Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jindl 06-15-04, 09:36 AM	As the Title suggest, this thread is here to discuss setting a limit on allies. Please post any proposals for possible limits and discuss these proposals below. The Elders will vote on the issue during the last weekend of June. -Jindl
Ethendril 06-15-04, 11:34 AM	Proposal: 1. Set cap at ECL -2 (just like leadership and Thaumturgist allies) for all allies except for undead. 2. Undead allies use Mag's proposal of creature HD equal to character level +2 for skeletons, and zombies with creature HD equal to character level x2 (this formula can be adjusted based on need). 3. No permanent death for any ally (including undead...just assume the necromancer killed another one if it dies, with free material components from the Coliseum). 4. No more monster fights. The ally will be weaker than the gladiator, and we can assume the gladiator would win. EDITED for clarity.
Hatzinger 06-15-04, 12:41 PM	My proposal: NO ALLIES! Exception: Paladins and their mounts, boughed warhorses/riding dogs (who are lost when they die), familiars, companions and cohorts. Except those - NO ALLIES!
SnarkHunter 06-15-04, 05:33 PM	Originally posted by Ethendril Proposal: 1. Set cap at ECL -2 (just like leadership and Thaumturgist allies) for all allies except for undead. 2. Undead allies use Mag's proposal of HD-2 for skeletons, and (HD/2)-2 for zombies (this formula can be adjusted based on need). 3. No permanent death for any ally (including undead...just assume the necromancer killed another one if it dies, with free material components from the Coliseum). 4. No more monster fights. The ally will be weaker than the gladiator, and we can assume the gladiator would win. That works for me too.
Magagumo 06-15-04, 05:45 PM	One clarification, Etendril. When you say ECL-2, you mean that a 15th level character can have a 13th equiv cohort, correct? When I posted about the skels and zombies, I meant that a 15th level char could have a 17 HD skeleton, and a 20 HD zombie could have been obtained by an 8th level char. I don't know if there's a better way to reword things in your proposal (which I otherwise like), just to avoid confusion... Actually, change it to a skeleton with HD= to char level+2, and Zombie with HD= char. level x 2 (The CRs are equal that way for zombie and skeleton). So a 20HD zombei can be acquired by a 10th level character (CR 6 ally for CR 10 fight= no change in EL so won't be a massive advantage). For the record, this means that Harvester's Cauchemar is available at 13th level (checks out just fine), Storm Giants aren't available till epic, and Tony can be re-acquired by Bruno in 6 levels.
Ethendril 06-15-04, 05:55 PM	Mag: I edited my original post for clarity. See if it says what your proposal was now. When you say ECL-2, you mean that a 15th level character can have a 13th equiv cohort, correct? Right.
MotherBast 06-15-04, 06:14 PM	I will 4th Mag's suggestion. I also agree that Monster Fights need no longer apply with the new limits.
Magagumo 06-15-04, 06:17 PM	*Big Thumbs Up*
kattattack22 06-15-04, 08:19 PM	I agree with Ethendril and Magagumo's proposal except for totally elminating monster fights. Yes, there is a limit, but every other ally is a class feature or a feat to get. Yes, you have to have a decent Handle Animal skill, but I see skills on the same level of feats or class features. I know some allies have to be purchased or you can pay to have them trained like the pegasus. I think the monster fight for Handle Animal allies that don't have a gold amount or feat requirement attached to them should still have a monster fight.
Ethendril 06-15-04, 09:25 PM	Originally posted by kattattack22 I agree with Ethendril and Magagumo's proposal except for totally elminating monster fights. Yes, there is a limit, but every other ally is a class feature or a feat to get. Yes, you have to have a decent Handle Animal skill, but I see skills on the same level of feats or class features. I know some allies have to be purchased or you can pay to have them trained like the pegasus. I think the monster fight for Handle Animal allies that don't have a gold amount or feat requirement attached to them should still have a monster fight. I agree that monster fights give some additional controls, but there are some serious problems with them. For one, it's kind of a waste. Anyone with a potion of fly can beat any creature without a ranged attack. It seems a bit pointless to have a character sit out a week, waste resources, and use two credits to fight something that can't fight back. The main problem, however, is that some gladiators can't do a monster fight because they don't run fights. If someone just runs one character here without running fights, they would never be able to have a monster fight because it counts as two fights. This favors people who earn lots of credits. Also, I just hate sitting a gladiator out for a week on a foregone conclusion. How many times has someone lost a monster fight? Maybe once or twice...
Magagumo 06-15-04, 09:34 PM	Hehe.. Bruno lost to a sneaky Storm Giant *shakes fist at Jindl* And Moh actually lost to his 1st Megaraptor (poor boy forgot Power Attack ;))
Battousai2005 06-15-04, 10:36 PM	Ok, so lemme get this straight: Allies are limited to these: 1) Animal Companion/Familiar/Special Mount 2) Those that have Pre-set prices. Examples: Horses, Kage's griffon, Enilias's Giant Eagle I think that there should be some sort of set up for characters who want some other, more interesting creatures. And also, cost is high for some creatures in the MM. 10000 for a psudodragon? that looks a bit pricy My only concern is this. Undead allies. I've seen one or two parties eleminated by undead in the past (really surprising what a low charisma does to a cleric...) and I diagree that HD+2 will work. I don't know a practical solution, but maybe just have the HD be equal would be good. Oh, while we're on the subject, has anyone considered whether or not a construct would be suitable for a wizard?
Magagumo 06-15-04, 11:09 PM	I don't know if you were around for the old fights with undead, Batt, but we wouldn't have more than one, and their power is severely limited as compared to their creator. If you note my example, their CR is generally going to be at least 4 less than the player's level, making them a mere side note (as most non-Leadership companions are) in the fights. While Harvester's Cauchemar certainly has some nice advantages, you won't see the likes of Tony or Agamemmonon until v. high level fights, where their damage outputs will not be as noticeable, or they will be less likely to make saves or even hit opponents. (When I ran my own arena, a nasty Red Dragon skeleton was implemented by one of my players... Snark was participating and also ran Bruno as a 14th level NPC. The dragon died in two disintegrate blasts and never even hurt the halfling. When the dragon was revived and faced a meleer, massive Power Attacks smashed it to pieces in 2 rounds as well.) Personally, I'd love to see golems, and I don't think any restriction needs to be made on them (as they require three feats and have specific creator caster levels, in addition to incredible costs). I would assume that the golems would be auto-repaired if destroyed, and I think they would be a neat alternative in our arena, providing some nice, anti-magic muscle.
Jindl 06-15-04, 11:42 PM	I agree with Hatzinger. Let's limit allies to those gained by specific class features (familiars, companions, special mounts) and those gained by the Leadership feat. This would eliminate animal handled and undead allies, but would still allow purchased animals and constructs, as those are property. @Mag - I do remember the fights when Bruno and Harvey had their undead. The undead overpowered them. I lost fights based mainly on the fact that my opponent had an undead ally. There's no way to equate ECL to HD for these creatures. They don't have a LA adjustment listed. I don't think the necromancers will be severly limited by eliminating the undead. Well, that's where my vote would stand. The only allies should be those directly granted by a class feature, granted by the Leadership feat, and those which can be purchased. -Jindl
kattattack22 06-15-04, 11:43 PM	I see what you mean Ethendril. I just don't want people getting allies for free when some have to take feats, pay money, or take levels in specific class to get one. Maybe some gp amount based on HD like 100 gp per HD. Just a suggestion. I looked into a wizard or cleric that would make a golem once upon a time. Here are the bit of notes I took down: Flesh Golem ________________________________________ ______ Body 14400 Geas 1650 Ltd Wish 3375 ___________________ Total 19425 I think I was figuring min level of 7 or 12 (yeah, I know quite a range). Sufficed to say I abandoned this plan since I didn't want to spend months working him up to where the character could do what it was designed to.
Myrridin 06-16-04, 08:56 AM	I looked into having my wizard create a construct to accompany him into the arena, but with allies not getting brought back for free, it was a stupid idea. You'd pay a TON to have an allie that someone would destroy, and cripple your character. It's not actually that bad to make a golem. You can buy a manual of flesh golem creation for 8,000gp. So if you dump your entire 8th level, you can have one then. A clay golem manual is 12,000gp; which you could obtain by saving and have one at 10th or 11th level. Not too bad. If they are repaired and come back for free, I'd make one. :)
Jindl 06-16-04, 09:29 AM	Originally posted by Myrridin I looked into having my wizard create a construct to accompany him into the arena, but with allies not getting brought back for free, it was a stupid idea. You'd pay a TON to have an allie that someone would destroy, and cripple your character. It's not actually that bad to make a golem. You can buy a manual of flesh golem creation for 8,000gp. So if you dump your entire 8th level, you can have one then. A clay golem manual is 12,000gp; which you could obtain by saving and have one at 10th or 11th level. Not too bad. If they are repaired and come back for free, I'd make one. :) I think golems should be handled like magic items (figurines of power??). So they would be repaired for free. The problem with golems is they are landbound and have no ranged attacks. Their immunity to spells makes it impossible to target them with a fly spell. So, if your opponent can fly, your golem is useless. -Jindl
Beldin 06-16-04, 11:10 AM	i like this proposal: Allies are limited to these: 1) Animal Companion/Familiar/Special Mount 2) Those that have Pre-set prices. Examples: Horses, Kage's griffon, Enilias's Giant Eagle the first get replaced, the latter not. But this would be evil for ixidor or the harvester
Myrridin 06-16-04, 11:20 AM	Originally posted by Beldin i like this proposal: Allies are limited to these: 1) Animal Companion/Familiar/Special Mount 2) Those that have Pre-set prices. Examples: Horses, Kage's griffon, Enilias's Giant Eagle the first get replaced, the latter not. But this would be evil for ixidor or the harvester What about constructs, like the above mentioned golems? Does a Thaumaturgist's companion count there too? I rather like the idea of allowing the above 1 & 2, and then adding constructs. Jindl: Yeah, I know they're useless ranged, but they are big melee shields, which'd be nice for a wizard. Could you give them javelins or something, to have them throw at an opponent?
Battousai2005 06-16-04, 11:34 AM	Originally posted by Myrridin What about constructs, like the above mentioned golems? Does a Thaumaturgist's companion count there too? I rather like the idea of allowing the above 1 & 2, and then adding constructs. Jindl: Yeah, I know they're useless ranged, but they are big melee shields, which'd be nice for a wizard. Could you give them javelins or something, to have them throw at an opponent? Of course Thamaturgists get their ability as it's a class ability. I actually started the consturct idea with Shield guardian in mind. Now THAT would be a sight.
Ethendril 06-16-04, 02:41 PM	Jindl: I'm not entirely sure how you can propose eliminating handle animal and undead allies without eliminating leadership allies. I think that leadership allies are already the most powerful, since they can have classes and/or templates. I think that if we don't simply equalize allies (ECL -2 proposal), then we should eliminate those that don't come with a class or purchase. I just think that leaving leadership allies while taking away handle animal and undead would make leadership allies much too powerful. Just my thoughts on that. Maybe you can explain your proposal. -Ethendril
Jindl 06-16-04, 03:05 PM	I have had lots of experience facing all types of allies, whether they are class feature (Skymoon's Pegasus, Bruno's familiar, Johan's planar cohort), undead (the Harvester's cauchmare, Bruno's skeletons), handled animals (Iron's megaraptor), or Leadership (Hanz Vonnegut's Bugbear, Kiri's cousin Whisper). Here's what I can tell you: 1. In terms of raw melee power, undead are by far the most powerful. They always have more hps than the gladiators and sometimes as much as 2x the hps. They tend to have 15-20 HD which gives them strong resistances to spells / turning. The also tend to maximize mobility and have great attack bonuses and damage capability. They have been used most effectively in either creating a method of reaching obscene speeds (Fly 100 average for example) with a mount that has >100 hps; or in creating a fire + forget melee attacker (Bruno's skeletal giants) who can rush to the enemy and attack them while the gladiator buffs. In either case, they are way powerful and not limited by ECL at all. The only limiting factor has been what you can kill (gladiators can usually kill much more powerful single creatures than a PC could in a campaign, because they can prepare specifically for the fight against a lone creature). And that if your undead ally dies, you have to fight another monster fight to get a new one. 2. Handle Animals are the next most powerful allies, mainly because it is much easier to get high skill ranks than anything else. For example, a PC could get a megaraptor at 4th level by maxing out handle animal and buying a ranged weapon + a potion: fly. A megaraptor has 8 hd, 4 natural attacks, and a very fast move speed. As you can see in Rhoar vs Matei, the ally can win the fight by itself. In terms of a RL campaign, PC's almost never get to train animals due to the extremely long time requirements to rear. And just like undead allies, gladiators can often defeat much more powerful creatures to handle, simply because they can prepare for them. 3. Class feature allies are probably the next most powerful. There is some variation here, with druids/paladins having the best allies and wizards/sorcerors having the worst (and Thaumaturgists/Shadowdancers/Rangers/Blackguards in between). But the relative balance between the classes has already taken these allies into account. A druid doesn't get domains and domain spells because it has an animal companion. A wizard doesn't get as many spells as a cleric because it has a familiar. Class feature allies exist as part of the balance between classes (unlike the handle animal allies and the undead allies). 4. Leadership allies are probably the weakest. They consume a portion of the PC's wealth, they are always lower level than the gladiator, they have no role in the lower level fights (you can't even get one until 6th level), they can't craft anything, etc. Sure, at higher levels a caster cohort could be nice, but it's not overbalancing. As MotherBast (Candy+Sanzin) can tell you, the cohort usually bites it pretty quick. And its based off of Charisma, which is usually the dump stat in the arena. Cohorts also have to follow the ECL rules, which means that though they can have templates or be unusual races, that will typically weaken them further. And they cost a very precious commondity, a general feat. The fact that leadership allies are the weakest is probably best supported by the fact that there are so few of them in the CoCo. All in all, I think the undead and the handle animal allies are the ones that create a problem. They exist outside of the balance between the classes and are extremely easy to get with few sacrifices by the PC. I would vote to eliminate them completely. The role they serve as mounts could easily be replaced by purchased allies or cohorts (a nightmare is a viable cohort, you know...) I've had a lot of time to review these issues and this is my recommendation. -Jindl
barrel_master 06-16-04, 03:49 PM	Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves with the ally thing. We haven't seen their effects as we gain levels and I think the skeletons will be much less effective as we lvl up (esp. when compared with leadership). Perhaps it's leadership + thurmulguist's abilities that we have to be concerned about.
Ethendril 06-16-04, 04:06 PM	Originally posted by barrel_master Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves with the ally thing. We haven't seen their effects as we gain levels and I think the skeletons will be much less effective as we lvl up (esp. when compared with leadership). Perhaps it's leadership + thurmulguist's abilities that we have to be concerned about. While I think that Jindl makes some excellent points, I think that we could get ahead of ourselves here. It seems to me that the best thing we can do now that we've already got cohorts and allies, is to limit them rather than eliminate them. I still think we should try to create some artificial limit (that makes the ally less powerful than the gladiator), and then adjust the limit downward if we see a need. It just seems a little harsh to eliminate them altogether.
Battousai2005 06-16-04, 04:21 PM	Originally posted by Jindl I have had lots of experience facing all types of allies, whether they are class feature (Skymoon's Pegasus, Bruno's familiar, Johan's planar cohort), undead (the Harvester's cauchmare, Bruno's skeletons), handled animals (Iron's megaraptor), or Leadership (Hanz Vonnegut's Bugbear, Kiri's cousin Whisper). Here's what I can tell you: 1. In terms of raw melee power, undead are by far the most powerful. They always have more hps than the gladiators and sometimes as much as 2x the hps. They tend to have 15-20 HD which gives them strong resistances to spells / turning. The also tend to maximize mobility and have great attack bonuses and damage capability. They have been used most effectively in either creating a method of reaching obscene speeds (Fly 100 average for example) with a mount that has >100 hps; or in creating a fire + forget melee attacker (Bruno's skeletal giants) who can rush to the enemy and attack them while the gladiator buffs. In either case, they are way powerful and not limited by ECL at all. The only limiting factor has been what you can kill (gladiators can usually kill much more powerful single creatures than a PC could in a campaign, because they can prepare specifically for the fight against a lone creature). And that if your undead ally dies, you have to fight another monster fight to get a new one. I agree with this. Also, don't forget that being undead makes casters very upset. Gimme a break. Immune to (long list). And d12 HD make things much more difficult to kill. Can't be crit. Cant be sneak attacked. They are definately not weaker. The only reason they have a disadvantage is the no Con and No INT. 2. Handle Animals are the next most powerful allies, mainly because it is much easier to get high skill ranks than anything else. For example, a PC could get a megaraptor at 4th level by maxing out handle animal and buying a ranged weapon + a potion: fly. A megaraptor has 8 hd, 4 natural attacks, and a very fast move speed. As you can see in Rhoar vs Matei, the ally can win the fight by itself. In terms of a RL campaign, PC's almost never get to train animals due to the extremely long time requirements to rear. And just like undead allies, gladiators can often defeat much more powerful creatures to handle, simply because they can prepare for them. Agree. I've never actually fought a monster, but from what I see and discuss, they often casue huge alterations in tactics. The biggest one I know of is Enilias vs. Ixidor. I was chating with Kaigan Off Line, and he was a bit upset at having to face that hydra. It changed his tactics drastically. 3. Class feature allies are probably the next most powerful. There is some variation here, with druids/paladins having the best allies and wizards/sorcerors having the worst (and Thaumaturgists/Shadowdancers/Rangers/Blackguards in between). But the relative balance between the classes has already taken these allies into account. A druid doesn't get domains and domain spells because it has an animal companion. A wizard doesn't get as many spells as a cleric because it has a familiar. Class feature allies exist as part of the balance between classes (unlike the handle animal allies and the undead allies). Finally! A like mind! 4. Leadership allies are probably the weakest. They consume a portion of the PC's wealth, they are always lower level than the gladiator, they have no role in the lower level fights (you can't even get one until 6th level), they can't craft anything, etc. Sure, at higher levels a caster cohort could be nice, but it's not overbalancing. As MotherBast (Candy+Sanzin) can tell you, the cohort usually bites it pretty quick. And its based off of Charisma, which is usually the dump stat in the arena. Cohorts also have to follow the ECL rules, which means that though they can have templates or be unusual races, that will typically weaken them further. And they cost a very precious commondity, a general feat. The fact that leadership allies are the weakest is probably best supported by the fact that there are so few of them in the CoCo. Ok, this is the only one I disagree on. Yes, they are not as strong as a dire bear. But this is the one thing that makes me question them being the weakest. The fact that you can customize them as you like. I am not suggesting we ban leadership (far from it), but I think that they are about on par with an animal companion or paladin war-mount. All in all, I think the undead and the handle animal allies are the ones that create a problem. They exist outside of the balance between the classes and are extremely easy to get with few sacrifices by the PC. I would vote to eliminate them completely. The role they serve as mounts could easily be replaced by purchased allies or cohorts (a nightmare is a viable cohort, you know...) I've had a lot of time to review these issues and this is my recommendation. -Jindl I think that the real problem is monster fights. Undead I can handle. Besides, it seems like a waste not to include the spell. We need to set regulations on them, however.
Magagumo 06-16-04, 04:37 PM	1. I agree that you make good points, Jindl, but you're basing your assessment on undead from the past, and if you scan my proposal, such incidents are no longer possible. Yes, Harvy still would have the Cauchemar, and I recommended that such incidents should have special consideration. Honestly, the powerful giants won't exist for a long time. Tony was nasty, agreed, but that was around lvl 11 or so, and now, he can't be snagged till 15th level. In the end, undead were meant to provided durable muscle (yes they're immuen to crits and have decent hp, though the lack of Con makes them weaker than most fighters or barbarians you'll note). And if you don't think bad Fort saves are an issue, I laugh, but seriosuly, the no Int has been capitalized on before, esp. with voice-based commands. That's turnable, btw, for straight clerics (not overally challeneging to turn an undead w/ 2 more HD than your level if you have a decent Charisma ;)). Remember, the giants are a long ways off, with Agammenon's kind (Storm Giant) never making an appearance. Honestly, I think you shoudl consider the new method of handling them, esp. since CR remains an accurate assessment of how tough a fight can be (PCs tend to be a CR equal to their level), and the undead will be 4 CR below their masters. Yes, Bruno could currently get a 15 HD skel, and they would have some power, but a Fire Giant skeleton isn't going to win a match alone at that level (HP= 97, Attack= +16/+17 for 3d6+15). Last I checked, a +16 is formidable, but that can miss several glads at 13th level on a regular basis or they avoid it by flying (FYI giants are the masters of ground combat, but suck vs. air, and I believe everyone at 13th level commonly flies or can deal with undead in other fashions...). In fact, I recall even the Storm Giant being horribly mauled by a Dire Bear... barely able to strike it and destroyed, w/o Power Attack, in two rounds ;). Personally, I don't plan on getting another skel with Bruno, but I think undead mounts (wth their -5 penalty) and zombie creatures help the weak wizard vs. the powerful fighter. Remember, its hard for a necromancer to kill someone with good Fort saves.. so the undead servitor gives them some breathing room. 2. Handle animal: Megaraptor is a great example of how we used to abuse the skill, but again, you are ignoring the HD-2 (ECL is provided) suggestion. ECL is generally provided for intelligent creatures, who often function individually and adapt to changning circumstances well. With Handle Animal, you can only access animals (who are dumb and have no magical abilities) or low-int Magical beasts (like the hydra, which is v. tough to kill but not particulary fast or dangerous). An animal rarely thinks for itself, and the hydras and megaraptors have all followed their master's exact commands. Under Ethendril's plan, the Megaraptor would become accessible at 10th level, putting it at the CR 6 for a CR 10 fight (just liek the udnead under my suggestion). If we look at the 10th lvl combatants, we see a flying archer (evasion) a powerful druid (Charm or hold animal spells), a nasty high-mobility caster (necromancy spells or Evard's), a flying angel with his own nasty companion, and a powerful fighter who could easily evsicerate the beast with his Greatsword and PA (unlike MOh :D). Thsi trend would continue upwards, allowing a triceratops at 18th level, and a tyrannosarus at 20th. You'll note a druid could also have a tyro, but is more proficient (link) and grants it several abilities as well. My one issue with Handle Animal is that many of these creatures would be acquired for free, while Hippogriffs, griffions, etc. all cast cash just to obtain and train. You'll note that young hippogriffs are 3000 gp (HDx 1000 gp) and Young girffons are 7000 gp (HDx1000 gp). Provided we allow free resurrection of these creatures (and allow players who have had to pay for them in the past be reiumbursed- Enilias for example), you have a perfect example of the method for calculating a base cost for obtaining these creatures. By adding a price, you permit druids to revel in their freely acquired cohorts, but allow the fighters a chance to train nasty mounts as well. No fights would be necessary, and free resurrection makes it a worthwhile investment for the would-be trainer. 3. Free animal companions are nasty and good, no changes needed, but don't doubt a familiar's power :-P 4. The cohorts I have seen make the players much more dangerous, and while I feel bad that we charge them (by the DMG, they are granted their own independent source of wealth when they join the player, and then recieve a share of the loot), they are nasty. Personally, I would give any starting cohort with class levels an NPCs base cash, to be spent on them alone, and then the gladiator must maintain ther own upkeep for all subsequent levels. While they remain an added cost, their independent efforts have already greatly helped Candy, and I surmise that Whisper would do the same if Kiri returned. We already igore the NPC death rule, and I think this is a wise venture for a non-campaign based setting. So in summary, my proposal should reduce the horrifying power of skeletons while making them still useful companions. Handle Animal is similarly put in its place, and should have an easily calculated cost of HDx1000 go for the animal to be trained w/ free ressurection. Companions are fine as is, and Leadership cohorts are good, though they should be given base NPC cash when they are created.
Battousai2005 06-16-04, 04:59 PM	There are a few issues I have with some of you proposals, Mag. No offense. 1: Turning: Requires a holy symbol as well as a high CHA. I have seen NO clerics with holy symbols. And high CHA? I know Akordia does, but with her LA, she couldn't turn much anyway. 2: Handle animal: ECL -2 is actually not a bad idea. It prevents a lot of tampering. I also like your method for calculating the cost of creatures. 3. Agreed. Wait till you see what I'm planning on doing with Cante's psicrystal. 4. Hmm. True on most points.. I think there needs to be a limit on what cohorts can get though. Maybe if we set a limit on the amount they can have. Half/three quarters what a normal character would get. Still, I want to take leadership with one of my characters (bet you all can guess that one) and I would like it if I didn't have to spend obscene amounts of money on outfitting my ally.
MotherBast 06-16-04, 05:07 PM	Mag, I belive I agree with everything you just said. And Batt: I have yet to see a cleric who does not have his holy symble on him... as a matter of fact, if you'll check out the 13s, most the clerics have multaples, in varing types. I know Harvy has wood and bone holy symbles. In truth, since a holy symble is requried to cast just about every cleric spell, I assume every cleric who walks into the arena has one.
Ethendril 06-16-04, 05:20 PM	Well, we know what Jindl, MotherBast, and I are thinking about this issue... What say the other Elders, Cat and Tellish?
Caterane 06-16-04, 06:03 PM	Eliminating all allies (xcept class featured ones) is not an option. First of all, too many gladiators have already invested ressources and skill points into this so it is too much of a change. But the main reason is still a different one: options. If we eliminate all allies like in the old days we strip the CoCo of MANY MANY options. Many tactical variations won't be possible anymore, and fights will get more boring. We can of course eliminate EVERYTHING just balance it out but where's the fun then? So if you want to balance the ally issue, help us find a way to do so. I for myself do like this idea: Originally posted by Ethendril Proposal: 1. Set cap at ECL -2 (just like leadership and Thaumturgist allies) for all allies except for undead. 2. Undead allies use Mag's proposal of creature HD equal to character level +2 for skeletons, and zombies with creature HD equal to character level x2 (this formula can be adjusted based on need). 3. No permanent death for any ally (including undead...just assume the necromancer killed another one if it dies, with free material components from the Coliseum). 4. No more monster fights. The ally will be weaker than the gladiator, and we can assume the gladiator would win. ECL-2 has been proposed before and it's ok for class-based allies. I'd prefer CR for non-classbased allies; like undead or animals. The proposed formula is just fine as it is. Good work Ethendril/Mag. I never liked Monsterfights myself, and I don't think they balance anything out. The gladiator has to sit out a week (which is bad for getting high level PCs), it needs a seperate pitlord, and most of the times you get the beast anyway. The permanent death of bought allies should be removed immideately, else they are useless. Evil Hatzinger wrote in his tactics to kill the ally, and I would've done this by myself (though I'm LG :D). I do however completely disagree with Jindl's breakdown of ally powerlevels, and put the druid companions to the to of that list for reasons I've already written in the Ally debate thread. Cat Here's what I wrote back then: Why the hell should a druids companion be the most powerful one? No way!! First of all, you have to do nothing to get one. You don`t need to spend skill points in handle animal, you don`t have to put expensive ability points in charisma, perhaps even buy a circlet or a cloak, you don`t have to take a feat, nothing. Then the companion gets replaced for free. How many times had I seen that the companion is used as cannon fodder. No one else can afford this! Bruno always protected his giant, and the Harvester would always make sure his companions survive - thus spending ressources, spells and time. That`s another HUGE bonus. You also don`t have to make a monster fight. At the moment I count every credit and a monster fight which counts for 2 is not possible for me, else it delays my new character for another week. Again, druids have to do nothing! The druids companion has some really nice abilities. Most notably share spells! While the Harvester has to memorize every spell twice (for him and mount) the druid only memorizes one each, and even then he spends one round instead of two ...per spell!! That`s so HUGE! What about Link? Evasion? Multiattack? Improved evasion? Devotion? and many more... Druids are already powerful without their companion. It`s a nice bonus to have one but that`s it. Now making his companion the most powerful one is WAY OFF! All these druid faction cries "Whaaa, my companion is so weak! Let`s eliminate every other ally so that the druid is at least a bit competivable Come on! What`s up!? "Oh no! I have to take a level in druid!! Only full spellcasting progression, cleric bab and cleric hp, able to wear fullplates and even retain the armor bonus in wildshape!! Oh my god! How am I going to survive? And the scimitar is so bad a weapon! I wish I could wield a dagger, or a butterknife! But no! Wildshape into Tyrannosaurus Rex and still cast spells!? What`s that? Druids are so broken. The only thing that balances it a bit out is my mighty dachshund but it is nerfed too!" http://www.1a-network.de/grafik/guestbook/smilies/heul.gif
Jindl 06-16-04, 06:35 PM	@Mag - What you say sounds good, but has some real problems in application: Originally posted by Magagumo 1. I agree that you make good points, Jindl, but you're basing your assessment on undead from the past, and if you scan my proposal, such incidents are no longer possible. Yes, Harvy still would have the Cauchemar, and I recommended that such incidents should have special consideration. Honestly, the powerful giants won't exist for a long time. Tony was nasty, agreed, but that was around lvl 11 or so, and now, he can't be snagged till 15th level. In the end, undead were meant to provided durable muscle (yes they're immuen to crits and have decent hp, though the lack of Con makes them weaker than most fighters or barbarians you'll note). And if you don't think bad Fort saves are an issue, I laugh, but seriosuly, the no Int has been capitalized on before, esp. with voice-based commands. If, by bad fort saves, you are referring to arrows of slaying, that is a very expensive one shot item, that first has to hit, then the undead has to fail a save (which even with no Con they still have a Fort of +9 or more, meaning about a 50% chance to pass the save). And the opponent had to spend >2000 gp on that. As for the voice based commands, that would mean that silence spells could block it, but how many classes can cast silence? Clerics, bards, and assassins. What about the rest? As for them being weaker than most fighters/barbs - most fighters and barbs aren't huge with Str 36+. No, Tony was more powerful than any fighter at level 9, when Bruno was using him. Originally posted by Magagumo That's turnable, btw, for straight clerics (not overally challeneging to turn an undead w/ 2 more HD than your level if you have a decent Charisma ;)). Remember, the giants are a long ways off, with Agammenon's kind (Storm Giant) never making an appearance. Honestly, I think you shoudl consider the new method of handling them, esp. since CR remains an accurate assessment of how tough a fight can be (PCs tend to be a CR equal to their level), and the undead will be 4 CR below their masters. Yes, Bruno could currently get a 15 HD skel, and they would have some power, but a Fire Giant skeleton isn't going to win a match alone at that level (HP= 97, Attack= +16/+17 for 3d6+15). Last I checked, a +16 is formidable, but that can miss several glads at 13th level on a regular basis or they avoid it by flying (FYI giants are the masters of ground combat, but suck vs. air, and I believe everyone at 13th level commonly flies or can deal with undead in other fashions...). In fact, I recall even the Storm Giant being horribly mauled by a Dire Bear... barely able to strike it and destroyed, w/o Power Attack, in two rounds ;). Personally, I don't plan on getting another skel with Bruno, but I think undead mounts (wth their -5 penalty) and zombie creatures help the weak wizard vs. the powerful fighter. Remember, its hard for a necromancer to kill someone with good Fort saves.. so the undead servitor gives them some breathing room. So again, you're saying that they are okay because a straight cleric could turn them. We have exactly zero straight clerics. Indeed, you would almost have to build your character specifically for turning in order to use it reliably against these undead. As for Bruno's new fire giant example, when you take a mage with all his class abilities (which is supposed to be somewhat balanced to the other classes) then add a 15 HD Huge Skeleton that has an equal attack bonus, similar hps, and better damage than most fighters or cohorts of that level, it just gets ridiculous. Yes, Jindl was able to kill your skeleton, but it gave you 3 rounds to buff for free. Also, you have said yourself that Jindl is the best melee gladiator at his level. How would the other PC's stand up against the skeleton. Do you think Brackin could handle it? What about Ebelin? Or Kelek? (No offense to Cat, MB, or ToK) I'm not sure what you mean about the weak wizard vs the fighter. IMO the wizards are far more powerful than the fighters in this setting (and so are the clerics). Why make them even more powerful with easy access to ungodly powerful allies? As for your necromancer, there are lots of good necromancy spells that don't even allow saves (Enervation, Vampiric Touch via Spectral Hand, etc) and others that do target Will saves (Bestow Curse). Originally posted by Magagumo 2. Handle animal: Megaraptor is a great example of how we used to abuse the skill, but again, you are ignoring the HD-2 (ECL is provided) suggestion. ECL is generally provided for intelligent creatures, who often function individually and adapt to changning circumstances well. With Handle Animal, you can only access animals (who are dumb and have no magical abilities) or low-int Magical beasts (like the hydra, which is v. tough to kill but not particulary fast or dangerous). An animal rarely thinks for itself, and the hydras and megaraptors have all followed their master's exact commands. Under Ethendril's plan, the Megaraptor would become accessible at 10th level, putting it at the CR 6 for a CR 10 fight (just liek the udnead under my suggestion). If we look at the 10th lvl combatants, we see a flying archer (evasion) a powerful druid (Charm or hold animal spells), a nasty high-mobility caster (necromancy spells or Evard's), a flying angel with his own nasty companion, and a powerful fighter who could easily evsicerate the beast with his Greatsword and PA (unlike MOh :D). Thsi trend would continue upwards, allowing a triceratops at 18th level, and a tyrannosarus at 20th. You'll note a druid could also have a tyro, but is more proficient (link) and grants it several abilities as well. You can't just compare it to the existing gladiators. These rules have to be airtight to prevent abuse. And animals have the same issues as undead. Primarily that they allow classes which are balanced against the ally classes to gain an additional advantage of allies of their own. You mention that the druid can get a T-rex at 20th also. Don't you realize that the druid paid for this class feature by not getting lots of other things? The druid is supposed to be balanced against clerics/rangers/barbarians/etc. The animal companion is part of this balance. Giving the other classes the ally also disrupts this balance. Originally posted by Magagumo My one issue with Handle Animal is that many of these creatures would be acquired for free, while Hippogriffs, griffions, etc. all cast cash just to obtain and train. You'll note that young hippogriffs are 3000 gp (HDx 1000 gp) and Young girffons are 7000 gp (HDx1000 gp). Provided we allow free resurrection of these creatures (and allow players who have had to pay for them in the past be reiumbursed- Enilias for example), you have a perfect example of the method for calculating a base cost for obtaining these creatures. By adding a price, you permit druids to revel in their freely acquired cohorts, but allow the fighters a chance to train nasty mounts as well. No fights would be necessary, and free resurrection makes it a worthwhile investment for the would-be trainer. You realize, under the current rules, you could also defeat the griffen in a monster fight for free then train it. The problem is that we allow undead and handled animals for free, when the MM has already assigned much higher costs for much weaker allies. Originally posted by Magagumo 4. The cohorts I have seen make the players much more dangerous, and while I feel bad that we charge them (by the DMG, they are granted their own independent source of wealth when they join the player, and then recieve a share of the loot), they are nasty. Personally, I would give any starting cohort with class levels an NPCs base cash, to be spent on them alone, and then the gladiator must maintain ther own upkeep for all subsequent levels. While they remain an added cost, their independent efforts have already greatly helped Candy, and I surmise that Whisper would do the same if Kiri returned. We already igore the NPC death rule, and I think this is a wise venture for a non-campaign based setting. Here's the problem with giving the cohorts their own money. Players could then steal the cohorts equipment, give it to their PC, then scrap (or never use) the cohort. So suddenly a feat can grant a huge goldpiece advantage. No, it was wise to have cohorts enter without equipment. Originally posted by Magagumo So in summary, my proposal should reduce the horrifying power of skeletons while making them still useful companions. Handle Animal is similarly put in its place, and should have an easily calculated cost of HDx1000 go for the animal to be trained w/ free ressurection. Companions are fine as is, and Leadership cohorts are good, though they should be given base NPC cash when they are created. [/B] I just don't think HD are a good enough indication of the power of an undead or handled animal. Especially since the classes which acquire these things are already supposed to be balanced against the classes which gain via class feature. Leadership has also already been balanced = spend a feat get a weaker ally. These things were playtested and adjusted to be balanced. Clerics with powerful skeletons and wizards with powerful skeletons and other classes with powerful animal allies are not balanced against the classes that gain their allies as a class feature, nor are they balanced against PC's with cohorts from leadership. -Jindl @Cat - You can complain about the druid's companions all you want, but I don't hear any of Lillith's, Dra'kel's, or Corinthius's former foes complaining. The druid is supposed to have an ally, it is what is supposed to make the class balanced. The cleric is supposed to be balanced without an ally.
Tellish_of_Ket 06-16-04, 09:36 PM	HEY HEY HEY!!! For once, Jindl and i agree on something. :) Down with ALLIES!!!! I agree with Hatzinger. Let's limit allies to those gained by specific class features (familiars, companions, special mounts) and those gained by the Leadership feat. This would eliminate animal handled and undead allies, but would still allow purchased animals and constructs, as those are property. I also support that opinion. I've always been a bit proponent against allies. And breaking something, to fix something that is already broken isn't my idea of problem solving. People always thought that griffon mounts, pegasi, etc...wouldn't be viable at the high levels. Well Pale-Rider proved that wrong from 8th-12th level. His phantom steed has inspired fear in the hearts of many. The shear mobility and versatility makes it an extremely useful mount. And no one's steed has yet to be killed despite it's 20-30 hp range and lower AC as some would say low hp mounts would die fast. I think the same can be said for your griffon mount as well. Give it boots of speed, a belt of health, some kind of neck jewelry and voila...your melee-type has a very viable chance of survival and inflicting much dmg as well. Just my thoughts. -ToK
Magagumo 06-16-04, 11:58 PM	*Nod* You make Sense, Jindl. I suppose I'm really just playign devil's advocate, because I really don't plan on obtaining skels or zombies again. Mostly, I'm trying to appease all parties in this scenario. Frankly, I still don't care if all allies except for familars, companions, and cohorts are eliminated- I think Ixidor has plenty of other places to put skills, and the hydra holds him in one locatiosn suually (as Bruno's giant forced him to protect it). It make no real differenmce to em how this ends up, just want to make sure evry voice is heard and every angle considered. Frankly, I think the Enlarged Charger may simply be inviable in this arena (until you get a centaur cohort whse a psychic warrior with expansion :D). But I leave that for others to consider. Frankly, I acknowledge that undead are a tricky lot, and we don't make it easy on our opponents- I picked Giants for a very good reason after all ;) *shrug* I only warn that experience is good to rely on, but we must be willing to extrapolate to future possibilites- Bruno is unique in that, one, his skeletons were not inhibited by HD except for caster level, and two, he focused on necromancy and illusion, providing him with alternative forms of attack/defense (though Clerics and Druids continue to be a thorn in his side). This is not to say that a Necromancer/Evocationist (Pale) is better or worse, merely diifferent. In the end, I trust the Elders to make a well-reasoned decision, and I know that I have done my utmost to ensure that the pro-side for Ethendril's proposal has been heard loud and clear. Aside from any statements that invoke ire or righteous typing, I think I've said enough on this matter. :) It's in your hands now, gentlemen. *tips hat*
Caterane 06-17-04, 08:40 AM	Originally posted by Jindl: Also, you have said yourself that Jindl is the best melee gladiator at his level. Aha! That's exactly what I mean. Jindl is not only the best melee gladiator, no, he has even an animal growthed, bears enduranced, barkskinned, whatever blindsight Direbat on his side. Remember the Drak'something vs Donkey fight? You surely agree that Donkey is a melee gladiator, and he got STOMPED INTO THE GROUND by Drak'something IN MELEE! Even Zedarak would have LOST against a buffed Drakel in melee! I AM TALKING ABOUT ZEDARAK!! Here we have a shining example on what will happen if we eliminate allies. And now you complain that the free druids companion is the weakest one and that we should eliminate every other ally. Sure. If we do that be assured that the druid will be the most powerful class by far. If we eliminate allies we eliminate balance. I'm not surprised that Jindl proposes such a thing but I can't believe that Tellish doesn't see this. As I already said, druids are one of the most - if not THE - most powerful classes around here. All your nice examples focus on Bruno's giants which will soon have a level cap and not appear until pre-epic levels. What about this example: Tell me which gladiator could stand against a druid like Jindl or Drak'something plus his fully buffed direbat without an ally! With quicken spell you have cast like 8 spells in 2 rounds on you and your bat; ready to kill EVERYTHING, and with a mobility no cleric or fighter could even HOPE to achieve. You complained about 100 hp undead mounts? What about your 100 hp Dire bat? And I am left with a 26 hp expensive Gianteagle, eh? I'm getting sick man. Bah! Elimination of allies is only happening over my dead body. Sorry guys but this means the end of the CoCo. IF it comes to eliminate all allies then we eliminate class allies aswell; that's the only alternative ...and a fun robbing one aswell. Cat, not yet dead
SnarkHunter 06-17-04, 02:05 PM	Hmm, I think Cat that you're recalling a different match up (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&perpage=1&postid=3510821#post3510821) Then I. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&perpage=1&postid=3630133#post3630133)
Ethendril 06-17-04, 02:12 PM	Okay, one more pro-ECL argument: The arena currently allows all the allies, and has for quite some time. It seems less drastic to just cap allies with an ECL for now, then see what happens. Rather than eliminating allies altogether, which will seriously hurt some of the builds here, why don't we try the ECL cap first, and see what happens? The greatest benefit with a ECL experiment is that we can adjust it going forward. If ECL -2 isn't balanced, go to ECL -3. If that doesn't work, go to ECL -4. If there are still problems, we can eliminate allies AFTER trying the ECL cap. That way, we don't throw everything out of whack around here by killing builds that have been here for a long time. It will be a much easier transition.
MotherBast 06-17-04, 04:08 PM	Cat: While I appreciate your healthy respect of Dra'kel, I would point out that he has NEVER won a fight in which he was forced to melee. Not once. In the afformentioned fight aginst Donkey, he was killed without ever hitting Donkey, and in both fights, my direbat had 0 impact on the fight. Donkey killed it effortlessly the first time, and simply ignored it the second time and killed me instead. Secondly, I am NOT in favor of removing allies, and I am begining to resent the fact that you take every oppertunity that presents itself to belittle me, espically when your just wrong. Thirdly, I agree, removing allies in not the way to go. I proposed a formula, and Eth and Mag have tinkered with that formula to the point that I belive it will be an exelent "fix" for the allies situation. My resoning is thus.... Currently, the only allies that have CR are Purchased allies, Undead, animals, and Cohorts. Class allies do not have CR as they are concidered part of the CR of the class itself. A druid, whithout his animal companion, is not CR = level, basicly. As Jindl already pointed out, the Animal Companion is one of the Druid's "balancing abilities." Sort of like Domains and spontanious casting for Clerics, it is a part of the class balance. I would agree with Cat that Druids are probably the most powerful characters in the game, with the possible exception of a very well built cleric. But I digress.... the point is, we shouldn't compare class based allies to non-class based allies, as they are two seprate beasts. Non-classed based allies add to the CR of an encounter, Classed based allies do not. So, I think the limit should be the allies can not be high enough in CR to up the CR of the overall encounter. Past level 5, that means that the allie must be 4 CR lower than its master. Mag's suggestion will ensure that all allies remain 4 CR below the master, so the overall CR of the encounter does not change. Allong the same lines, I think our current system limits Cohorts to 4 CR below the master as well. The cohort must have -2 ECL, it is not equal to a gladiator of the same level, due to being created with 11 less points, and has no equipment of its own. The second two knock at least 2 more CR off the Cohort, makeing it also 4 CR below the master. So, under the "new" system, all non-classed allies would be limited to 4 CR or more below the master. That is balance.
Druid Roxors 06-17-04, 04:31 PM	IMO, Allies and cohorts should remain. Jindl is right in most of his points but hte main argument is flawed. Allies are an important part of the arena. We shouldn't remove them. I vote for motherbast's "CR-4" idea.
Jindl 06-17-04, 05:47 PM	@MotherBast - Okay, so I'm considering your CR-4 proposal (I like using CR better than HD for creatures that have no LA listed). Questions (and please explain the reasons for your answers): 1. Would purchased allies count under the CR-4 rule (heavy warhorses for level 2 gladiators, etc)? 2. How do magic item allies (figurines of wondrous power, golems, shield guardians) fit into this? 3. Am I correct that Class Feature Allies and Cohorts would both be exempt from the CR-4 proposal? 4. Do you think using the CR-4 rule should mean that allies can be gained without the monster fight and/or replaced for free? -Jindl
MotherBast 06-17-04, 06:10 PM	1- Allies with a listed cost, ones you could buy, would only be limited by when you could afford them. The CR - 4 limit would apply only to Handeled animals and Undead. But due to the way we run leadership, Cohorts will always be CR - 4 as well. I doubt purchased mounts will ever be gained quickly enough to be "to powerful", with the exception of the warhorse at level 2, but melee's need a way to get past the early levels, Casters have there CL 9 scrolls, so no need to nurf the warhorse. 2- Item allies are not an issue, as they are not "allies" per say, in that you can ride a warhorse into battle, and then activate an item to create an allie without breaking any rules. For those allies that are permanit howerver, like golems, then again, the only limit would be when you could afford them, as by the time you can, they are not likely to be game breaking, and require a hefty investment anyway. 3- Class feature allies have no CR, they are concidered part of there master's CR, and so the rule would not apply to them. Cohorts would be ran just as they are now, as the very best a cohort can be is CR -4 under our current rules, so no change needed. 4- I do indeed think that the monster fight is no longer necessary if the CR - 4 rule is applied, as the outcome of the fight is nearly always a forgone conclusion. I would also support "free" replacement of allies that are purchased, kinda like equipment, if the new rules were implemented.
Jindl 06-17-04, 06:28 PM	@MB - More questions: 1. Yes, gladiators usually win the monster fight, and their success rate will likely improve even more under the CR-4 rule. But the monster fights almost always cost resources. For example, Rhoar had to spend 750 gp on a potion: fly in order to acquire his megaraptor. If we eliminate monster fights, should we have the allies just cost a flat fee? I know Mag had suggested 1000 gp per HD (which I think is too high, btw). I don't like the idea of a gladiator merely putting some skill points into handle animal and then !BAM! instantly having a megaraptor without spending any effort or gold pieces. 2. If we do go with free acquisition of allies, then would people still have to pay the material components costs for Animate Dead (and similar spells)? 3. Personally, I may agree to resurrecting handled animal allies for free. I do think we should ressurect purchased allies and class feature allies for free. I do NOT think we should restore animated dead for free, as the spell description specifically says that the corpse cannot be reanimated if destroyed. What is your opinion on this? And, what do we do about the XP costs for the death of certain classed based allies (especially familiars and shadowdancer's shadows)? -Jindl
MotherBast 06-17-04, 07:21 PM	1- Having to spend a skill point every level is hardly "free". But really, the current investment in monster fights is neglagable, and with the reduction in their overall power, paying for them is hardly necessary. 2- Yes, the material componet would still be necessary for the spell. And for the record, I did not say Undead and Animals would be replaced for free, only purchased allies, or item allies. So, if your undead dies, you would need to spend the material componet to recast the spell. If your animal dies, you get a new one. 3- Handel animals will not be rezed for free, but you can attain a new one for free. Purchased allies could be treated just like equipment and rezed for free, or we could just leave that as it is now, though I doubt we will see many purchsed allies if we do, besides warhorses at low levels. Class feature allies all have means of reaquisition, so no rezes needed for them, and any penalties for there deaths will still apply. This is also part of class balance. As already stated, the undead will need to be recreated. (Indeed, it is impossible to "rez" undead.) How now brown cow?
Caterane 06-17-04, 08:35 PM	Alright, now we're talking. Internet Cafes are getting expensive over time. Here's my suggestion: 1. ALL allies are ressurected for free. We decided to replace sundered equipment for free long ago, because gladiators focused more on destroying things than winning the fight thus killing the gladiator in the long haul. Same goes with allies. Pseudodragons and Giant eagles are already expensive enough, and weak at that so let us replace them for free. There shouldn't be any distinction about undead, handled animals, or class/leadership cohorts. Because of the mentioned reasons the death of an ally shouldn't have any financial impact. Gladiators shouldn't be encouraged or even able to damage the enemy's bank account. 2. Away with monster fights. The ressources spent on a monster fight are minor to nothing. The Harvester didn't use a single item in his fights. Instead, we could come up with a price for them, but please a reasonable one. Compare CR of bought allies to undead, leadership, and handled animals, and we have a good point to begin with. Or perhaps the way a thaumaturgist gets his ally. Or the planar binding spell. And add the material costs aswell. Whatever. Class cohorts are free, so the weak weak druid finally gets the much sought after advantage he so dearly needs.[/sarcasm] 3. We create a cap on allies. I am against using ECL because HD don't reflect the exact powerlevel of a creature. CR - though not perfect - is the better way to go. CR-4 sounds good; if it doesn't work we can always regulate it. I also like the special formula of Mag or whoever came up with it. 4. Item allies - as MB already said - are NOT considered allies. They are like summoned monsters (which do not count), and on top of that they are very expensive. By the time you can afford them, they won't be game breaking anyway. Same goes for spells with a 16+ hours duration like Phantom steed or Mount. 5. Allies already gained do not need to be payed for retroactively for they were already payed with credits, and ressources. 6. This is not an issue for the Senate. We are better of finding an agreement through discussion where we can define the terms more precisely. So far so good Cat PS: I'd also like to discuss another matter when we're finished with this debate but you can begin to make up your mind about it. I'm talking about stacking prebuffs. That means if a level 4 gladiator uses 4 slots Mage armor, he has accumulated an overall duration of 16 hours and can enter the dome with Mage armor prebuffed. That better reflects a RL campaign. Jindler's idea btw.
MotherBast 06-17-04, 09:12 PM	Sorry to get off topic, but about jindl and Cat's idea of stacking prebuffs, this thought had occured to me before as well, and I like it. it would also allow people to enter pre-buffed with abilites used "at will" that have short durations. Like "thousand Faces" for instance. I like this idea, but it will make the already dominate casters even more dominate.....
Jindl 06-17-04, 09:36 PM	@MB (Still off topic) - Noncasters can benefit too, especially with weaker potions (16x potions of mage armor = 800 gp. Not a bad deal for a mid-high level monk who doesn't want to waste lots of rounds drinking potions.) Then there are lots of applications for half casters (paladins, bards, rangers, assassins, etc) who typically don't reach the higher caster levels. It also translates to class abilities (like wildshape), powers usable at will (certain races/classes), etc. And sorcerors should really love it! @MB (back on topic) - More questions: 1. According to the MM, some animals have a cost even before they are trained (such as young griffons, which cost 7000 gp before they are trained). If we allow gladiators to get other animals for free, then wouldn't we have to ignore this and allow untrained griffons for free? I don't like that concept. 2. The other problem with free allies is they become very liquid. Gladiators will switch allies after each fight, based on who their potential opponents are. It becomes worse than Pokemon. If allies have a cost, then people won't be inclined to switch them very often. What do you think? 3. Caterane has issues with druids. It comes from having to fight against Jindl so many times. Especially the Ebelin vs Jindl fights. Don't you agree? 4. Is CR-4 the right place to start? Personally, I think we should start even lower, perhaps at CR-6. For example: At 12th level, a gladiator could have a CR 8 skeleton = 20 HD. So, Bruno could get his Storm Giant skeleton at 12th level. This is way overpowered. The other problem with undead is that their CR doesn't depend on the base creature, only on the HD. So whether the skeleton has a Fly speed of 100 average (cauchemare) or not has no impact on the CR. That means you could get the cauchemare skeleton at 11th level. In both cases, I think this is too early. So, I think we need to make is CR-6 or so. If that turns out to be too low, its easier to ease the restriction to CR-5 than it is to tighten it even more. What is your opinion on this? 5. If item allies (constructs, figurines of power, stone horse, shield guardians) are considered property and not allies, then obviously they would be repaired for free. Should they count against the limit of one ally? That is, should a wizard be allowed to bring in both his familiar and a flesh golem? 6. Let's turn this around a little. Should class feature allies count against the limit of 1 ally entering the arena? If they did not count (becuase they are balanced as part of the PC's CR rating), then it would help restore the balance between the class feature gladiators and the leadership/undead/handle animal gladiators. Then the paladins would be able to get a cohort and a special mount (which they should because the special mount was already factored into the balance between the classes). 7. Has anybody told Zorander that he owes several thousand GP for the XP he lost the last 4 fights (his shadow, Umbra, died in all four)? Do you want to tell him? Well, what do you think? -Jindl
Caterane 06-17-04, 10:15 PM	If we allow gladiators to get other animals for free, then wouldn't we have to ignore this and allow untrained griffons for free? Putting skills in HA, or taking the leadership feat is not "for free" Gladiators will switch allies after each fight, based on who their potential opponents are. Money prevents the switching of allies Caterane has issues with druids. It comes from having to fight against Jindl so many times. Especially the Ebelin vs Jindl fights. Don't you agree? LOL Now you want to turn my very reasonable arguments down to personal issues? Oh...my...god. No Jindl, I just see balance going down the stream (and right into your mouth) if we follow your "proposals". And the one who has issues is YOU. YOU want to see YOUR character at the top; who cares about the CoCo? So, I think we need to make is CR-6 or so. If that turns out to be too low, its easier to ease the restriction to CR-5 than it is to tighten it even more. What is your opinion on this? We'll see about that. I'm ok with CR-5 too but lower makes the ally useless. Eg. a 12th level gladiator has a 6th level ally. Should they count against the limit of one ally? That is, should a wizard be allowed to bring in both his familiar and a flesh golem? Yes, definately. He invested feats and tens of thousands of gold in creating a golem so this should be rewarded. Should class feature allies count against the limit of 1 ally entering the arena? Should we make the druid even more powerful? Should we grant druids 5 allies for free because of their wild empathy ability? No Just to remind you again: the druid's animal companion is the most powerful one by far so please consider this when making further proposals. That's after 3 rounds buffing at level 11: Drak'something Gargantuan'something HP: 213 Speed: 50ft AC: 31 BAB/Grapple: +8/ +36 Attack: Claw +23 (2d6 +17) Full Attack: 2 Claws +23 (2d6 +17), 1 Bite +18 (3d8 +9) Space/reach: 15'/5' Saves: Fort +22, Refx +12, Will +22 Damage Reduction 10/magic New strenght score is 43 (+16), New Con is 27 (+8), and nex Dex is 15 (+2) Dusty: Huge animal HP: 100 Speed: 40' fly AC: 31 BAB/Grapple: +6/+22 Attack: Bite +18 (3d6 +12) Space/Reach: 15'/5' Saves: Fort +18, Refx +18, Will +11 Abilities: Str 31, Dex 26, Con 26, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 6 He will also do 1d6+5 fire damage if produce flame is up. Drakel himself is the most powerful meleer by far. He would grapple Zedarak to the ground, and everyone else. Now add that bat and break the fight completely. So please no more "the druid is not balanced without the ally" If that's not unbalanced, nothing is.
MotherBast 06-17-04, 10:34 PM	Humm.... 16 potions..... would anyone really do this? The idea has merrit, but in application, I think it will still favor casters. I'm willing to give it a shot though. 1- Well, purchased allies will still be arround for people unwilling or unable to "train" or create there own, but Handel animal allies and undead will be attained the same way they are now, we just skip the fight and assume the gladiator beat down whatever beasty he wanted. 2- Humm... this is a good point. The no gear rule for cohorts has keept this from being a problem with them, but I can see where it would become one for free allies. Perhaps a price per HD would be in order, but 1000gp is too much for an allie you spend skills or matarial componets to obtain. Perhapse a more resonable 500gp, basicly half cost, just like self crafting, except this time your self rasing. 3- Deffinatly. and I guess having the Circle declare war on Zedarak dosen't help his outlook on Druids any..... 4- Well, the system isen't really based on CR, its based on HD. CR -4 is simply the very best that the system will allow, but it limits Skellys to HD of master +2, and limits Zombies to HD of master x2 if I'm not mistaken. So, no 20 HD skellys at 12th level, the best that could be done is a 14 HD skelly at that level. 5- Item allies that are "alive" at the start of combat would count aginst the limit. Activated items used during combat would not. For instance, a Figurene of Wonderous power activated after a fight starts would not be an "allie", but a golem would be. Both are still "purchased or crafted", however, and would be replaced for free. Also, item 6- Class features would remain allies. 7- I didn't know he was unawere. I'm sure Mag is following the thread though, so now he knows.
Caterane 06-17-04, 10:49 PM	3- Deffinatly. and I guess having the Circle declare war on Zedarak dosen't help his outlook on Druids any..... Man, if the both of you could stop drooling on your sheet for a second I'd be happy. The druid circle decides over the fate of the CoCo, and surprise surprise everyone has to get nerfed while the druid should be enhanced. Unfortunately I'm the only one who notices this so why not put everything I say in the "prejudice box" Cunning move of you. :thumbsup:
MotherBast 06-17-04, 11:05 PM	cat, if that last post was written as lightheartedly as it reads, thats the funnyests thing you've written in weeks. If your really ment it though, then I'll have to get offended.
Battousai2005 06-18-04, 12:29 AM	*sigh* Amazing how quickly logical discussions turn into insult-feasts. Well, that was a bit of Irony! Ok, back on topic. 1- Well, purchased allies will still be arround for people unwilling or unable to "train" or create there own, but Handel animal allies and undead will be attained the same way they are now, we just skip the fight and assume the gladiator beat down whatever beasty he wanted. 2- Humm... this is a good point. The no gear rule for cohorts has keept this from being a problem with them, but I can see where it would become one for free allies. Perhaps a price per HD would be in order, but 1000gp is too much for an allie you spend skills or matarial componets to obtain. Perhapse a more resonable 500gp, basicly half cost, just like self crafting, except this time your self rasing. 3- Deffinatly. and I guess having the Circle declare war on Zedarak dosen't help his outlook on Druids any..... 4- Well, the system isen't really based on CR, its based on HD. CR -4 is simply the very best that the system will allow, but it limits Skellys to HD of master +2, and limits Zombies to HD of master x2 if I'm not mistaken. So, no 20 HD skellys at 12th level, the best that could be done is a 14 HD skelly at that level. 5- Item allies that are "alive" at the start of combat would count aginst the limit. Activated items used during combat would not. For instance, a Figurene of Wonderous power activated after a fight starts would not be an "allie", but a golem would be. Both are still "purchased or crafted", however, and would be replaced for free. Also, item 6- Class features would remain allies. 7- I didn't know he was unawere. I'm sure Mag is following the thread though, so now he knows. One problem. In this, I think you are basically saying that everything stays the same. Sooooo, what? Keep everything as is?
Magagumo 06-18-04, 08:07 AM	@Jindl You guys get druid/paladin companions back without a year and one day wait, familiars only have a 100 gp cost, how about we skip that bloody xp/gold conversion cost, because I'm sorry, that is bloody ridiculous. I honestly presumed that that was a minor sufggestion by Jindl that was ignored, and Umbra has certainly been targetted (fairly, but people have often gone after him before me), and Zorander will be deleted if he has to pay that much. By the way, if the CR of skels is a problem, why not use my HD rule for them alone? It still follows the CR rule in spirit, but avoids the storm giants altogether? :)
Jindl 06-18-04, 09:01 AM	@Mag - Actually, it was suggested by Mo. And I seem to recall several people supporting it. I don't remember any familiars getting killed since then, but if they did they would have the same xp loss as your shadow. FYI - Animal companion's (druid/ranger) do NOT have a wait period. Since they require 24 hours to call, a druid/ranger could conceivable call a new one within a day or two of the death of their old one. Also, paladin's do NOT have to wait a year and a day. Their restriction is that they have to wait 1 month. And for all we know, they are waiting 1 month after the death, since in the CoCo there is unlimited time between fights. -Jindl
Magagumo 06-18-04, 02:31 PM	Hmm// I seem to recall penalties to fighting in the meantime as well, but I swore someone had to wait a year and one day... I just figure if cohorts and such are being ressed for free, why should certain classes be penalized while others aren't? In campaign terms, the shadowdancer might have an advantage in only losing exp, which is quickly regained, but this scenario forces us into life or death battles daily, with no method of exp recouping- losing that much gold cripples me insanely fast and Zorander will stop being used if I have to pay. I hate to do that, but I think we need a level playing field for free resureection, or some classes just get unneccesarily hurt. Rem, we have to house rule things, because D & D was not purely based on players figting other players... bards and rogues are perfect examples of that. If we wish to test the effectiveness of builds in fighting one another, then perhaps we can make allowances so that certain classes aren't crippled for using class features? Also, Moh never played a class with exp penalties, so I don't believe he was the perfect voice of wisdom in that regard- we're all biased.
kattattack22 06-18-04, 11:24 PM	I like the sound of where the discussion is going (except for the accusations of trying to work the system). I have a bit of concern with handle animal allies being gained only by skill points as opposed to feats, money, or class abilities. I think Magagumo's proposal of 500 gp per HD would work. I would even be happy with 100 gp per HD on HA allies. (off topic) - I like this stackable pre-buffs idea. It would be very nice to sorcerers with their extra spells.
Magagumo 06-19-04, 12:06 AM	it was 1000 gp, but who's counting? ;)
kattattack22 06-19-04, 12:42 AM	Originally posted by Magagumo it was 1000 gp, but who's counting? ;) Ok, it was Motherbast that modified your original proposal to 500 gp per HD. I thought you modified it to 500 from 1000 yourself, but my tired mind got it confused (cut me some slack, I got 4 hours of sleep then had to work 8 hours shoveling, moving, and raking tons of rock).
Caterane 06-19-04, 10:17 PM	As I've already suggested it's nearly impossible to decide so many things with a vote: it would be like 20 votes, so let's find a solution here and now, through discussion until everyone's happy, or at least happier than before. The level cap for allies: Class allies stay as they are, Handled animals get a CR-4 cap, Leadership allies like shown on the table (ECL-2 at best), Skeletons and Zombies use the formula from page 1. Bought animals don't have a level cap b/c the price regulates them already. Ressurection: All allies are ressurected for free What's not an ally? Non-permanent creatures created through a spell (like Phantom steed, Mount, Planar ally) and creatures gained through an item (figurines of wondrous power) are not considered allies and may be brought along for free. Their gold cost balances them out, and they're far weaker than a regular ally at a given level. Prices for allies: Class allies and leadership free, Handled animals and undead X gp per CR (not HD). This has yet to be decided but 20,000 gp for a stupid dragon zombie is WAY off. I'd suggest 500 per CR which resembles the exenditures quite well. Alright, is everyone ok with that? Did I forget something?
kattattack22 06-19-04, 10:49 PM	@Cat - sounds good to me.
SnarkHunter 06-19-04, 11:34 PM	Yarr. But I think you might be surprised at how effective a Planar Ally(or binding...) can be. *schemes*
Caterane 06-20-04, 08:46 AM	Originally posted by SnarkHunter Yarr. But I think you might be surprised at how effective a Planar Ally(or binding...) can be. *schemes* Sorry, I meant Planar Ally. The binding spell involves a check with a penalty due to failure so this is not possible to do before combat. The Planar ally spells are ok though. You pay 100 gp per HD + 500 gp for the XP cost so a 6 HD panar ally summoned at lvl 7 with a straight cleric costs you 1100 gp. That's a lot of cash at this level. Compare it to the symbol spells who cost 1000 gp and can end a fight at once (just go back and forth and the enemy has to save everytime he reenters the area of effect). Or we can also increase the cost because this is a "hazardous task" for the ally, like double the cost => 600*2+500 = 1700 gp
MotherBast 06-20-04, 01:15 PM	I think you have summed up the proposal well CAT, with the exception of Reseruction. It is impossible to raise undead, so the material componet would be needed to recast the spell. The corpse could be treated as equipment, and a new one "refunded" when yours is destroyed, but the material component would still need to be purchased.
Caterane 06-20-04, 09:12 PM	Yeah, and a sundered sword is gone, and if I tear your scrolls apart and drink all your potions they're gone too. This rule is to prevent damaging the gladiator finacially! *sigh*
MotherBast 06-20-04, 09:20 PM	but under our current rules, spells you have paid to be made perment on yourself are not refunded either, so the system will repay you for any material object you have destroyed in battle, but it will not repay for spellcasting. Undead would be treated the same, the corpse you paid for, you get back for free, but the spellcasting has to be paid for again. We would just contune the trend the current rules already set forth. Besides, the cost to create undead is not great enough that killing one will seriously hamper you opponit. 50gp a HD means even a 26 HD zombie is only 1300gp, easly affordable at level 13, and well worth the cost.
Magagumo 06-20-04, 09:29 PM	Actually, I was lead to understand that permanant spells were refunded....
Caterane 06-20-04, 09:30 PM	Motherbast, again, only for you: We don't want gladiators to be able to damage the other gladiator finacially. Read this sentence twice or thrice, then reply with "Ah *slaps head* now I got it!" :rolleyes: :) Edit: Look, even Mag got it! :D
barrel_master 06-20-04, 10:09 PM	Hummm... I thought that permenent spells had to be paid for again if they were dispelled. As for the paying for undead again if they are killed. I'm a supporter of it but I'm also a supporter of having char's pay for their familier's if they die. I suppose if NO ONE has to pay for a dead familiar or undead companion it's acceptable. (although, I'd still prefer some cost penalty for wiz's familiar dying or having your created undead dying). The xp cost for dead familiars are a balancing feature for the class and I'd prefer if it was kept there. (since the recent ruling that polymorph isn't restircted by size the only thing keeping me from polymorphing my bird is that it would cost me money. There's also the fact that I simply don't want to see it dead)
MotherBast 06-21-04, 07:13 AM	Well, under the current rules you can damage your opponit fincally by dispelling their perminit buffs. Spellcasting is currently not refunded in the arena. If we changed that rule, then I would change my opinion about raised undead, but as long as that rule is in place, then I say the spell must be paid for again to raise undead.
Caterane 06-21-04, 08:13 AM	Allies are not considered spells, even though they might be created by one. The duration is instantaneous which means the magic goes away after the casting (else I could dispel an undead or golem). A permanent spell however has a duration of "permanent" and can be dispelled. See the difference? Another thing is that we already have a thousand houserules. It is absolutely difficult for newbies to get into all these and they might be turned away by the complexity of it all. For that reason I say keep it as simple as possible and don't make many exceptions. Thus "all allies raised for free" sounds better than if there is a "but..." which complicates things. Next point, if we are going to make people repay for undead, then we have to install a payment for familiars too, or shadows from shadowdancers, or planar allies for thaumartugists, etc You hopefully see that this is a labyrinth of house rules. And the strongest point is that we don't want to encourage people to target the ally just because the enemy has to spend money in order to get it back. Are these enough reasons now, dear Motherbast?
barrel_master 06-21-04, 12:17 PM	Given the amount of rules we already have I think one more is unlikely to have any significant impact. All we have to say is that they pay 5gp per xp and whatever other gold costs it takes to replace familiars. It's not that bad. On your last point I agree in some sense... but it's something that I'd be willing to give up in order to keep balancing features in the classes that have chars pay for familiars or other allies.
MotherBast 06-21-04, 04:04 PM	Actually, I thought we already used the rule that exp loss due to the death of an allie was paid with gold. That wouldn't be a new rule at all. As far as your reasons go CAT, I think its a strong case for changing our current rules. My point is that is we don't change the current rules, then spellcasting is not refunded. I already said, if we change that rule, then I'll support free undead replacement. The only problem I have with it now is that our current rules do not allow it. I'm not against changing them, I'm just reminding you what they are at the moment.
Caterane 06-21-04, 07:11 PM	Motherbast, this whole thread is about changing the rules so what's your point??? I'm not against changing them, I'm just reminding you what they are at the moment. I am aware of that. Why are you telling me this? I proposed a solution ten posts ago and now we have again a page long discussion just because you want to remind me about the current rules!? I explain it again, but this is the last time. We want to change the rules because allies are overpowered, ok? Now we want to find a solution and - while we are at it - making it as easy as possible. My suggestion was that we make a common rule that extends to all allies => free ressurection. This is of course just a suggestion to better the CoCo. If you have a better idea, then tell it. So are you now for or against changing the rules so that allies are ressurected for free? @Barrel: I'd prefer to have as few houserules as possible. If we'll have found a common ground like "All allies are ressurected for free" then this eliminates at least 5 different currently existing houserules which makes the CoCo easier to understand. Saying this one rule doesn't make the dog fat is the wrong direction. In fact, there might be other parts of the CoCo that might be made easier.
MotherBast 06-21-04, 07:23 PM	And what I am saying to you CAT is that to make it so that undead CAN be returned for free, we would also have to change the rule about spellcasting being "repaired" for free. So, Permanit spells and what not, being spellcasting, would also be returned for free. This is an aspect of the arena that dosen't concern "only" allies. If we decide that spellcasting should be treated as "equipment", it will effect characters who don't even uses allies.
Caterane 06-21-04, 09:00 PM	to make it so that undead CAN be returned for free, we would also have to change the rule about spellcasting being "repaired" for free Why? I don't see a connection. The undead are raised for free because all allies are raised for free (or hopefully soon will be). That has nothing to do with spells.
MotherBast 06-21-04, 11:45 PM	Because undead can't simply be "reseructed" like living creatures. It will require the recasting of the Create Undead spell. Also, the spell must be cast by the person using to undead to be able to control it. This means you would personaly have to recast the spell every time your undead is destroyed. So, its basicly like the arena is giving you the material componet to recast your spell. That, I would call a spellcasting service. I guess it just depends on how you look at it.
Caterane 06-22-04, 07:02 AM	And a familiar cost 100 gp and Xp to ressurect, and a thaumaturgist cost gold too, and a shadowdancer shadow costs XP too, and... and all these have to be cast by the caster. Again, where's the difference?
MotherBast 06-22-04, 07:12 AM	Well, those are costs paid either on death of the allie or to summon a new one. For costs to summon a new one, that can be circumvented by resurection. You do not have to pay those costs if your allie is brought back to life. As for costs for allie death, that, under the current rules, you do have to pay.
barrel_master 06-22-04, 11:41 AM	Sorry, cat I'm still not convinced. The only new thing I have to add is that, without the monster fights clerics need only to pay for 25gp/hd for a creature. That would mean that for your dragon you pay like 500gp where as a griffon costs much more. Also, I don't feel that a one time payment of only 25gp per hd is enough for some of the creatures that can be animated.
Caterane 06-22-04, 07:42 PM	@Barrel: Then why don't you propose a price? But remember, we should base this price on CR not on ECL (or HD) because CR is what reflects the true power of a gladiator. Some guidelines: Druids - though completely overpowered already - get their (most powerful of all allies) animal companions for free, as do paladins and whoever has a class feature ally. Leadershipers took a feat and animal handlers invested skill points. Should they get the ally for free? Animators should pay a certain price because they have to pay animation cost and battle costs. But also consider that the spell "Animate dead" is part of the cleric's CR. Bought animals should be the most expensive ones because they didn't invest anything. But their expensive companions (price as printed in the MM) should definately get raised for free else it's worthless. @Motherbast: I think you want to point out that as long as permanent spells are dispellable, then instantaneous spells (like animate dead or the creation of a golem) shouldn't be refunded either. But as I already told you twice an animated undead and permanent buffs are two different shoes. One is a spell and the other one an ally. And btw a thing that I'm asking myself since I first met you: what the heck is this thing on your avatar picture???
MotherBast 06-23-04, 07:10 AM	Ah, Don't play Magic CAT? I was huge into the game about 5 years ago... at one point, I was ranked 72ed in the state of Georgia. Then I met a gril from Italy and quit playing the game all together and invested all my time in persueing her instead. Anyway, I always liked the Cat Warriors in magic, and I had a non-torunament "theme" deck built around them. Right before I quit magic this card came out. He was a Giant Cat Warrior. I can't remember his name off the top of my head, and I'm too lazy to go look it up.
Caterane 06-23-04, 08:29 AM	Now I'm relieved. I feared it is you on the picture :D And italian grills are great! Produce the best steaks
MotherBast 06-23-04, 03:55 PM	err... uhh... Girl even......
Magagumo 06-23-04, 04:28 PM	Hehe, I can't rem his name off the top of my head either, but any guy that gains +7/+7 when blocking and can become immune to any and all colors for only 1 white a peice.. Leonine Titan is all I recall. I used to play during high school, but tapered off when I got to college. Snark tried to get me into tournaments, but I'm too crotchety and refuse to make decks with more than 2 copies of a card ;). Anyways, because I'm curious, are we approving any cash allotment for cohorts for leadership? Or is their initial equipment still completely purchased by the main character (personally, I think it would be easy to stipulate that their gold be only uised to buy things they will eb using, even if it is scrolls to be used on the main character. I also agree that they should not also gain cash as the main char. levels, as adding a seconde hand is already powerful enough. nevertheless, even 3/4 of NPC cash would help make them viable assistants...)
MotherBast 06-23-04, 05:17 PM	Well, as the owner of the highest level cohort in the arena, I think that giving cohorts gold is probably not a good idea. First, it would encourage players to "swap out" cohorts every time they leveled, both to give the cohort a greater amount of gold, and to gear the cohort against particular opponits. And secondly, cohorts not having gold is a big balancing factor. If they came with their own equipment, they would be undoutably the best of all possible allies.
Battousai2005 06-23-04, 06:25 PM	Anyone else notice how much Cat and MB go at it? Magic is fun. That is a relatively new card though. Has some awesome abilities... Been away for a while, but I think the gist is the debate over ally cost. Most of the costs have been decided already, as Cat points out. The problem with allies that I am reading here is cost of replacement. For all I know, I think that with a couple of exceptions, allies should be refunded. Reasoning: XP/Gold cost: Gladiators don't get GP unless they win or get bumped. Take Kage for example. His griffon costs a pretty nice amount. If he loses that ally, then his horse, well, he gets screwed. Cost included!: Familiars cost money. Some others cost XP. Cohort gold: Ok, here is a problem. Its hard to judge, really. I know I would like it as one of my characters (guesses anyone) is going to take leadership to get a humanoid ally. How about this: a seperate cohort fund. They get an amount of gold for their cohort. However, this is ONLY for their cohort. They cannot use any equipment bought for their cohort on the main PC. Anyway, if this is invalid in any way, tell me!
Magagumo 06-23-04, 08:31 PM	@MB Woah, where's the cohort swapping coming from? This is only when the first one was created, and I was unaware that anyone was swapping them (the feat itself generally only allows that if the cohort dies, and we free res them). At low levels, cohorts have a closer proportion to gold a PC then at hgigh levels, and this is so they can pick up the basic gear and then taper off. I'm not saying Sanzin should have 3/4rds of a 11th lvl NPCs gold, he should have had 3/4s of a 4th level NPC (as I think Candy got Leadership at 6th level) to start him off- that covers a few basic goods like Scrolls or armor and weapon for a meleer. He would never get gold again, as its Candy's job to outfit him from then on. If a person delays in getting a cohort, then they are inately rewarded for waiting (and thus fighting their battles by themselves) by having a cohort with more starting wealth, again set aside only for their use. Also, cohrots normally do come with equipment in a campaign, because face it, they are the best allies. The DMG itself states that the feat is available only by DM call, and should generally be reserved for smaller parties, as they tend to make large parties even bulkier in battle. A feat is the most powerful expenditure in D & D, besides class choice... Druid and Paladin companions still remain top competitors, but a Leadership cohort is emant to be a mini-NPC. I don't anticipate my reccomendation fo 3/4s NPC wealth at creation will break any characters here (btw, its 2475 gp for a 4th lvl cohort, just enough for magic armor or a magic weapon and cheap armor). I think it just makes it worth grabbing cohorts who dont rely on spell castign (sure Sanzin is fine, because he's a sorceror, but I recall Hanz's buddy having difficulties.) Personally, in the end, I think a new cohort (when the LEadership feat is taken) should recieve a corresponding NPCs gear (full), which is used as the sole source for getting their gear (no additions from the main character's wealth). After the next level, then the PC can spend their acquired gold on their cohort. Just a thought.
Battousai2005 06-23-04, 08:51 PM	This thought just came to mind. I think that the cost of a cohort is this: the character is using a feat to get it. Sure, some say, "big deal," but unless you are a fighter, it is.
barrel_master 06-25-04, 12:26 PM	I'm simply proposing that we have the animators pay for the 25 gp/hd for everytime their creature dies... But personally I'd like to see a rule where all cases where someone would loose an ally that cost money/xp to replace that they pay that cost where 5gp/xp ratio would take costs into account.