I should be ablt to shoot him with a bow, I've pinpointed his location by thinking and I don't need to spot / listen. IF he's not in the square I think he his then I miss (of course) but pinpointing by smarts should be just as valid as pinpoint by listen / spot. If LOS can be determind by a succsesful listen check, then LOS can be determined by deductive reasoning. Listen checks simply pinpoint the square to attack, they do not create LOS. If knowing the square (pinpoint by listen) is enough to draw LOS, then deductive reasoning will work as well.As for hiding as a prebuff, if the barbarian's rage could last 16 hours, then he could use it as a prebuff. A character can hide for 16 hours, so it is a valid prebuff. Well, a character may be able to hide for 16 hours, but that's if they don't move fast and don't do anything that would negate their hide. To be hidden in round 1 before your init you MUST be hidden in round 0. Because your actions in round 0 determine your hide score for round 1, we now need a definition of actions in round 0. IF the PC's are teleported into the ring then you are no longer hidden. You hid in the old square (the teleport source) and haven't hid in the new square. If this is true then you must be carrying the tower shield and you have to apply it's ACP to your hide score, and the encumberence penalty. If the PC's walk into the ring, you have to take skill actions every step (hide) but other PC's (like a bard) are not allowed to take a skill action every step (perform). Sounds like the hide is still a bit up in the air. |
| Captain Mutilate04-18-05, 07:13 PM | Could someone please take over my Hobo/Salrantol fight? I've been swamped with other work (including the Urza's, see my sig: still time to nominate Arena MVP's), as well as school and other miscellanies. I'm fowarding the tactics to the Pitlord account. Really sorry. And if a Pitlord sees this, could you please not give me any fights this/next week? Thanks. I would have posted this much earlier but the boards kept dying. |
| Kaigan04-18-05, 07:24 PM | Well Hagrid II vs. Telveran is up. Check it out for me and see if there are any mistakes. Imight have been confused on the grappling part, so please check it, thanks. |
| Caterane04-18-05, 08:27 PM | Anyone interested in Mutilate's fight? |
| Caterane04-18-05, 08:32 PM | PHB,p139 says "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." and PHB,p152 says: "You can't attack an opponoment that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies." That's what Rayos did. He knew the exact square and he passed the miss chances. I don't see any problems with that, spot check or not. Now since he even passed the spot check that is unnecessary anyway. Jindl, just because you are invisible (or hiding) doesn't make you invulnerable or immune to ranged attacks. According to your theory, no one could ready an arrow to shoot an invisible but spellcasting wizard but that is a common and absolutely valid tactic. ------ As for the hiding prebuff, I would clearly say no to hiding as prebuff, because all prebuffs are activated at least 16 hours before the match starts. You cast your mage armor, or gain your focus. The action is completed 16 hours before the match starts and it is completed outside the arena (it's not a written fact but common sense dictates that you don't spend 16 hours at your starting position). Ongoing actions like "keeping concentration on a spell" or "holding the charge for a touch spell" is something you cannot do, else you could enter with a ghoul touch or a silent image. Again, common sense and the nature of the CoCo (testing builds) makes it clear that no one would hold the charge or concentrate on a spell for 16 hours, and this is true for all ongoing actions. Hiding is such an ongoing action because you would have to stay in that position. Again: why are 16 hour prebuffs allowed? Because in a campaign such spells/actions (like mage armor, psionic focus) last all day without any other requirement to sustain them, or any other distraction. You have all the time of the campaign day to do things, to play the adventure. Now, although a touch spell could be held for 16 hours, or a mage could concentrate 16 hours on a spell, it would seriously hamper his ability to participate in the adventure and no character could rely on such a tactic. The same is true for hiding. You cannot hide 16 hours in your campaign as a basic strategy for your character's combat behaviour. And that's why it is no valid prebuff for the Core Coliseum. That's also officially backed up. The FAQ clearly talks about "effects running" which means "running on their own" (mage armor, deeper darkness) and leaving the character free to do other things that day (else why would we need the 1/3 rule). Additionally, hiding cannot be described as "effect running". And of course, this whole section of the FAQ focuses on spells, powers, and similar abilities, with psionically focused seperately and explicitely mentioned. Still, I'll make this part of the FAQ clearer. |
| Jindl04-18-05, 09:18 PM | Is anyone else having problems with connectivity? I've tried this post 13 times so far ... I think its my local ISP, but I'm not sure. Given the situation, if anyone wants to take over my fight (Grakk vs Legion), please email me and I'll forward the tactics. -Jindl |
| jstorrie04-18-05, 09:28 PM | @Mutilate: I'll take over the fight. Forward the tactics to my pm box and I'll get on it tonight. @bgt: Still waiting for your tactics, unless you want me to do the match with your defaults? |
| Cerebus1304-18-05, 09:32 PM | The boards have been very spotty all day today, so it isn't specific to anyone I think. |
| Jindl04-18-05, 10:26 PM | Is anyone else having problems with connectivity? I've tried this post 13 times so far ... I think its my local ISP, but I'm not sure. Given the situation, if anyone wants to take over my fight (Grakk vs Legion), please email me and I'll forward the tactics. -Jindl Thanks to xanadu for taking over for me. Tactics have been forwarded. -Jindl |
| Sindorin04-18-05, 11:21 PM | I can take Mon Kapitan's fight. Edit: nevermind, i see that I overlooked jstorrie's claim to it. |
| jstorrie04-18-05, 11:21 PM | @Jindl: from the SRD, Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment). You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies. In other words, though you can't directly target an invisible opponent with an attack, if you believe they are in a square you can attack that square (so long as you have LOE to it) and, if your attack roll is succesful, have a 50% chance to hit them. |
| spasheridan04-18-05, 11:47 PM | Decius vs Valorum is up. Long fight, it swung back and forth a bit. Grapple / pinning is wacky. |
| One_Winged_Angel04-19-05, 12:18 AM | Indri vs. Borraxx, Aramil vs. Gareth (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5975325&postcount=1478) is up. Last minute, sorry. Well, tommorrow, I find out if I'm a loser. I get to ask a girl to prom. Cross your fingers, everyone. I need all the luck I can spare! |
| jstorrie04-19-05, 03:39 AM | @bgt: I still haven't received your tactics for Brogan, although maybe just because the board's been wonky lately? I'm going to run your fight with your default tactics instead. |
| Malither7604-19-05, 04:08 AM | @Kaigan, yeah you got grappling a little off there, what you did is fine attacking while in a grapple with light weapons is fine, but Hagrid would have used just winning the grapple checks to cause auto claw damage, the first check that he won with the charge should have caused claw damage and every check after that, you also got his bonus wrong it should be 4 higher b/c with expansion he is considered huge size. |
| jstorrie04-19-05, 04:39 AM | A bit delayed by the recent board kludginess, but Don Quixote versus Brogan (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5975532&postcount=1479) is up. |
| Pittbull04-19-05, 06:43 AM | Indri vs. Borraxx, Aramil vs. Gareth (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5975325&postcount=1478) is up. Last minute, sorry. Well, tommorrow, I find out if I'm a loser. I get to ask a girl to prom. Cross your fingers, everyone. I need all the luck I can spare! Hey, good luck with the girl! But your pitlording wasn't relay good! Round 3: Cappi: Single attacks, moves back for cover, no attack of opp (out of range) Attack: 15+7=22 hit. Damage: 8+6=14. Borraxx: Really ticked now. Moves up. Attack of opp from Cappi: 11+7=18 miss. Attack from Borraxx: 6+9=15 miss. Cappi: 26/26 (2,2) FS 3/10 Borraxx: 40/54 (2,1) FS 3/10 Round 4: Cappi: Moves back, takes attack of opp: 2+7=miss. Readies action to attack, rages. Borraxx: Really, really annoyed, moves up. Gets attacked: 14+9=23. Charmed devine might: 6+8+6=20 damage. Attack of opp: 20!+9=29. Conferm: 18+9=27. Confermed. Damage: 4+8+1+8+8+8=39. Borrax drops like a cannonball. Cappi wins and used nothing. +1600 xp, +1500 gp (Ally +) You didn't rage Boraxx, you didn't use his riding-skill to avoid the hits (his AC should be 18+4shield+4cover-2rage=24, which means none, beside the crit, of the attacks should have hit. You also forgot to attack with Babe and you forgot the +1 mod for higher level. All in all poor pitlording, you must have pretty busy. This should be no offense, but I know that you can do it better, as you did many times before. There's no need for a rerun. Nevertheless I keep my fingers crossed for the girl. Good luck, have fun! |
| Pittbull04-19-05, 06:48 AM | @Kaigan, yeah you got grappling a little off there, what you did is fine attacking while in a grapple with light weapons is fine, but Hagrid would have used just winning the grapple checks to cause auto claw damage, the first check that he won with the charge should have caused claw damage and every check after that, you also got his bonus wrong it should be 4 higher b/c with expansion he is considered huge size. Thanks! |
| Cerebus1304-19-05, 08:23 AM | First question, Gareth used a Power Stone of Grip of Iron as an immediate action, are Power Completion items able to be activated with less than a standard action if the Power they store is faster? Just curious because the Rules of the Game article on Using Magic Items has this to say about Spell Completion items: If the spell contained in a spell completion item has a casting time other than 1 standard action, that is its activation time. For example, a scroll containing a summon monster I spell has an activation time of 1 round because that's the casting time for the spell. Spells are never faster than a standard action to cast so this argument never comes up, but I wonder if immediate or swift action powers can be activated from Power Stones with less than a standard action. ~~~~ Second Question, I've asked this in the Tavern thread already but it could possibly be relevant here as well: When dealing damage by using an opposed grapple check in a grapple (and dealing damage "as an unarmed strike" as listed in the SRD) can you use claws, gauntlets, spiked gauntlets damage in place of unarmed strike damage? Not sure if this damage comes from you using your body to harm your opponent, or your fists/claws/gauntlets directly. In any event this all shouldn't affect the Gareth vs Aramil fight much because Gareth still has a pretty good grapple check (+13 with expansion), and a 1d6 (Huge unarmed dmg)+1d8(large Armor Spikes)+5(Str Mod) damage. |
| Sunwolf04-19-05, 09:16 AM | From SRD If you succeed, you and your target are now grappling, and you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike. Attack Your Opponent You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks. You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons. Damage Your Opponent While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers). If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a -4 penalty on your grapple check. Exception: Monks deal more damage on an unarmed strike than other characters, and the damage is lethal. However, they can choose to deal their damage as nonlethal damage when grappling without taking the usual -4 penalty for changing lethal damage to nonlethal damage. From Rules of the Game -- All about Grapples Part 2 3/8/2005 If a creature has natural weaponry, it deals lethal natural weapon damage with a successful opposed grapple check (its natural weapons are just like unarmed strikes). A creature with natural weaponry can choose to deal nonlethal damage in a grapple by taking a -4 penalty. His damage from the first successful grapple check should be 1d6+str lethal. (Not two claw attacks). Hagrid's choices were attack in grapple with 2 claws for 1d6 + str at -4 penalty. Or make 1 opposed grapple check (# based on BAB) for unarmed strike damage or natural weapon for 1d6+str per successful check. Hagrid's grapple bonus while expanded would be +17 (+1 Bab +5str +4powerful build +4large +4grip -1 size) vs Telverans +5 grapple check (+3 BAB +2 str) Note that Telveran can use Lay on hands in a grapple since it is a Supernatural ability and not subject to disruption. All of this means that the fight result does not change though Hagrid does more damge. Lets assume that Hagrid gets max damage for every attack -- 11 lethal *and* succeeds every opposed grapple check (odds he fails about 1 in 10). He gets attacks in round 5, 6, 7 for a total of 33hp damage non lethal before falling unconscious in round 8. Telveran is at -3/30 or 3/30 if he used lay on hands. Nimblefoot will keep attacking in the next round and kill Hagrid if Telveran is unconscious. |
| Zyme8604-19-05, 09:32 AM | Eiletha VS Cloudy is up *Tis Here* (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5976525&postcount=1480) |
| Sunwolf04-19-05, 09:50 AM | @ jstorrie in Brogan vs Don Quixote fight ally adjustements are applied after the rewards cap is applied so Brogan should get +400 gp/xp |
| One_Winged_Angel04-19-05, 09:51 AM | Hey, good luck with the girl! But your pitlording wasn't relay good! You didn't rage Boraxx, you didn't use his riding-skill to avoid the hits (his AC should be 18+4shield+4cover-2rage=24, which means none, beside the crit, of the attacks should have hit. You also forgot to attack with Babe and you forgot the +1 mod for higher level. All in all poor pitlording, you must have pretty busy. This should be no offense, but I know that you can do it better, as you did many times before. There's no need for a rerun. Nevertheless I keep my fingers crossed for the girl. Good luck, have fun! Re-Ran it anyway. Yes, I was busy. I ran both those last night. Around 10:00 my time. Guilty concience. ;) Your horse hit once, but that was negligable. Didn't kill Indri. Rage did hurt Indri as well, but Cat managed to back off and heal. +1 to attack...meh, never became an issue, I don't think. You never missed by exactly one, did you? Ok, basically, you noticed Cat had a desire to hide as well. Cat managed to do a hide, then he attacked you , denying Dex to AC, but since you had no knowledge of it, I think this also denies the opportunity to use mount for cover. Correct me if I'm wrong. If not, that made it harder. But the fact that Cat kept doing this, denying Dex and getting +2 flanking, you got a lot of problems. Overall, makes for a better fight, but it doens't change the outcome. Thanks for the good wishes. Adressing next issues with the other fight, notice that the description says if it has a casting time other than one action, that is the casting time. It doesn't say longer than one action, just different. And, finally, yes, you can. Gauntlets treat you unarmed damage as an actual weapon, but it's simply light. You may use natural attacks. Any other questions? |
| Cerebus1304-19-05, 10:00 AM | Adressing next issues with the other fight, notice that the description says if it has a casting time other than one action, that is the casting time. It doesn't say longer than one action, just different. And, finally, yes, you can. Gauntlets treat you unarmed damage as an actual weapon, but it's simply light. You may use natural attacks. Any other questions?The grapple question has been hounding me for a while because I can find little or no information regarding Grappling in the various FAQs and whatnot that exist. Thanks for the quick answer :). |
| Pittbull04-19-05, 10:38 AM | Ok, basically, you noticed Cat had a desire to hide as well. Cat managed to do a hide, then he attacked you , denying Dex to AC, but since you had no knowledge of it, I think this also denies the opportunity to use mount for cover. Correct me if I'm wrong. If not, that made it harder. But the fact that Cat kept doing this, denying Dex and getting +2 flanking, you got a lot of problems. Overall, makes for a better fight, but it doens't change the outcome. Any other questions? How was he able to hide, did he use a potion of hide from animals, which disapears after the first attacks. Or how was he able to deny Babe's scent, it can use the move-action to pin-point him within 30ft and move to the place where he is. Having no cover any more, neglets his hide, unless he has concealment. Did you aply the -20 mod for hiding after he has attacked Boraxx? I don't want to bother you, if you have no time, just tell us. |
| jstorrie04-19-05, 11:26 AM | @ jstorrie in Brogan vs Don Quixote fight ally adjustements are applied after the rewards cap is applied so Brogan should get +400 gp/xp Word. Corrected. |
| Kaigan04-19-05, 11:28 AM | @Kaigan, yeah you got grappling a little off there, what you did is fine attacking while in a grapple with light weapons is fine, but Hagrid would have used just winning the grapple checks to cause auto claw damage, the first check that he won with the charge should have caused claw damage and every check after that, you also got his bonus wrong it should be 4 higher b/c with expansion he is considered huge size. OKay this is how I read grapple, now I could be wrong, but this is how I read it. Make an opposed grapple check as a free action. If you succeed, you and your target are now grappling, and you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike. Now for this, Yes, I was wrong, Hagrid should have done damage, but not the claw damage, he would do unarmed damage for a huge character. Now I didn't roll anyother opposed grapple checks, and I didn't need to. When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). Now, Telveran did not want to escape grapple, and Hagrid did not want to pin, so there was no need for more opposed grapple checks. They both just wanted to attack. Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks. You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons. Now I wasn't sure if I was allowed to have Hagrid use two attacks, but I did, but with Telveran's high AC, and the -4 penalty associated with attacking, both gladiators could not hit one another, and as I said, the horse was really, really lucky. But what I also wasn't not sure, is why there would be more grapple checks. Hagrid in his tactics explicitly said to attack and shred him to bits with his claws while in grapple, and that's what I did. |
| Pittbull04-19-05, 11:35 AM | But what I also wasn't not sure, is why there would be more grapple checks. Hagrid in his tactics explicitly said to attack and shred him to bits with his claws while in grapple, and that's what I did. It's OK Kaigan. No problem. You did a good job. I should have written grapple both the rider and the mount, to deny the horses attacks. But I wasn't sure, if the horse is able to attack without a penalty, if Hagrid and T are on it's back. Remember, Hagrid has won the grapple and may decide where he is: on the mount, which has problem with his weight or next to it dragging the rider off. It would like him to be on the mount and thought that would help him against it's attacks. |
| Kaigan04-19-05, 11:41 AM | @Pittbull: Yes you are right, Hagrid may decide to choose where the grapple goes, but you did not really specify in your tactics. I will look over it again, and see how that might factor in, but I can only try. I've got a brutal physics final tomorrow, followed by a honours calc final on friday, so i've got my work cut out for me, but I will take a look if I have the time, thanks. Kaigan |
| Cerebus1304-19-05, 11:54 AM | @Kaigan Now for this, Yes, I was wrong, Hagrid should have done damage, but not the claw damage, he would do unarmed damage for a huge character. Now I didn't roll anyother opposed grapple checks, and I didn't need to. Actually Hagrid would still be considered a Large Creature, but his "Powerful Build" racial trait would make him be a Huge Creature for rolls that involve size modifiers (like trip/grapple), and pre-reqs for special attacks that check size (like swallow whole). Hagrid's unarmed attack would equivalent to a Large Creature's now, because Powerful Build only allows you to use weapons one size larger without penalty...it does not make your fists bigger from what I read in the rules. As for the claw attacks I think what Malthier may be trying to get at is that Hagrid wanted to perform the grapple move Damage Your Opponent and the unarmed strike damage done here would be higher because he has claws. One_Winged_Angel indicated that this may be legal, but the grapple rules are rather unclear here so it's hard to read it straight from the SRD. @Pittbull Remember, Hagrid has won the grapple and may decide where he is: on the mount, which has problem with his weight or next to it dragging the rider off. It would like him to be on the mount and thought that would help him against it's attacks. There was a past Rules of the Game article pertaining to mounts that had a small section that implied that when grappling a mounted opponent you can either be adjacent to the mount or on the mount with the opponent. Once you have grappled your opponent and need to move into his square, and choose to jump on his mount in this case, would you need to use a move action to get on the horse? Or do you suppose the free movement you get in Step 4 of a grapple would let you jump on the horse? |
| spasheridan04-19-05, 12:00 PM | Rules Questions for Laph v Jindl: 1) If Laph drinks Hide from Animals and Jindl wildshapes, is Laph now hidden from Jindl? 2) Is Dispel Magic considered an attack? (to end hide from animals) 3) Can Dispel Magic end Wildshape? What would the DC of that be? The way I've run the fight so far has been Yes, No, Yes (17), but the fight isn't quite finished. I'f I'm wrong about #2 or #3 I just have to re-reun the last 2 rounds, but I'd rather get an answer before I go any further. Sorry for the delay, the boards have been flakey the last few days. I'll get the fight up tonight barring any more board failures. |
| Cerebus1304-19-05, 12:16 PM | @spash 1) I think Yes, because Wildshape acts like Polymorph and that spell changes your Type and Subtype to match the form you pick...or animal in JotF's case. 2) This is a tough one, I guess look at past CoCo precedent for Invisiblity and attacks that negate it. My opinion would be that a Dispel Magic cast on an area wouldn't, but a targetted dispel would. 3) I'm pretty sure Dispel Magic can't end Wildshape. Since Wildshape is a Supernatural ability this part of the SRD applies: Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. |
| Jindl04-19-05, 01:03 PM | Rules Questions for Laph v Jindl: 1) If Laph drinks Hide from Animals and Jindl wildshapes, is Laph now hidden from Jindl? 2) Is Dispel Magic considered an attack? (to end hide from animals) 3) Can Dispel Magic end Wildshape? What would the DC of that be? The way I've run the fight so far has been Yes, No, Yes (17), but the fight isn't quite finished. I'f I'm wrong about #2 or #3 I just have to re-reun the last 2 rounds, but I'd rather get an answer before I go any further. Sorry for the delay, the boards have been flakey the last few days. I'll get the fight up tonight barring any more board failures. 1. Yes (as long as JotHF wildshapes into an animal). 2. Yes, it is an attack whether its targetted or an area dispel. 3. No, wildshape is (Su) and (Su) abilities are not dispellable. |
| Pittbull04-19-05, 01:20 PM | 1. Yes (as long as JotHF wildshapes into an animal). 2. Yes, it is an attack whether its targetted or an area dispel. 3. No, wildshape is (Su) and (Su) abilities are not dispellable. Yep, Jindl is right! @Kaigan: I wish good luck in your exams, if you don't have the time to fix it just leave as it is, if you fix it, let Hagrid get onto the mount (shares the square). Just ask yourself what you would do?- Standing next to mount, getting attacks or, get "mounted" while grappling to avoid the hits and let it break down by your own weight. |
| Sunwolf04-19-05, 02:34 PM | @Kaigan Good luck on your exams. Food for thought. If you are reexamining the fight, some questions to think about. 1) To keep the horse from attacking, wouldn't one have to pin it? 2) One only gets 1 action in grapples until their BAB gets to +6 to allow 2 'attacks' in a grapple. If one is attempting to grapple a rider and his mount isn't one trying to do two actions? 3) Typically a creature can only grapple/hold one opponent unless they have the improved grab (ex) special ability and take a -20 on their grapple check (and use a limb) towards the one they are just holding to go after another (some monsters can do this -- ex improved grab on owl bear). 4) Moving into another creatures hex doesn't automatically mean you can jump on top of it (ie onto a horse). From rules of the game: All about grappling part 1: Once you establish a hold on a foe (by grabbing that foe and then winning the ensuing opposed grapple check) you can keep holding on by moving into the foe's space. This movement is free for you (it doesn't count against your speed for the current round), but it provokes attacks of opportunity from foes that threaten you (but not from the foe you have in your grasp). You can enter your foe's space even if your relative sizes would normally keep you from ending your move in that foe's space or even passing through that space (see page 148 in the Player's Handbook). Moving into Telveran and Nimblefoots hex will draw an attack of opportunity from Nimblefoot. This grappling stuff can make your head hurt :) |
| Pitlords04-19-05, 03:16 PM | Because of the board malfunctions on monday I'll extend the deadline a bit, but please try to finish your fight asap! If you find a gap when the boards actually work for a second, open the sheets and copy them into a word document so that you can run the fight offline. If there are still ~9 fights unfinished we have to delay pairings to thursday. |
| Cerebus1304-19-05, 04:17 PM | 2) One only gets 1 action in grapples until their BAB gets to +6 to allow 2 'attacks' in a grapple. If one is attempting to grapple a rider and his mount isn't one trying to do two actions? I think you can get more than 1 "action" in a grapple before you get more than +6 BAB as long as the actions are a standard and a move equivalent. So you could draw a light weapon (with a successful grapple check) and then whack your opponent in the face with it if you wanted. Actual movement while in a Grapple requires you to spend a move action and roll some dice, so 5' steps are out entirely. You are right though that Hagrid shouldn't be able to grapple more than one creature at a time though, because he has no special abilities that allow for it. 4) Moving into another creatures hex doesn't automatically mean you can jump on top of it (ie onto a horse). Hagrid would have to expend a Move action to do this, after moving into the mount/mounted player's square (which is free once in a grapple). At least that is what I can read from the rules. Hagrid should also provoke an AoO when moving into the Horse's square because the "free movement" that you get from grapple doesn't say anything about being a 5' step OR preventing AoO's, so the horse can bite em :P. |
| Aramil Dunskar04-19-05, 06:06 PM | I'm having some internet troubles... so I'll try to get the second fight in later tognite... but who knows what my internet is going to be acting like.... :rolleyes: -Aramil |
| One_Winged_Angel04-19-05, 07:36 PM | How was he able to hide, did he use a potion of hide from animals, which disapears after the first attacks. Or how was he able to deny Babe's scent, it can use the move-action to pin-point him within 30ft and move to the place where he is. Having no cover any more, neglets his hide, unless he has concealment. Did you aply the -20 mod for hiding after he has attacked Boraxx? I don't want to bother you, if you have no time, just tell us. Time, I have. Sleep, I don't. The hiding took place after he attacked you, so no -20 penalty. However, you take a move action to pinpoint, another to move to him, that still give him an attack of opp, and reveals his local, but your now right next to him, and, reading Cat's tactics, he slinks off to hide again. <><<X >XO<I <OOOB XXOXX Cat, correct me if I'm wrong, but this I think is the set up he wanted. He moves back behind cover, using the arrows I indicated, and prance around the pillar, using cover to negate attack of opps. And also, while your horse could pinpoint, you could not. Your horse has a much worse hit chance then you do. ... Geez, I'm not sure of half of what I wrote... |
| Caterane04-19-05, 07:51 PM | The -20 penalty is only important for sniping which is not possible in melee. Indri wanted to attack, then move around cover and out of LOS (which should be attained after ~10ft) and hide (which is possible because I have a) cover and b) am out of LOS). Borrax needs a move action to command his horse to "seek", the horse needs a move action to scent and pinpoint, and then move towards the threat. From the rules of the game we know that a move for your horse counts as a move for you so neither the horse nor Borraxx would've any actions left. Boraxx follows me and gets an AoO for moving through my reach (he has no leeway in moving inside the central pillar), plus he is flatfooted if he didn't spot me, plus he is squeezing (-4 AC and attacks), and he cannot use ride if he is FF. And I didn't even mention the ready action attack I wanted to take. Basically I could play this game on and on. There's also a mistake with the critical damage. I was in rage and had divine might active (lasts one round), and the charm domain. That means, my glaive does 3d10+45 damage, not 3d10+24 as you calculated it, plus the 21 (not 20) damage from the readied attack for 3d10+66 damage. That alone drops Boraxx. I wanted to use divine might on every hit so you can add another +6 damage to the very first hit. And finally, the xp/gp are wrong. I get 1875 XP and 2000 gp. Borrax gets +1125 XP/1200 Gold. |
| spasheridan04-19-05, 08:16 PM | @Xanadu- Legion moves within range, uses an energy ray stone (8+3+2-1=12 vs. AC 13 miss) and curses his old body. Hrm. Level 5, so my BAB is +2. Dex 13 so +1. Precog-Offense so +2. Adds up to +5. Where did the -1 come from... did you think that my age applies a -1 to all dex based checks? NO, it lowers my dex by 1. SO, 6 points make my dex 14, then -1 for age to 13. All my dex checks are +1... Thanks for picking up the fight, I'm sure it was tough. If all 4 of those 8's hit then I believe Legion wins early on. I noticed you didn't cut and paste my tactics into the fight though, can you do that? |
| xanadu04-19-05, 08:22 PM | Trokk Vs. Legion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5978992) is up and fixed (I think). Concerned parties should still look this over. As it turns out, legion could afford the shirt even and CoCo does not penalize false reporting like the IRS :D |
| spasheridan04-19-05, 08:28 PM | THe error is on the sheet describing the item, not the total spent. -Gold- Initial: 9,500 GP Equipment: 9,720.6 GP Spent: 725 GP Gained: 1066 GP Current: 320.4 GPIf you add up the cost of my gear (using the costs on the sheet) it adds up to 8,720.6 GP. I have the correct total spent, just the incorrect price. PS, if I had been incorrect on my spending the obvious choice would have been to make it Mithril Chain SHirt and not a chain shirt +1. A chain shirt + 1 would have cost 1250 GP, not the 1100 GP of the Mithril CHain Shirt. In any event, sorry for the typo on my character sheet. I had gone back and forth during character creation on what to get, I must have missed that correction when I made my final decision. |
| Kaigan04-19-05, 08:33 PM | @Pittbull: I'm really sorry, but I won't be able to work on any changes on the fight. I really, really HATE physics. But I have thought about what you said. What does happen when a large character mounts a large horse? Does the horse fall, and go prone for a round, or what? And I had another thought, the claws that you gain from claws of the beast are natural weapons. The damage you do from the grapple checks are unarmed damage, so they would be different. But I'm too tired now, exhausted actually. Been studying 8 hours straight for a stupid physics final. Who the heck cares about electricity and magnetism, I mean, really, who really cares. I don't need to know how they work, just that they do. |
| Zyme8604-19-05, 08:38 PM | Hisoka the Clown (Salzorin) vs Daka (Zyme86): OneWingedAngel fro the paring's at the top of this piece I have to cry foul on the fight, I can directly blame my loss on the tatics I sent to OWA, I am requesting the fight to be re run with that tatics I sent. The fact that the pitlord changed and the tatics wern't transfered souldn't cause me to lose. I will re sent the tatics, and rerun the fight. I shouldn't be punnished for another's mistake |
| Zyme8604-19-05, 08:44 PM | tripple post, technical problems |
| Zyme8604-19-05, 08:53 PM | Hisoka the Clown (Salzorin) vs Daka (Zyme86): OneWingedAngel from the paring's at the top of this piece I have to cry foul on the fight, I can directly blame my loss on the tatics I sent to OWA, I am requesting the fight to be re run with that tatics I sent. The fact that the pitlord changed and the tatics wern't transfered souldn't cause me to lose. I will re sent the tatics, and rerun the fight. I shouldn't be punnished for another's mistake |
| Kaigan04-19-05, 09:34 PM | Ignore |
| spasheridan04-19-05, 10:14 PM | Heya Xanadu- You missed that Legion also used a stone of vigor (ml5) during the fight (round 1). Thanks for the fixes, I went over my finances again while I edited my sheet. |
| Huan04-19-05, 10:20 PM | I really, really HATE physics. Agreed Who the heck cares about electricity and magnetism, I mean, really, who really cares. I don't need to know how they work, just that they do. Doubly agreed. ;) |
| xanadu04-19-05, 11:17 PM | Heya Xanadu- You missed that Legion also used a stone of vigor (ml5) during the fight (round 1). Thanks for the fixes, I went over my finances again while I edited my sheet. OK, i'll fix that too. |
| spasheridan04-20-05, 02:47 AM | Laph v Jindl is up. I believe the fight went fine up until rnd 16 or so. Then the complication set in. I believe it all came out in the wash, but if it didn't let me know. My big question from the match: Invisibility, is it your friend or not? How does it work.. really! 1) SO, Laph is invisible and uses an innate ability to cast dispel magic. What spot check would you need to make to see that? How about Listen? IS this a +40 to hide for being immobile? 2) SO, Laph is invisble and starts shooting at you with his bow. He's ~150 feet away from you. What kind of spot checks do you need to make to see him? What kind of listen checks? Is this a +20 to hide for moving? SRD Info on Invisibility (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/abilitiesAndConditions.html#invisibility ) @kaigan- My nerd heritage is revealed.. I have my BS in physics. If you have any questions send em to me offline, I'll see if I can reveal the secrets of the universe to you. |
| Pittbull04-20-05, 03:35 AM | Laph v Jindl is up. Invisibility, is it your friend or not? How does it work.. really! 1) SO, Laph is invisible and uses an innate ability to cast dispel magic. What spot check would you need to make to see that? How about Listen? IS this a +40 to hide for being immobile? 2) SO, Laph is invisble and starts shooting at you with his bow. He's ~150 feet away from you. What kind of spot checks do you need to make to see him? What kind of listen checks? Is this a +20 to hide for moving? SRD Info on Invisibility (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/abilitiesAndConditions.html#invisibility ) 1) No listen-check, because there is nothing which makes sounds, no components. 2) the Listen-check is DC0 for the <plonggg!> of the bow but you get a -15 mod because of distance, you need a result which beats DC0 by 15 to know that he is within five feet. The hide mod is at least +20invis. Whow, I've never thought that Laph will win this battle, because he has lost the ini. Extreme luck was on his side. This potion of hide from animals should be the equipment of the week. The only concerns for the fight are: - there might a 10 rounds violation, but Laph always showed he wants to attacks but was hampered by his concentration. There was no inactivity. It is always the Pitlords decission how to handle this. - Jindl did nothing, but he wanted to hit Laph with fairy-fire first and then summon his elementals. So he waited until round 16. He might want an improvisation. Let's wait for Jindl, if he wants some changes, all in all I think you've done a good job. If any changes will occur, please discuss them rapidly I'd like to have Laph ready for this week. Thanks a lot! |
| Jindl04-20-05, 08:11 AM | Laph should have been penalized for being inactive 16 rounds under the hide from animals effect (and yes, buffing is considered inactivity). But what won the fight was scoring 2 critical hits with your bow in 4 attacks. I wish I could crit half the time I attacked. The only other things I would point out are that JotHF was supposed to be hiding while wildshaped, but I never saw any checks for Laph to locate him. This could have drawn Laph in a bunch closer and made those spot/listen checks to locate him a bunch easier. And Nox should have gotten his own spot/listen checks to locate the pixie. He was a bunch closer to Laph and the listen DC is 0 when Laph is using a bow. -Jindl |
| Jindl04-20-05, 08:14 AM | 1) SO, Laph is invisible and uses an innate ability to cast dispel magic. What spot check would you need to make to see that? How about Listen? IS this a +40 to hide for being immobile? It's a ranged attack while hidden so it falls under sniping rules. He is not immobile because he is a winged flyer who is flying. The Listen check is opposed by his move silently. 2) SO, Laph is invisble and starts shooting at you with his bow. He's ~150 feet away from you. What kind of spot checks do you need to make to see him? What kind of listen checks? Is this a +20 to hide for moving? The spot check with a -15 for distance would be opposed by his hide check with a +20 for invis and a -20 for sniping. The listen check with a -15 for distance would be against a DC0 for the sound of the bow. The distance penalties are big, that's why I wanted JotHF to hide and draw him in closer. -Jindl |
| Salrantol04-20-05, 08:29 AM | Is there some kind of compensation system/formula for characters whose fights don't get run? I know there are penalties for the pitlords that don't run them, but the characters are still out 300-900XP/GP (at ECL3). |
| Cerebus1304-20-05, 08:36 AM | The fights get extended into the next week I think and reassigned to a new Pitlord (or the same if they can finish it this time). |
| Sindorin04-20-05, 09:39 AM | Is there some kind of compensation system/formula for characters whose fights don't get run? I know there are penalties for the pitlords that don't run them, but the characters are still out 300-900XP/GP (at ECL3). Sadly, there is not. The biggest thing that bothers me about it is not that my characters would miss out on advancing for a week, it is that people don't take responsibility for their fights and at least post saying that they can't run it. I've had this happen before where I suddenly wouldn't be able to run a fight and I posted here very early into the pairing week, so everything went well, and everyone was satisfied. It has been happening more and more where people simply don't take the two seconds and then the three seconds it would take to first post saying that they cannot run the fight and second send whatever tactics they have recieved to Pitlords. I posted rather early in the pairing week this week saying that I could take a fight if someone couldn't do theirs... Oh well. Sometimes RL catches us off guard, and there is nothing we can do. We should reward good, consistent pitlording - so as to encourage it. |
| Pittbull04-20-05, 10:39 AM | @Jindl: Since I have only 1-2 hours left to edit my charactersheet, I'd like to ask you, if you want a rerun or not. I don't know if Spash will redo it, but it'll be surely delayed to the next week. Please respond quickly, so that I have a chance to edit for this weeks pairings. Thanks! |
| Jindl04-20-05, 10:42 AM | @Jindl: Since I have only 1-2 hours left to edit my charactersheet, I'd like to ask you, if you want a rerun or not. I don't know if Spash will redo it, but it'll be surely delayed to the next week. Please respond quickly, so that I have a chance to edit for this weeks pairings. Thanks! I doubt it will change anything, as I said above the 2 crits out of 4 attacks is what won the fight for Laph. My gripes about the fight were mainly intended to prevent similar instances in future fights. You do raise a good point ... should we delay pairings until Thursday on account of all of the board instability the last several days. I vote yes!! -Jindl |
| spasheridan04-20-05, 10:48 AM | Laph should have been penalized for being inactive 16 rounds under the hide from animals effect (and yes, buffing is considered inactivity).By round 12 he was searching for Jindl. Searching is almost interaction. But the logic here is a bit strange. Jindl is hiding for 15 rounds and readying an action.. this is allowed because Laph is Invisible. Laph could (conceiveable) have hid and readied for 15 rounds because Jindl was hiding. Right??? I've been a bit unsure how this set of rules works though, so I've ignored it in most fights as long as no one is JUST sitting and waiting. As long as the gladiator is doing something (moving into position, searching) other than sitting I don't do any penalty. Also, the penalty is a bit unclear to me... how could I penalize Laph in any way other than to dispel his Hide from Animals? The only other things I would point out are that JotHF was supposed to be hiding while wildshaped, but I never saw any checks for Laph to locate him. This could have drawn Laph in a bunch closer and made those spot/listen checks to locate him a bunch easier. I had Laph roll spot checks on round.. maybe 13 or so. But he kept flying back towards the wall until the pillar no longer provided concealment for Jindl. Then there's no way to hide so no hide checks. And Nox should have gotten his own spot/listen checks to locate the pixie. He was a bunch closer to Laph and the listen DC is 0 when Laph is using a bow.I believe Jindl spotted Laph (listen check) when the 1st bow shot was fired. He directed Nox next round to go to the source of the noise. Nox was heading in the proper direction anyways, it just took a while to go from +7 height to +24 height. (2 or 3 rounds) |
| Pittbull04-20-05, 10:54 AM | OK! No rerun! Thanks a lot. Now I can edit my sheet. @CAT: Pairings on thursday? |
| Jindl04-20-05, 11:11 AM | Just in the spirit of discussion: By round 12 he was searching for Jindl. Searching is almost interaction. But the logic here is a bit strange. Jindl is hiding for 15 rounds and readying an action.. this is allowed because Laph is Invisible. Laph could (conceiveable) have hid and readied for 15 rounds because Jindl was hiding. Right??? I've been a bit unsure how this set of rules works though, so I've ignored it in most fights as long as no one is JUST sitting and waiting. As long as the gladiator is doing something (moving into position, searching) other than sitting I don't do any penalty. Also, the penalty is a bit unclear to me... how could I penalize Laph in any way other than to dispel his Hide from Animals? While in a position that the other gladiator cannot harm him, a pc is allowed 10 rounds before they most leave that position an interact with the other gladiator. Failure to do so results in a penalty. The exact nature of the penalty is to be determined by the pitlord. It could be a some spectator yelling out his position, or some effect causing a penalty to his next roll, etc. In this fight, Laph was in a position where JotHF could not harm him, because he was hidden from animals and JotHF was in wildshape. Laph should have been penalized for staying in this position for more than 10 rounds. I had Laph roll spot checks on round.. maybe 13 or so. But he kept flying back towards the wall until the pillar no longer provided concealment for Jindl. Then there's no way to hide so no hide checks.Okay, that's reasonable. I didn't realize Laph had negated JotHF's cover before attempting the dispel magic. I believe Jindl spotted Laph (listen check) when the 1st bow shot was fired. He directed Nox next round to go to the source of the noise. Nox was heading in the proper direction anyways, it just took a while to go from +7 height to +24 height. (2 or 3 rounds) You don't spot with a listen check!! You pinpoint location, which is different. Pinpointing location lets you make ranged attacks (with something other than a ranged weapon!!) or to target area effects. I don't think JotHF can direct Nox to do anything while in wildshape, as I think you probably need to be able to speak to give commands with handle animal (which is why speak with animals is a good spell for wildshaped druids). That's why I was saying that Nox should be making his own spot/listen checks. Plus, Nox had 16 rounds to gain altitude, he should have already been at the ceiling. I put it in my tactics for him to gain lots of altitude so he could attack with a dive. Basically, it should have gone like this: Rnds 1-15: Nox climbs to the celing while looking for the hidden from animals Laph. Rnd 16: Laph shoots, ending the hide from animals effect, Nox can hear the shot (he doesn't even need to pinpoint), knows where Laph is within 20 ft, and begins moving quickly towards him, trading in any excess altitude for increased movement. Rnd 17: Nox is within 40 ft and blindsense kicks in. One other issue: If JotHF was sitting there for 16 rounds, he should have cast his 3 guidances and virtue, as was indicated in tactics. The virtue would have left him at 1 hp after the attack (so he wouldn't have wasted a round on a failed autohypnosis check), and the guidances could have helped with his spot/listen checks or his autohypnosis checks. BTW: When JotHF failed his autohypnosis check, he still could have cast bears endurance that round, it just would have cost him a hp to do so. |
| spasheridan04-20-05, 02:12 PM | Just in the spirit of discussion:I love discussion!While in a position that the other gladiator cannot harm him, a pc is allowed 10 rounds before they most leave that position an interact with the other gladiator. Failure to do so results in a penalty. The exact nature of the penalty is to be determined by the pitlord. It could be a some spectator yelling out his position, or some effect causing a penalty to his next roll, etc. In this fight, Laph was in a position where JotHF could not harm him, because he was hidden from animals and JotHF was in wildshape. Laph should have been penalized for staying in this position for more than 10 rounds.I see the general gist of the penalty, and I see the spirit of it. The problem I have is that it is determined by the pitlord. I think that this is going to be a bigger and bigger problem as PC's get higher and higher hide skills and more access to hiding. Last week I had a fight where the wizard wanted to buff, fly to safety, and sit for 9 rounds then buff then sit for 9 more rounds, the express purpose of this was to wait out his opponent's buffs. I allowed him to buff, fly into position, and wait for maybe 8 rounds then forced him to attack.. changing his tactics into compliance was my penalty I forced on him. I counted flying into position as "interacting", but I could have concievably forced him to attack on round 10 instead of round 12. If I had a battle between 2 stallers I would be hard pressed to determine who was the staller who get's the penalty. Imagine 2 invisible wizards.. who get's yelled at first? Or an invisible wizard and a hiding ranger. Is the invisible wizard stalling more than the ranger? What if the wizard has a spot/listen of +1 vs the hide/ms of +15? Is the ranger stalling more now? My classic scenario for this is 2 wizards. Both ready a fireball vs seeing their opponent on rnd 1. Both sit and rdy for the rest of the fight. Eventually I must force one of them to move... and kill them because even with a save the fireball is going to knock them out. So this fight is determined by the one who looses initiative? IMO the way to run this is the following: I only let you "sit" for 8 rounds during a match. After that you must DO something. I generally don't count buffing as part of those 8 rounds. Any other penalty (forcing you to DO something) seems to be a bit to up to pitlord discretion.. I can imagine 2 penalties, one has a minor effect, one will loose you the match... which one do I apply?? Until I get a specific penalty that is universally applied I think that forcing folks to act after 8 rounds of sitting is the best way to go. THe only questions remaining in my mind is what is "interacting" and how do you deal with 2 stallers. If Laph hadn't rolled so many poor rolls (early on, his dice caught on fire late in the match!) he would have finished his buffing inside the 10 round limit. I'm a bit torn on limiting buffing to 10 rnds. If Laph moved and cast every round then he's "interacting" by moving towards his position / opponent, right? BTW, if Laph had just been invisible, not Hidden from Animals, and slowly moving around the arena seatching for Jindl... would Jindl now be the one breaking the 10 round rule because all he did was Hide and Ready? Or does sending Nox out to fight count as interacting? You don't spot with a listen check!! You pinpoint location, which is different. Pinpointing location lets you make ranged attacks (with something other than a ranged weapon!!) or to target area effects. Sorry, yeah, he didn't SPOT with the listen, he pinpointed. If he had 1 HP left he would have used that pinpoint to direct his readied Faire Fire. I don't think JotHF can direct Nox to do anything while in wildshape, as I think you probably need to be able to speak to give commands with handle animal.I didn't think of that. I did have you point and squawk, so maybe the though entered my mind.. hrm. That's why I was saying that Nox should be making his own spot/listen checks. Plus, Nox had 16 rounds to gain altitude, he should have already been at the ceiling. I put it in my tactics for him to gain lots of altitude so he could attack with a dive. Basically, it should have gone like this: Rnds 1-15: Nox climbs to the celing while looking for the hidden from animals Laph. Rnd 16: Laph shoots, ending the hide from animals effect, Nox can hear the shot (he doesn't even need to pinpoint), knows where Laph is within 20 ft, and begins moving quickly towards him, trading in any excess altitude for increased movement. Rnd 17: Nox is within 40 ft and blindsense kicks in.That does make sense. I was thinking that Nox would want to fly around the arena at varying levels so his blindsense would cover it. At the very least he would have started flying at height 8 instead of heigh 1. I wonder where he would be though. Flying UP costs double movement, so to fly Nox up from 7 to 30 would put him 230 feet back in the circles he was flying, so he'd probably be around Laph's starting point instead of at Jindl's at this point... right? One other issue: If JotHF was sitting there for 16 rounds, he should have cast his 3 guidances and virtue, as was indicated in tactics. Well... to quibble (and I love to quibble) you said to do that if you had nothing better to do. You did have something better to do, you could ready your faerie fire. I noticed this at the end of the fight when I re-read your tactics. I thought about editing them in but in the targetted dispel would have blasted it away so it's moot (the check for the wild shape passed and that check would go to the next dispelable thing). The problem would have been deciding WHEN to cast (IE.. you didn't see laph for 3 rounds then cast? 6 rounds and cast?) because with their duration of 1 min... When JotHF failed his autohypnosis check, he still could have cast bears endurance that round, it just would have cost him a hp to do so.That fail was for your readied action. You could have cast Faerie Fire if you passed the check.. I decided that you wouldn't die to cast that spell. Anywho, I think the biggest concern is the 10 round limit. That rule needs to be tightened down a bit more so I can use it effectivly. I think Jindl get's another listen check but he couldn't have passed it by enough (22-15+d20 vs 8+d20) (beat by 15 to pinpoint)... hrm.. okay, if jindl rolld 16 more than laph then he would have pinpointed close enough.. My bad thinking that flyig faries were silent. |
| Jindl04-20-05, 02:31 PM | As the original creator of the 10 round rule(s), I'll respond to your questions about them in another post. Sorry, yeah, he didn't SPOT with the listen, he pinpointed. If he had 1 HP left he would have used that pinpoint to direct his readied Faire Fire. Right. And then the next round when his initiative reset, he would have cast the "healing" spell. BTW: I thought that was a very fair pitlord adaptation, to use bear's endurance since the scrolls: cure serious wounds were melded. Incidently, JotHF will be buying a handy haversack to keep his scrolls/potions in (since the magical haversack resizes to fit whatever shape JotHF takes in wildshape, and many animal forms can still hold a scroll/use a potion). That does make sense. I was thinking that Nox would want to fly around the arena at varying levels so his blindsense would cover it. At the very least he would have started flying at height 8 instead of heigh 1. I wonder where he would be though. Flying UP costs double movement, so to fly Nox up from 7 to 30 would put him 230 feet back in the circles he was flying, so he'd probably be around Laph's starting point instead of at Jindl's at this point... right? That sounds about right, although considering the altitude he could trade in for extra movement when he does hear the bow "twang", Nox could easily cover half the arena with a double move. And don't forget that Nox can use the run action while flying also. So my analysis of Nox's movement from above should be pretty accurate, regardless of the bat's x,y-coordinates when he hears the pixie. Well... to quibble (and I love to quibble) you said to do that if you had nothing better to do. You did have something better to do, you could ready your faerie fire. I noticed this at the end of the fight when I re-read your tactics. I thought about editing them in but in the targetted dispel would have blasted it away so it's moot (the check for the wild shape passed and that check would go to the next dispelable thing). The problem would have been deciding WHEN to cast (IE.. you didn't see laph for 3 rounds then cast? 6 rounds and cast?) because with their duration of 1 min... I would have determined after a reasonable number of rounds readying, that JotHF should take this step. Probably after 5 rounds of readying is appropriate, considering the existence of the 10 round rule, although since it wasn't spelled out in tactics that would be at the pitlord's discretion. That fail was for your readied action. You could have cast Faerie Fire if you passed the check.. I decided that you wouldn't die to cast that spell. Ah, okay. So JotHF didn't take his readied action because it would have made him unconscious since he failed the autohypnosis check. Instead, he just waited until his next turn. That makes sense. Anywho, I think the biggest concern is the 10 round limit. That rule needs to be tightened down a bit more so I can use it effectivly. I think Jindl get's another listen check but he couldn't have passed it by enough (22-15+d20 vs 8+d20) (beat by 15 to pinpoint)... hrm.. okay, if jindl rolld 16 more than laph then he would have pinpointed close enough.. My bad thinking that flying faeries were silent. I was trying to point out that a creature flying with wings doesn't count as "immobile" for the +40 to hide from invisibility, because ... their wings are moving. He would have been limited to the normal +20 from invisibility. He could still have rolled very well on his move silently check to be "silent". -Jindl |
| Aramil Dunskar04-20-05, 03:20 PM | @Jindl: I could have sworn that I sent you tatics.... oh well, this is just a sign to go ahead and pull Aramil out for a new character.... *Sigh* -Aramil |
| Jindl04-20-05, 04:06 PM | @Jindl: I could have sworn that I sent you tatics.... oh well, this is just a sign to go ahead and pull Aramil out for a new character.... *Sigh* -Aramil I think you meant to direct that to One_Winged_Angel. I was assigned to run Grakk's fight, did recieve your tactics, forwarded them to xanadu, who used them for the fight :D |
| Aramil Dunskar04-20-05, 04:20 PM | D'OH! This was in my PM box, under sent messages: 04-13-05 Tatics for Aramil 09:54 PM OneWingedAngel 04-13-05 Tatics for Grakk 09:46 PM Jindl *Sigh* Oh well... I lost because of my stupidyness... so I'm just going to go ahead and pull Aramil out..... -Aramil |
| TaggIIV04-20-05, 10:10 PM | Link to fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5968827&postcount=1472) I've donesome more work on Merman vs Azriel. However I need some help. Merman wants to use bow unless Azriel is flyby attacking, in which case he draws glaive to counterattack. Azriel wants to use flyby attack unless Merman has his glaive out in which case she draws bow. As you see this goes in an endless cycle of weapon swapping. What happens? |
| One_Winged_Angel04-20-05, 10:15 PM | Link to fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5968827&postcount=1472) I've donesome more work on Merman vs Azriel. However I need some help. Merman wants to use bow unless Azriel is flyby attacking, in which case he draws glaive to counterattack. Azriel wants to use flyby attack unless Merman has his glaive out in which case she draws bow. As you see this goes in an endless cycle of weapon swapping. What happens? The pitlord must make a will save vs. Confusion, DC 50 (Add +45 to check if an elder assists) |
| jstorrie04-20-05, 11:58 PM | @Tagg: Azriel would start flyby attacking, at which point his opponent would draw his glaive and attempt to counterattack, and Azriel would attempt to pull away if possible? That's what I would suggest. Merman needs to use up move actions to keep drawing and redrawing his weapons, so the loop has to run itself out pretty quick, right? @Pitlords: I have a match that was reassigned to me, but the boards have been down every time since I received it. I'll try to get it up ASAP now that the boards are back. Hopefully they're 'really' back. |
| Jindl04-21-05, 12:12 AM | Link to fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5968827&postcount=1472) I've donesome more work on Merman vs Azriel. However I need some help. Merman wants to use bow unless Azriel is flyby attacking, in which case he draws glaive to counterattack. Azriel wants to use flyby attack unless Merman has his glaive out in which case she draws bow. As you see this goes in an endless cycle of weapon swapping. What happens? Round 9 M puts away glaive, draws bow. A fires once, then puts bow away. Round 10 M fires once then puts away bow. A draws scythe while moving and peforms a flyby attack. Round 11 M draws glaive and readies against flyby attacks. A puts away scythe and draws bow. Repeat Rounds 9 - 11 ... eventually Merman should quit switching weapons and granting the more manueverable warrior the free attack every 3 rounds. |
| Arstimis04-21-05, 06:28 AM | I guess it would have to be my luck, that neither of my two fights have gotten done |
| TaggIIV04-21-05, 08:41 AM | Thanks, Jindl. I have school in like.. now so I probably wont be able to get the fight finished before pairings. However, it will be done shortly after pairings when I get home. I dont know if its possible to get you guys paired anyway (sheets are posted so edits are fine) |
| Jindl04-21-05, 09:05 AM | The pitlord must make a will save vs. Confusion, DC 50 (Add +45 to check if an elder assists) Don't forget the -45 penalty if more than one elder is assisting ... |
| One_Winged_Angel04-21-05, 09:45 AM | Thanks, Jindl. I have school in like.. now so I probably wont be able to get the fight finished before pairings. However, it will be done shortly after pairings when I get home. I dont know if its possible to get you guys paired anyway (sheets are posted so edits are fine) No worries. Azriel wasn't going active anyway. Uh oh. Must get Kailia ready... Don't forget the -45 penalty if more than one elder is assisting ... :D |
| Arstimis04-21-05, 11:21 AM | When are pairings anyways...and I assume fights will be reassigned to different pitlords...at least Iced's fights...as he seems to not be around |
| Sindorin04-21-05, 12:28 PM | Pairings have been delayed 24 hours, which means that they are to supposedly take place in 3.5 hours or so. |
| spasheridan04-21-05, 02:48 PM | I guess it would have to be my luck, that neither of my two fights have gotten doneSome weeks are like this. It pays to have a few PC's up so somebody does something each week. I would like some form of compensation for extended fights though.. maybe a 25% increase in winnings / rewards for both ( 1125 xp/gp for winner, 375 gp / x for looser at ECL3) or increase them both by a loss's value (so a 2 week fight is worth 1200 gp / xp for the winner and 600 gp/xp for the looser at ECL 3). I also like the though of giving the PC a free week for crafting / training if their fight gets extended. |
| Arstimis04-21-05, 05:00 PM | Some weeks are like this. It pays to have a few PC's up so somebody does something each week. I would like some form of compensation for extended fights though.. maybe a 25% increase in winnings / rewards for both ( 1125 xp/gp for winner, 375 gp / x for looser at ECL3) or increase them both by a loss's value (so a 2 week fight is worth 1200 gp / xp for the winner and 600 gp/xp for the looser at ECL 3). I also like the though of giving the PC a free week for crafting / training if their fight gets extended. Getting more players would be too much of a problem for me and the boards. for me because I barely have enough time to write tactics for two as it is and for the boards because we dont have that many pitlords, and that'd be too more fights And yes, I think there should be some kind of compensation. I asked Cat about that last week and he said no, but there isnt really a good reason to why not |
| Cerebus1304-21-05, 05:26 PM | Rewarding a person as a direct result of somebody not doing their job on time (in this case the Pitlord) doesn't seem like the right way to persuade Pitlords to be diligent. It would make more sense to reward Pitlords for being consistent from week to week. |
| Sindorin04-21-05, 05:26 PM | Getting more players would be too much of a problem for me and the boards. for me because I barely have enough time to write tactics for two as it is and for the boards because we dont have that many pitlords, and that'd be too more fights I think what Spash meant was that if you have idle characters standing by, you can use them if a fight gets messed up or if your pc is crafting something. |
| Arstimis04-21-05, 05:30 PM | I think what Spash meant was that if you have idle characters standing by, you can use them if a fight gets messed up or if your pc is crafting something. Yes, i know thats what he meant, but if I had to do tactics for another PC, because mine got messed up and were set back a week, that'd be another set of tactics I have to write. Also, none of my gladiators craft |
| spasheridan04-21-05, 06:09 PM | Yes, i know thats what he meant, but if I had to do tactics for another PC, because mine got messed up and were set back a week, that'd be another set of tactics I have to write. Also, none of my gladiators craftWell, say you ran 3 gladiators. Only 2 fight on any given week. If on week 1 one of your fights got extended, on week 2 you don't write new tactics for the extended fight, you write them for the gladiator who didn't fight last week. SO, in most cases, you would only write 2 tactics a week, never more than 2. |
| Aramil Dunskar04-21-05, 07:23 PM | 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 |