Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Druid Roxors 10-27-04, 07:56 PM	Please, fellow CoCo players, use this forum to discuss the changes collected here: The following issues have been voted on the Council of Elders (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=4274508#post4274508) and are now official. These rules are to be implemented beginning next Wednesday, as such, any elders who feel their vote is inadequate or who has yet to vote can do so now. X 10 Round rule: 1 Abstain 3 Cummulative Rounds spent invulnerable are cumulative XI Bought allies resurrected for free: 4 Aye Unanimous, Bought allies resurrected for free. XII False Life Stacking 4 No Unanimous, No stacking, all are drained at the same time. XV Max Scroll/Powerstone CL/ML 2 Unlimited, 1 ECL + 2 All scrolls are allowed. (See #18) XVI Moh's Idea, Revisited (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=317010) 2 KerlanRayne's Suggestion, 1 Druid Roxor's Suggestion We will be working on seeing how we can implement it in the next couple of days. XVII Fights per Level (Cat's Suggestion) 3, 2 fights per level at level 17+ (pre-epic) Unanimous, gladiators require 2 fights to level-up at level 17 and beyond. XVIII Item cost increase 2 Increase to all consumables, 1 None 2, 5x increase and 10 charges. All consumables (Scrolls, Potions, Unguents, Tonics, Tanglebags, Thunderstones, etc) suffer a 5x price increase. Wands/Staves suffer no price change but their charges are reduced to 10 XIX Ceiling Reduction 2 To 50ft, 1 To 100ft The official ceiling is now 50ft high. Special maps and arrangements can still make for exceptions. The following Issues need revisiting: XIII Maze Spell [Re-voting, New option available] a. Caster loses for 10-round Invulnerability b. Target loses for 10-round Leaving unless he succeeds c. Target gets 10 rounds doing whatever he wants and then returns. d. Target gets 5 rounds doing whatever he wants and 5 attempting checks (auto-return still) e. Target gets 10 rounds attempting checks, no actions allowed. f. Leave as it is (up to 100 rounds) XIV Grappling While Mounted [Insufficient imput, please revisit and consense] a. Grapple normally, both are "mounted" b. Can't grapple at all, you need to get him out of the mount c. Grapple with Special rules? Suggest.
Druid Roxors 10-27-04, 07:59 PM	Firstly, note that I do not think the 5x cost change and KerlanRayne's Idea should go togeather. In fact I do not think they should be in at all. In any case, the discussion (although short) is already done and the votes (rather few) are in. Having 3 or 4 elders vote on this issues is completely unacceptable, in my opinion. Have anything to say about it say it here. I got a few questions myself about this system which isnt even clear yet. This questions were posted one page ago in the Taven and were not responded to. Questions: A buff that lasts all day will last all 3 fights correct? All items previously spent are not deducted from our gold stash right? All current items on our inventory are to be removed (for a full re-fund) or their cost multiplied by 5? Permanent spells (IE, programed image) is not carried on from fight to fight right? Spell lists are not carried on but Re-memorized with less slots right? (I got 3 fireballs and spent two, next level I got 1 slot I can fill with fly and the other fireball I had I can re-fill with haste right?)
Magagumo 10-27-04, 08:04 PM	The answer to the first three I know to be yes (all day buffs = good, now we shoot for 24 hrs, though 16 hrs is still useful; Full refunds are good :); These changes are not retroactive). Permenant spells also should not be carried over, if only ebcause the arena might be different. And finally, I think this thought was missed in the process, but I would agree that spells may be re-memorized with the adjusted slots, less we be entirely screwed for our next fight. I can see one normally making widespread choices (so that one might eb able to handle any challenger), but one should have the option to at least customize to the enxt tier of fighters (if I'm fighting all fire immune chars, let me get rid of those fireballs ;))
Ashenai 10-27-04, 08:10 PM	First of all, I agree with DR. Counting Jindl and Cat, we currently have at least 6 active Elders. Of these 6, only 3 voted at all. This is one of the most comprehensive and far-reaching changes ever proposed in the CoCo, and we need everyone to be on the same page. Rushing this is not, IMO, productive. I'd certainly be willing to retract this change for now, and re-open the vote. Assuming things stay the way they've been decided, though, here are the answers to DR's questions (as far as I know... they're my answers, and no one has contradicted them so far): A buff that lasts all day will last all 3 fights correct? Yes. And one that lasts 5 days would last for the next 15 fights. All items previously spent are not deducted from our gold stash right? Correct. All current items on our inventory are to be removed (for a full re-fund) or their cost multiplied by 5? All current one-shot or charged items, yes. Alternately, you could choose to keep a charged item for the same price, but divide the remaining charges by five (round down). Permanent spells (IE, programed image) is not carried on from fight to fight right? I... don't see why not. A Permanent Enlarge Person is carried on, so why wouldn't these spells? Spell lists are not carried on but Re-memorized with less slots right? (I got 3 fireballs and spent two, next level I got 1 slot I can fill with fly and the other fireball I had I can re-fill with haste right?) Wrong. Spells are carried on until the end of the day, like in a real campaign. Note that most of these questions were never discussed, so these are only my answers. I voted on KerlanRayne's suggestion with the understanding that these would be the correct answers, though.
Caterane 10-27-04, 08:20 PM	This is exactly what I meant in the Tavern: we need more time to discuss it! This is a major change in the CoCo rules and we shouldn't rush into things. The CoCo has been fine without the new changes for a long time; I see no reason why we should dive head over heels into this. On a sidenote, I want to withdraw my own proposal about the 2 wins at level 17. I have thought Donkey and Angosh over and over again and I am just happy to get it over with. There are only very few gladiators reaching that level so fresh meat is rare indeed up there. I also didn't mean to implement it TOGETHER with the other proposals but alone, and for all levels. So let's forget about the level 17 vote. The same is true for the other votes. We should take our time to discuss it, find problems, find ways to track and execute it, and finally explain it to everyone. The recent changes are just too many in too short a time. And then, there's also the fact that the CoCo is without a leader atm. I suggest to wait until Tellish of Ket comes back, the only GM here. He has the absolute authority now, and might have something to say in there.
Zerone 10-27-04, 09:49 PM	Why don't the Elders (and anyone else interested in helping) start playtesting new rules and ideas on the side, in a simulated CoCo. I know that this would be some work, but at least the CoCo would not be shaken up if something was wrong with some of the changes that are made? I could see people leave the CoCo because the rules change too much, or change back and forth, etc... Every person could receive a different character class or two to run (so that most to all of the classes are used), and every person Pitlords at least 1 fight a week, there could be some great work done in figuring out what works and what does not, as we could discuss what went wrong where and not care about winning or losing but care about getting the rules that govern the CoCo and how she is run to be correct (more of a 'stress free' environment). Please let me know what you think of this idea, *•. Z
SnarkHunter 10-27-04, 09:52 PM	More then the other new rules I would expect the x5 cost rule to drive people away from the CoCo. AS far as evidence goes I don't have anything more then a gut instinct and Kaigans rather oblique going away post. My 2c. p.s. Sorry for the no voting thing, been busy with teh stuff lately.
T'Var 10-27-04, 10:36 PM	More then the other new rules I would expect the x5 cost rule to drive people away from the CoCo. AS far as evidence goes I don't have anything more then a gut instinct and Kaigans rather oblique going away post. My 2c. p.s. Sorry for the no voting thing, been busy with teh stuff lately. well more than that, being here 2 weeks and then having my magic items basicly stripped of me because i could no longer afford to buy them almost had me leave. and if i had came in this week and learned of the price increase i may not have joined. Its a bit unrealisitic and missleading to say core, then use optional rules from the books as this rule is based on
Druid Roxors 10-28-04, 01:34 AM	I am happy to see the same feeling across the board. I am worried that perhaps this vote was taken too hastly and without much premeditation. I would certainly suggest to retract these changes for this week at least to discuss the changes with further calm. Permanent spells (IE, programed image) is not carried on from fight to fight right? I... don't see why not. A Permanent Enlarge Person is carried on, so why wouldn't these spells?I mean... Programmed image is Used up (triggered) and it will not be available for the rest of the day.
Pittbull 10-28-04, 02:59 AM	Sorry, but I got to say that the 5x cost of potions and elixirs is the most stupid idea I've ever seen in the CoCo. Not every fighter wants to buy a pegasus to get acces to fly and I'm sure nobody can afford a potion for such a high prize. But they are absolutely necessary if you want to habe a chance against casters. Just take a look at Angoshs charactersheet (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&perpage=1&postid=2727690#post2727690). I've been very cautious to use them, because I allready thought that they are expensive, but I got to use a lot of them to have a chance to win and all in all there is a huge ammount of different potions. So please Elders rethink this topic and sorry for harsh words. Pittbull
KerlanRayne 10-28-04, 04:47 AM	So are these implemented or not? Withso few voting and so many against it it seems like they should be on hold. This will have a big impact on tactics, so it's important to know. KerlanRayne
Zerone 10-28-04, 10:51 AM	To me, one of the problems is that we are only punishing 1 type of item, 1 shot items. Why don't we try something like this, to emulate a real D&D setting... All magic items cost 25 to 30% more. This makes sense, as not all of your gold that you aquire is gold, but misc. magical items and other treasures, which must be traded in for a cheaper price (50% in the DMG) if you want a specific item and you have not found it yet. This would lower your overall gp count for any given level. Or we could lower the gp gained each level by 25%-30% (so there is no math involved for everyone, just the list of gp gained), except Level 1, which would remain at 1000 gp. This could solve the problem, as it is an even cost increase accross the board, seems more realistic, and fits in with the multiple fights in a day aspect, making for a realistic environment. As it is now with the x5 and the multiple fights per day, that's 4,500 gp (3150 gp crafted) for 3 Potions of Fly...? Winged boots cost 16,000 gp and work 3 times per day, less than the cost of 4 days worth of potions...? Besides, most 1 shot items are cheapened in the CL department compaired to the actual casting of the spell, and so become less powerful/less useful at higher levels due to Dispel Magic, which means even more useless... Any thoughts? :D *•. Z
Druid Roxors 10-28-04, 10:53 AM	I didn't vote For this changes, I voted against. If it were in my hands I would put them on hold.
Sindorin 10-28-04, 11:39 AM	I think you can definitely see the end result in what has happened since this has passed. Kaigan left, after just coming back. Look at the pairings this week - no one was ready to fight. No one wanted to risk getting beat because they weren't sure how to go about following the new rules. What does the future hold? I truly believe these new rules have decimated the competitive atmosphere this place has been. Sadly it is almost as if that was what was intended, though. No longer will characters have options, our fate, our tactics will rely ever so more on the dice, or it will depend on who decides to shell out the extra money and get their consumables. I have been campaigning a lot in RL recently, and these experiences alone are enough to tell me that the die roll doesn't have the slightest to do with having fun when you have a good party with you. You can get into the biggest mess and still come out alive. I know that this place's purpose is to test builds in a core environment, but the rules implemented don't let us test certain classes accurately. If you are trying to make it so casters are weaker against melee builds, then make a separate arena for the melee builds, or have casters against a group of monsters (similar maybe to Bud Green's arena) or have a party vs. party arena - which I think would truly test a core campaign atmosphere. That is why I was so happy to be able to take part in Magagumo's Banewarrens campaign, it let me introduce myself to Psionics in a controlled helpful atmosphere. Though in this arena there is so much that I can still perfect, I feel that these rules will greatly impede my own progress and the progress of any newer player that just wants to get better at the game and also enjoy themself. I know I just threw three possible arena variations out there. Chances are that my outspoken opinion on these matters will be a bit overlooked. They wouldn't be hastily formed and implemented though. The new rules are. I foresee hard times ahead... If we have all these rules to balance the classes being implemented, I say we at least be truthful and change our name. I say let this never be complete. I say that to test this arena, in a Campaign Setting, as CORE as you can get, you HAVE to have party vs. party. 4 vs 4. Teamwork. Just think about it... I'll get off of my soap box.
Ashenai 10-28-04, 11:57 AM	I also say it's on hold for now. That makes at least 3 Elders saying so; with ToK unavailable, that means it's official. @Zerone: I think we should strive to be as Core as possible. That means no arbirtrary house rules, if we can help it. The rule I proposed was 100% Core. @Sindorin: First of all, Kaigan just said he probably won't leave after all. Secondly, if a change is good for the CoCo, I don't think we should refrain from it just because a person leaves. Whether or not this change is good for the CoCo is open to debate, of course. Thirdly, I get the feeling that everyone has a problem with the change making their characters less powerful. What I suspect they don't consider is that it weakens their opponents just as much. Incidentally, is there something wrong with a gladiator buying Winged Boots if he wants to fly all the time, as opposed to just now and then? I don't understand the problem with this, to be honest.
Druid Roxors 10-28-04, 12:19 PM	Incidentally, is there something wrong with a gladiator buying Winged Boots if he wants to fly all the time, as opposed to just now and then? I don't understand the problem with this, to be honest. Specially refering to warriors, the problem is that in a real campaign you have support from the casters for means of flight and speed (haste). You could even let your players build custom made gloves of haste or something similar. In the CoCo, that is not the case. You either buy the flight boots and get outrunned by the hasted flying caster or get haste and get outmanouvered by the flying character. Although "Leadership" helps a tad, you are not supposed to need a leadership cohort for your character to be effective. Even more so, your cohort will have insufficient spells per day; that is a different matter though. Which reminds me that Boots of flying and Haste are not refreshed after a fight... One could only use 10 rounds of haste/3 fights. Ouch.
Jindl 10-28-04, 12:39 PM	I am working on a test arena now. I'll post it on a new thread in a day or two. Please continue to post ideas/suggestions (like Zerone's 4v4 suggestion) here.
Kaigan 10-28-04, 02:32 PM	Perhaps here is a good place that I should post my reasons for leaving. I did say that the main one, was that I am extremely busy. And like I posted later on in the Tavern, that I would have one character active. That doesn't necessarily mean, I'm "coming back". I want to see what the final decision is before I truly quit the CoCo. I have a lot of fun here. The thing is that, yes. Some of the new rules that you are imposing are very intimidating. I have pretty good knowlegde of D&D, not as much as many of you. But I do know my rules, and I have played many campaigns in RL. I don't say that the new rules aren't confusing, becuase they aren't. It's more of an intimidation factor. We want more people to come to the CoCo, yes? Well put yourself in a Noobie's shoes. Read the FAQ and the gladiator page. Then read the new rules and tell me if you aren't intimidated. Plus rules should be integrated slowly, and with much discussion, and voting. Everyone should have their own outtake be heard. I agreee that there should be an elder's council, but what good is it if no one else can vote on these issues. I have more to say, but i'm busy, so I'll say more later.
Ashenai 10-28-04, 03:57 PM	I do understand your concerns. Please note, though, that these issues were discussed on public boards for at least three weeks before they even made it onto the Elders' board for voting. Everyone was welcome to state their opinions and suggestions, and many people did. So much so, in fact, that the suggestion we felt had the most merit was actually the one proposed by KerlanRayne, rather than those proposed by Elders. So please don't say that you didn't get a chance to give your opinion; the topic wasn't even introduced to the Elders until we made sure that everyone could make their voice heard. Nonetheless, many people seem to be having issues with this rule now, so I'd say it's time to re-open the discussion. I also believe that we shouldn't rush into things, and, well, if it takes another month or so to figure out what we want to do... well, it's not a huge price to pay. :)
Captain Mutilate 10-28-04, 04:47 PM	Personally I think that the C0C0 is fine the way it is. I realise that there is a problem with the whole casters fly and fighter's don't fly rule but howabout you extend the 10 round rule to flying as well, unless the other combatant is also flying. I would also like to see party-vs party combat. I put forward this idea a while ago before I left, and I'm not sure how it took hold. I'm pretty sure it was forgotten about. Why not have a party-vs party thing with an objective other then kill eachother? Why not Capture the flag, or Statues? CTF is pretty straightforward, your team has to get to the other team's flag, take it, and get it back to them. This would allow rogues to test stealth abilities and all that. I'd be willing to make a map for this. Statues is similar to CTF except all you have to do is destroy the other team's statue. It would have 10 HP per level of fighting parties and 10 hardness. A CTF map could be easily changed to Statues. Both types of fights could be done by two pitlords who would get 3 credits each for doing such a big job. Each team could be comprised of 3 to 5 people, depending on how many people would be in the league. And there can be varying levels in a team... 2 level 2 members, 2 level 3 members, and 1 level 4 member. I know that there were new map proposals but I still have some catching up to do, so forgive me if my ideas and opinions are outdated.
Sindorin 10-28-04, 06:58 PM	I also say it's on hold for now. That makes at least 3 Elders saying so; with ToK unavailable, that means it's official. @Sindorin: First of all, Kaigan just said he probably won't leave after all. Secondly, if a change is good for the CoCo, I don't think we should refrain from it just because a person leaves. Whether or not this change is good for the CoCo is open to debate, of course. Thirdly, I get the feeling that everyone has a problem with the change making their characters less powerful. What I suspect they don't consider is that it weakens their opponents just as much. Incidentally, is there something wrong with a gladiator buying Winged Boots if he wants to fly all the time, as opposed to just now and then? I don't understand the problem with this, to be honest. Well then, what is good for this place? Trying to persuade everyone to use a certain type of class doesn't sound good to me. I wasn't saying that the change was bad just because one person left, what I said was sort of a tirade about how the purpose, attitude, and mood of this place has changed drastically since I first joined. I still think we need the party vs party, or 4v4, to be seriously looked at. It is by definition the solution to the problem we have of making this place more like a campaign so our builds are truly tested. The question has been asked before, "where or when would you ever see a fight of equal CR 1vs1 in a campaign?" Never. If we are looking for simply an arena to test builds one on one, we need to think about what we tell others we're about, because the impression I get is that this place calls itself "The Core Coliseum" when in actuality it is not the Core Coliseum but something different, other than what Moh originally intended. Maybe I just have the purpose of this place a bit disillusioned, or maybe I just like working with others in a party. Whatever the case, if we are to fight three fights per day we shouldn't be fighting them alone.
Bud Green 10-28-04, 10:09 PM	Some thoughts. I will probably say too much, considering I'm still a noob here, but I was brought up to speak my mind. The Core Colliseum is indeed a paradox. It is not, strictly speaking, core. Nor will it ever be. There are fundamental reasons why this is true. D&D was not designed to be 'Mortal Kombat' with paper and dice. It was designed to be a party-vs-monster campaign game. In a campaign, the PCs do not always (in fact, do not usually) know who or what they will be fighting next. They do not get to study every opponent and then prepare to kill that opponent in a round or two. They cannot typically walk into the village magic store and buy any magic item they want. They are faced with time restrictions, changing and unpredictable conditions, battlefields that are decidely not neutral, limited availability of items and resources, etc. etc. The classes are made to be balanced in the context of fighting against monsters in an unpredictable campaign world. We are fighting player-vs-player every battle, with total magic item availability, total predictability of how much money we will make and spend, and total knowledge of our opponents. These elements, while they may be fundamental to the CoCo, are decidedly not core. I'm not condeming campaign emulation entirely. I'm simply saying it's a pipe dream. We are playing our own type of campaign that differs radically in some ways from a typical campaign. The DMG says that the rules may need to be adopted to fit non-standard campaigns. This has been true in every edition of D&D. The rules should serve the campaign, not vice-versa. If the rules are harmful to the balance of the campaign than they should be modified. That's certainly not something to be done lightly - the consequences of changes should be examined closely - but it sometimes may have to be done. What is it you want to see here? I can see two basic schools of thought. There are probably others. 1. The core rules should be used with concessions to make the arena system work. However, concessions should not be made to artificially balance classes. There may be an inherent imbalance between classes but if there is, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If mages rule the coliseum than so be it - it's up to the rest of the players to find a build to beat the mages. Eventually there will be less variety of builds as people find out the truly killer builds and stay with those. It's all about seeing which core build is best - balance has nothing to do with it. 2. The core rules should be used with concessions to make the arena system work, but also changes should be enacted to artificially balance classes. An effort should be made to make each class viable. Variety of builds is a good thing and the system should try to encourage this. Killer builds that auto-win if they win initiative are a bad thing and rules should be enacted to prevent them. It's all about balance between classes and variety of builds. Both of those viewpoints are possibly stated in an extreme way, and I think there are elements of both in the CoCo. In some ways the two are diametrically opposed however, and at odds with each other. I kind of favor the second viewpoint because I think balance between classes will ultimately make the CoCo more fun and imbalance creates more one-sided fights and could eventually lead to stagnation. I'm not upset either way with the new rules. I think they could help balance classes, but I'm not sure that is or should be the goal. My character won't be hugely affected either way unlike many people whose characters might be greatly affected, so I am not going to argue much either way regarding the specific changes. I do believe that the leadership of this place needs to try and get on the same page regarding their vision for the CoCo and what they want it to ultimately be. If there is ultimately one authority here (Tellish of Ket?), than perhaps his guidance is needed as to the vision he has for this place. Maybe there needs to be a written manifesto (is that the write word?) clearly outlining the goal and vision of CoCo. Successful businesses do this. That way, all the elders will be working towards a common purpose rather than at cross-purposes, and rule proposals can be evaluated as to whether they will further or hinder the ultimate goal. And now I am tired of typing and have nothing else to say. Do you agree with me or do you have a different opinion?
Kazzaroth Pan'theon 10-29-04, 12:37 PM	Well, I did not have any chance to voice out my opinion about increased cost for consumable resources. I would had voted against it b'cause everyoen suffers because of it. But if cost would ahd been increased for all kinds spellcasters then ti would had been ok (figthers need more hardly potion of fly than mage who does not bother memorize it). But I agreed (whit someone?) who said that D&D was planned for party vs monster games. In my opinion most figths foes to a standard 4 party should be rolled by specificely created lsit wich haves most monsters for that sized and lvl party. D&D is about teamwork, some classes outrules others and generally pure figthers have always seeked support form their party members (cleric, heal, wizard boosts etc). So, I have following combat mode ideas (wich shouls reward more credits to pitlord accordingly); Dungeon Crawl: Basic set of labyrinth of full of monsters and traps. Can do as solo or in party (two lvls while alone, one or half lvl while in party). Main goal is to come out from labyrinth (figths are not neccesarily). Teleportation magics etc similar spells do nto work. Tag team: Pair figths against a another pair in arena. Duel: Certain classed char figths against similar classed foe (meleers against melee, ranged vs ranged, caster vs caster etc). Examply figther versus barbarian is a duel match. Cleric vs wizard is duel match (magicall duel ;)). Party duel: A standard 4 member parties figth agaisnt other party. Party members choosen freely. Guild war: Certain guild who haves at least three party numbered members (12), it can figth guild war wich is most complicated combat type. Parties and invidual solorers make different combats and all winnings are counted for total win ration to make out wich guild won. Exact details what combat modes (whitout choosing embers into them yet) used are agreed by guild leaders. Examply thieves guild versus figthers guild agreed that one party from both guilds figth party duel, then there woudl be two pair duels and then 2 figthers (figthers guild) figth against 2 figther/rogues (thieve's guild) and rest two go for dungeon crawl (alone). I think guild war asks for 2-3 pitlords to navigate it (depending how the parties are mixed). I think most intresting stories come from guild wars (think reason what goals each group/invidual strived whit the figth). Opinions and tougths?
SnarkHunter 10-29-04, 03:07 PM	Lets not be to radical here. Theres a point where accuracy in modeling a real party is overtaken by the complexity of actually trying to run a fight over the internet. Here's my problem with x5 rule: I don't think it accuratly represents the CoCo economy. By my understanding the x5 rule is if you have a 1 time party thats been brought together for a one or two session game. Like go kill this lich, or steal the dragons treasure. No advancement no complications, one event and the characters are retired. SO it would make sense that there would be no conservation of resources, because the DM and the players know that anything not used in that game will never be used again. But the only time the CoCo is going to be like that will be the 19th level fight. Only then, will it be imperative to sacrifice every ally, burn every scroll, and down every potion, because after 20th level is achieved (by current reasoning) theres no where else to go. But up until then, anything not used is carried over to the next fight. So it makes sense to marshal resources to the threat. Conversly if one forsees a long climb, it would make as much sense to buy more permanent magical effects that can be reused multiple times after the initial purchase. So the problem with the 5x cost is that eliminates one whole style of development. And I don't think its accurate. If the largest problem the 5x cost was supposed to fix is spellcasters using high level scrolls why not go back and revisit the Elder ruling on that? I don't think limiting scrolls to CL+2 or +4 would be that great a detriment. My 3c.
Ashenai 10-29-04, 07:13 PM	Although there is a lot more advanceement in the CoCo than there is in a one-shot adventure, what's similar about the two is the number of encounters. In a real campaign, one-shots must be conserved, because if you use them every encounter, they run out very quickly. In the CoCo, on the other hand, it's trivial to use one-shot items every single fight. This is what I feel is unrealistic. We're trying to test builds, not the effectiveness of one-shot magical items. The fact that 5x costs fix low-level casters using high-level scrolls is a fortunate side effect. And level 2 casters using CL 9 scrolls was a symptom of how the whole system was flawed; when did you last see a level 2 caster use a CL 9 scroll in a campaign? The answer is never. Why not? Because even though it has a great chance of killing a single opponent at that level, it simply costs too much for killing 1 enemy. Since in the CoCo, you're unlikely to face more than, say, 40 enemies during your entire career, the economic considerations of one-shots go way out of whack. As for the alternate solution to low-level casters using high-level spells: I would definitely vote against that. Why? Simply because it goes right against Core Rules. If a problem can be fixed either by implementing an optional Core Rule and making up a completely arbitrary house rule, I'm going to vote for the Core solution every time. This is the Core Coliseum, after all.
scaryfroman 10-30-04, 12:18 AM	Another thing that you have to look at, though, is that Mounts and dogs are technically "Consumable." That would make a mount essentially unobtainable for low levels.
Beldin 10-30-04, 06:42 AM	In a real campaign, one-shots must be conserved, because if you use them every encounter, they run out very quickly. Of course you would not use one-shots against some orcs, zombies or other weaker creatures you usually encounter during an adventure. But you would use one-shots if you face an equal enemy, like you do in CoCo everytime.
Caterane 10-30-04, 06:56 AM	Another thing that you have to look at, though, is that Mounts and dogs are technically "Consumable." That would make a mount essentially unobtainable for low levels. I don't know how you do it in Seattle but here we don't eat dogs and mounts :)
Sindorin 10-30-04, 12:30 PM	Dogs and Mounts count as allies and they get resurrected for free - not very Core in my opinion.
Pittbull 10-31-04, 08:17 AM	Yes, Of course it's not core, but I realy like the idea of a free resurection. It gives exspecially fighters more freedom in tactics, if they dont't need to pay attention, for their ally to survive. In higher levels it's the only way to get some buffs for a fair price, if the 5x costs of one-use items realy takes place.
Sindorin 10-31-04, 10:35 AM	Yes, here Free Res is a good thing.
KerlanRayne 11-01-04, 12:21 AM	Looking at the votes, I don't see how some of those passed. I know that Jundl and Cat aren't GM's any more, but aren't thay still Elders? Shouldn't they be voting on these too? That would make a total of 8, but some of these passed with only 2 votes? I thought it had to be more than half to pass and ties were voted on by the rest of the members. I just don't see how 2 votes can cut it. KerlanRayne
Kazzaroth Pan'theon 11-01-04, 08:00 AM	If high lvl scroll is the prob, why the limit it into certain lvl? What the 5x price has something to do in 19lvl fight? You need probally sell the worser potions (like never used CLW) and scrolls wich some are useless in 19lvl figth (not to mention that you need carry them all). In my opinion it could be ruled that everything sold back to the shop ony gives 50% of the money what was used to buy the thing. This makes chars think twice before they buy anything. Or like in RL campaing rule; certain amount costing things are NOT allowed to buy! Examply good amount for 2lvl would be that any single item should not cost over 400gp, then in 4 lvl this increases into 800 and in 6 lvl 1,500 etc.
Jindl 11-01-04, 10:04 AM	Looking at the votes, I don't see how some of those passed. I know that Jundl and Cat aren't GM's any more, but aren't thay still Elders? Shouldn't they be voting on these too? That would make a total of 8, but some of these passed with only 2 votes? I thought it had to be more than half to pass and ties were voted on by the rest of the members. I just don't see how 2 votes can cut it. KerlanRayne Thanks, KerlunRuyne ;) I also think that it should take more than 2 votes out of 8 to pass an issue. However, you must consider that 2 Elders (MotherBast and Ethendril) are both on extended leave and so their votes go as an abstain. That leaves 6 active Elders (Mag, Snark, Ash, Druid, Cat, and Jindl). Of course, the Elder Voting thread needs to be edited to add Caterane and I to the list of Elder's and to give us a spot to vote. I think it obvious that the system isn't working very well, especially given the amount of complaints heard after the last set of "decisions". So, does anybody have any suggestions for improving the voting system?
Druid Roxors 11-01-04, 10:09 AM	I think the only solution to this problem is that the current elders Vote as they are supposed to. I did post reminders on the tavern from time to time for them to vote and even included you and Cat there. It is your responsability as elders to vote and I am not supposed to babysit you. These desitions were taken with the majority of the (active) elders. I explicitly mentioned that any votes that were missing could still be handed in. If you were not in favor of some changes you could have placed your vote late as I suggested. I believe the only problem here is lack of responsability.
Ashenai 11-01-04, 10:40 AM	Seconded. The current system doesn't "work very well" because most of the Elders don't vote. the two new Elders could and still can vote anytime they like. Just add your own post to the Council thread. Among others, I myself have called this to your attention on multiple threads. I even posted that it'd be nice if more Elders voted. I just don't see what else needs to be done. Nonetheless, I'm completely in favour of re-opening the vote on any of the issues. So go and vote, Elders.
T'Var 11-01-04, 10:51 AM	maybe there should be a kind of UN style and have the perminant Elders and 2-3 rotating elders every month
Druid Roxors 11-01-04, 10:52 AM	maybe there should be a kind of UN style and have the perminant Elders and 2-3 rotating elders every month When it came to create the Elder's Council, I suggested that.
Ashenai 11-01-04, 11:02 AM	I disagree with that suggestion. Instead, I'd like to make Elders "demotable". Perhaps something like this: in order to demote an Elder, there must be three public nominations on the boards. After that, a two-week CoCo-wide vote takes place, and simple majority is enough to demote the Elder in question. Also, Elder re-elections should be held every three months. Currently, there are no provisions for demoting Elders, or even promoting new ones. This is a bad thing. I don't think the position of Elder should be a "honorary" title; I would expect an Elder to take an active interest in the CoCo. It should also be something that is fluid; if everyone thinks an Elder is doing a great job, he or she should be allowed to stay on. If people find that an Elder is neglecting his duties, they should be able to demote him. I don't want this to sound harsh, but I don't see the point of an "inactive" Elder. Elders should be people who work to make the CoCo a better place. It should not be a title that's earned once and then kept as a trophy. It should be easy to promote an Elder based on popular opinion, and just as easy to demote one. Regarding the UN-like suggestion: the UN is a staggeringly inefficient enitity, completely crippled by its own bureaucratic procedures. I really don't think we should be taking cues from them.
Sindorin 11-01-04, 11:02 AM	While we are on the subject of the House of Elders that Don't Vote, may I note that the House of Commons (everybody else) has no real say in any matter whatsoever? It almost makes posting on discussion threads pointless to a degree.
Druid Roxors 11-01-04, 11:07 AM	Firstly, I agree with Ashenai on Demoting. Second, I dissagree with you Sindorin because the house of commons is very important in the CoCo. If you are going to tell me that KerlanRayne (commoner) had no influence on the house of elders I believe you are forgetting alot. The elders represent the people and, as you can see, they take those suggestions seriously. Discussions before the voting are important and instead of feeling unimportant and unmotivated the house of commons should be attempting to convince the elders to their point of view. That is something possible as the elders, I believe, are reasonable individuals.
Ashenai 11-01-04, 11:10 AM	Sindorin: considering that the suggestion we (the Elders) ended up deciding would be the best option was KerlanRayne's (who is not an Elder), I don't think that's a very accurate statement. KerlanRayne posted his "three fights a day" model on the boards, and it ended up becoming CoCo law (or maybe not; we're still figuring that out). I think the "democratic" model used in most countries works best here; people vote on who they want to be represented by, and those voted into position as Elders make decisions based on the "House of Commons'" input.
KerlanRayne 11-01-04, 06:01 PM	First of all, I suggested 2 fights, maybe 3 if people really wanted to. I prefer the 2 fights personally. Secondly, we have not worked out how everything would work. Some suggested being able to rememorize spells using their remaining slots, others think not. How much time is between each fight? You can't prebuff with the 10 min per level spells, but they can still last for hours. Thirdly, KerlunRuyne? I'm not upset or anything Jindl, but I feel like I'm missing out on a joke. Did it mean something or are you just messing with my name? By the way, it makes me feel all warm inside to know you all think I'm important here. :embarrass :D KerlanRayne PS - Jindl and Cat, POST IN THE ELDER'S FORUM. please
Caterane 11-01-04, 07:13 PM	Elder's Demotion: good thing. Ethendril and Motherbast don't seem to be coming back anytime soon so I suggest to replace them. If they return one day, they will have a good chance to be reelected (after a 3 months period has passed or another Elder gets demoted, whatever comes first). I know I didn't vote but that's because I thought the 6 Elders are doing a good job and there's no need to throw in more weight than the Council had before the GM demotion. Now with Ethendril and Motherbast gone, Jindl and I can fill in that place until a final decision about the GM question has been reached, and a suitable replacement for Eth and MB has been found. Besides, I would suggest to decrease the amount of votes to a minimum since the CoCo is effectively leaderless. As provided for in the CoCo constitution, the final decision is with the GMs. Since there are non atm, there is an important part missing in the process of making rules. As for the new multiple fights per day idea in particular, there are still a lot of things unclear. For example, let's say I (lvl 2 wizard) have to fight 3 fights a day, and win all of them. Does this mean that I cannot memorize and fill my newly gained slots? This would mean that I will fight at lvl 5 with my lvl 2 spells (and they are most certanly even used up). Or are we going to need 3 WINS to level? This would be completely wrong because it takes already ages to get to the top, and doubling or tripling that time will take the mirth out of the CoCo. Sooooo you see, we have to know how it works BEFORE we vote on it. @Kerlan: Of course you are an important part of the CoCo! You're a longstanding member and I would love to have your picture in the gallery.
Jindl 11-01-04, 07:21 PM	Thirdly, KerlunRuyne? I'm not upset or anything Jindl, but I feel like I'm missing out on a joke. Did it mean something or are you just messing with my name? @KerlanRayne - If you look closely at the quoted section in my post above (and the fact that I highlighted the "i" in my name), then I think you'll get the joke. If not, then just highlight the section below. You spelled my name with a "u" so I did the same with yours :-)
KerlanRayne 11-01-04, 07:35 PM	@KerlanRayne - You spelled my name with a "u" so I did the same with yours :-) Oops. That darned 'u' is right next to the 'i', I get it now though :D. @Cat: How I have seen it explained is that If you go from level 2 to level 3, you gain everything as normal (2nd level spells) but you won't regain any first level spells you have already used until after your 3rd fight (I still think it should be only 2 though). So after 3 fights for the day, you start off the next day will all slots filled, understand? KerlanRayne
Ashenai 11-01-04, 08:25 PM	Two fights per day seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
Sindorin 11-02-04, 12:47 AM	Well, I guess a bunch of you misunderstood what I said. I did not say that the house of commons was unimportant, why would i state that about friends, myself included? I meant that the house of commons should get some contingency set if there are Elders abstaining, but maybe not. I could go on and on but really it's not a big deal at all. It was just an innocent post. Oh well.