Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ashenai 10-03-04, 11:36 AM	This thread is only for discussing ideas to simulate the fact that casters shouldn't be able to cast all their spells in one battle. There are many ways of achieving this goal, and people seem to be very divided on the best method. Therefore, I'll collect all the ideas in this first post, editing it when needed. Please only reply to this thread if you have a suggestion to make, or constructive criticism regarding one of the suggestions. Once everyone has given their input, we should have a number of mature, debated suggestions. The Elders will then vote on these suggestions. I know I left some suggestions out; they're all over the various threads, and I couldn't find all of them (which is the whole reason I started this thread). Please post the links to them, and I'll edit this post to include them. THE IDEAS 1) MOHAREJIKUYX'S SUGGESTION after the pairings, a gm should roll a dice which will tell after how many rounds next fights will be. Average: 10 fights every three days. (exact formula coming) When the clock gets to 24:00, rest time begins; next fights will start at 9 o clock. Ongoing fights don't suddenly end of course. x/day abilities, x/day spells, pps: replenishable only during rest time. spells: spells will keep going, spell durations will keep decaying. Bad effects will be dispelled, as it's now. memorizing: prepared spellcasters will have to deal with the spells they prepared for their first fight of the day and with the ones left. If the level, they might prepare the new spells. All casters (check the 3.5 FAQ) have the option to leave slots free: they may prepare the spells later during the day. All memorizations are to be written on the sheet before the pairings though, exactly as now. 2) MARKET SHARE'S SUGGESTION All pairings are announced in a "clock" schedule. If there are more fights than slots in a day, then bonus to them. Otherwise ya gotta wait until the next day. Example: Level 2 [Raven Spark (Tellish of Ket) out for # of PCs] 06:00 Pyre the Red vs Visciocelis Tharkan 06:15 Vanndameer Black vs Parable 06:30 Akrep vs Moksha Jehannum 06:45 Jaguar hunts a polar bear Level 3 07:00 Sildaris vs Mr.Big Level 4 [Sunshine (Hatzinger) out for # of PCs] 07:15 Cuul the Cruel vs Domai Level 5 07:30 Cyric Tor vs Ildechai Hazeweaver Level 6 07:45 Death Dealer vs Pard Longfellow Level 7 08:00 Tair Malek vs Evram the Soulless Level 8 08:15 Bloodmaiden Shiaan vs Ernie the Great Level 9 08:30 Vaarkalikax the Lichking vs Brock Granitehand Level 10 [Hurtz (Tellish of Ket) out for # of PCs] 08:45 Sven Enno vs Delayar Level 11 09:00 Aemon vs Dusk 09:15 Lillith vs Enilias Surion 09:30 Rhoar vs Zephin Telloran Level 12 09:45 Angosh vs Prof. Vandaeris Dre'Dandrahl 10:00 SPIKE! hunts the Roc Level 13!! 10:15 The Harvester (1st avatar) vs Arkin Jozil 10:30 Bruno Wilikens chllg Johan Talyana 10:45 Jindl of the High Forest vs Candessa Rain 11:00 Brackin Bonesnapper vs The Harvester (2nd avatar) 11:15 Aku vs Corinthus Avius 11:30 Ebelin Barnahdy vs Heinrich 11:45 Donkey vs Kiri'endelas 12:00 Kelek vs Drak'something 12:15Clìodhna d'Elrich vs Zedarak Combats on the following week would commence at 12:30. This way, Gladius is alive 24/7. Non-stop blood and guts...oooh yeah. Time is used. Buffs, even small ones can be carried through to the next fight, but obviously, pre-buffs would need to be eliminated for this to work. Or the Colliseum closes so the sanitation crew can pick up the strewn body parts and soak up some of the blood. Say, between 2am-6am. So, since you need 8hrs of rest before you can get your spell selection back, you may actually need to take a day off to re-coup. Otherwise, you could end up with 3 or 4 fights all in a row before you get your spells back. Warriors could pay the NPC healer to heal them etc... Or even take this a step further. I know I'm going to be fighting Delayar at 8:45 and Vaarkalikax just made luncheon meat out of Brock. I could buy my spells from Vaar if he thinks he can spare it and guesses on a long list of gladiators so that he may only have to fight twice in a day. Bang....Vaark gives me fly and a bear's endurance. I pay him the npc casting rate, he makes a few bucks and i get a few buffs. This would really represent a true working economy to Gladius. And hey, London has Big Ben for the clock right? Well, now we got BIG SPIKE! for ours. lol. With this we can institute crafting. Since i'm a master smith, and Mr. Big can't even weave simple baskets, i can craft it for him. Of course, since we are in a clock, that means i need to take the time off splitting skulls in the arena...most likely two weeks or could even be three. But it would be truely representative. Now Mr. Big is walking around with his Adamantine Greatsword with a SPIKE! ensignia on it. Of course on your character sheet you would have to show "crafted by Spike" of course. 3) DRUID ROXOR'S SUGGESTION One fight per day, but only 2/3 of available spell slots for each spell level (or power points, or spell-like abilities) can be prepared or used for every fight, rounded down (but with a minimum of one). 4) KERLANRAYNE'S SUGGESTION Have 3 fights per day, with 8 hours passing between fights. Add a new notation to the roster that shows which fight they are on, like this: (1/3) or (2/3) etc. Once thay finish their last fight of the day (3/3), then thay regain any per day resources like spells, x per day abilities, etc. Between each fight, they can still level, be fully healed, shop, etc. This way they can't skip a fight, they will have to finish the same number of fights whether it's next week or next month. 5) CATERANE'S SUGGESTION Require 2 wins to level up, with the character being able to shop only if he levels OR if he loses. 6) ZERONE'S SUGGESTION 1. You may fight as many fights per day as you wish, but you must fight at least 2 fights per day. 2. You must win 2 fights in 1 day to advance a level. 3. Free Heal after every even numbered fight (2, 4, 6, etc.). 4. You start each odd numbered fight (3, 5, 7, etc.) with hit points carried over from the previous Fight (the first fight of everyday would be full everything). 5. If you are killed on an odd numbered fight (1, 3, 5, etc.) you start the next fight at 1 hit point. 6. You may take non-aggressive, non-battle influencing actions between fights (cast healing spells, potions, buy healing from the Arena healer, get gear [arrows, bolts, etc.], buy scrolls, potions, etc). 7. We should not be allowed to gain additional gold from other sources (skills, selling items, selling spells, etc.) or else our Cohorts and other things (raising griffens) would be allowed to gain us money. I just think it is a bad idea to gain extra gold as is, as you are given the approximate gold for your level already to spend in 1 lump sum, which is not Core Campaign D&D.
Ashenai 10-03-04, 11:38 AM	Reserved
Ashenai 10-03-04, 11:39 AM	Reserved
Druid Roxors 10-03-04, 11:49 AM	Another Idea? 2/3 of total spell slots/PPs per day. Simple, Fair (Hey, I won on 1 round last fight, I get all my spells next fight...), attractive and Balancing!
Ashenai 10-03-04, 12:00 PM	Thanks, DR, I added your suggestion. I forgot to say this, but everyone can, of course, modify their own suggestions. Just post your modification (or PM me, if you like) and I'll edit your suggestion. In the case of DR's suggestion, I feel it needs a bit of clarification; in the case of spell slots, what exactly does 2/3 mean? For instance, how many spells could be prepared by a wizard with 4 0th level, 5 1st level, 5 2nd level, and 3 3rd level spell slots?
Druid Roxors 10-03-04, 12:49 PM	In the case of DR's suggestion, I feel it needs a bit of clarification; in the case of spell slots, what exactly does 2/3 mean? For instance, how many spells could be prepared by a wizard with 4 0th level, 5 1st level, 5 2nd level, and 3 3rd level spell slots? Now that I think about it, make it rounded down: level 0: 4 x 2 / 3 = 2.6 = 2 level 1: 5 x 2 / 3 = 3.3 = 3 level 2: 5 x 2 / 3 = 3.3 = 3 level 3: 3 x 2 / 3 = 2
Ashenai 10-03-04, 12:55 PM	What about x/day-use abilities, like what Phrenic characters get? Both fairness and common sense would dictate that the same system apply to their abilities as well, but that would mean that 1/day abilities could never be used. What's your take on this?
Sindorin 10-03-04, 01:01 PM	I think DR's idea is probably the most compromising one - if we have more than one fight per day, what happens when we face a tough fight and use all of our spells? It just makes more sense because typically most casters aren't supposed to be the only ones taking down an opponent. In terms of an ability or spell level that has one per day, I say just set that as a base, no rounding down to zero. If my wizard has one third level spell per day, just let him prepare it. EDIT: What in this case would we do for extra spells from school specialization and bonus spells? Should it multiply the total number of spells per level by 2/3 or perhaps the base number by 2/3... in that case, we might not even need to have a minimum of 1 per level against rounding down.
Druid Roxors 10-03-04, 01:19 PM	Yes, I had concidered it in the past. My take on that is this: 2/3 spells/PPs/Sp-Ps-Like abilities rounded down, minimum one. You have to consider that someone with your own challenge rating fighting you is very rare and possibly a 1/day occurance too. So I believe it would be fair. This should include domains spells and bonus spells. If you have only 1 spell you either choose a domain spell or a regular spell. For instance.
Moherajikuyx 10-04-04, 09:31 AM	I like KR's idea more than mine given the simplicity but moreover, the fact than it solves straightforwardly the resistance against the random roll that, even though ridiculous, nontheless persists... It also mantains a lot of the characteristics of my idea, principally the later-balanceable-factor thing. They are really similar but KR's got the mechanics better I have to admit. Way to go!
Ashenai 10-04-04, 12:59 PM	I would tend to agree with that. If it were just me, I'd go for some hybrid of your and Market Share's suggestion; it seems the most fun and flavourful, and I love complexity. If we don't want to scare away all but the most hardcore newbies, though, I also think KerlanRayne's suggestion is the perfct compromise between accurate simulation and simplicity. So anyone (especially KerlanRayne) wanna make actual concrete sugestions as to the number of fights per "day", and the amount of time that should elapse between them? (Also, found Cat's suggestion by accident. Now added.)
Moherajikuyx 10-06-04, 06:38 AM	Mine was more than 3, KR's is 2 or three... I think 3 is the right number.
Ashenai 10-06-04, 07:01 AM	That seems reasonable. And with 3 fights per day, 8 hours per fight seems to be a good ballpark figure. I'll plug those numbers in for now, and if anyone doesn't like them, they can of course be modified. Considering the huge debates this issue originally spawned, remarkably few people seem to be commenting. If anyone has anything to add, please do so. At this point, you can easily make your voice heard. Once Elder voting begins, it's going to be more difficult, and once a decision is made, it's going to be even more difficult. So add your input now, and you won't want to kick yourself because you had a great idea we didn't consider. :)
T'Var 10-06-04, 08:49 AM	Ive been lurking here for a week or so now, so take my oppinion or not, but i think limiting a casters ability to cast his entire alotment is like telling a fighter 'ok you can only swing your sword 10 times in a fight' or an archer 'you only have 10 arrows in a fight' it destroys there ability to fully defend, and attack there target. the three fights a day though always works in the fighters advantage because he gets his full healing back. and still can swing that sword as much as he wants while at the third fight of the day your standerd mage has lost all of his big spells. Not to mention at 2-5 lvl the mage has around 15-30% chance of winning if he cant use every spell avalible in every fight.
Ashenai 10-06-04, 09:38 AM	Hello, and thanks for your input! It's appreciated. :) Here's the deal. Since the CoCo came into being, we've seen a lot of fights, and we've more or less figured out that certain classes seems to be more powerful in the arena than others. Which ones? Well, let's just see. I'll make a list of all the gladiators who have won at least 3 times as many fights as they lost (and have fought at least 3 times). I'll also note their primary class (the class they have the most levels in). Pyre the Red: Sorcerer (3-1) Eiletha Surion: Cleric (3-1) Moksha Jehannum: Psion (4-1) Rhaegar: Bard (4-0) Ildechai Hazeweaver: Wizard (5-1) Mr. Big: Psychic Warrior (5-1) Demon Lord Themmez: Cleric (3-1) Evram the Soulless: Psion (8-0) Delayar: Wizard (10-3) Spike: Fighter/Barbarian (11-3) The Harvester (2nd avatar): Cleric (14-3) The Harvester (1st avatar): Cleric (14-4) Prof. Vandaeris: Wizard (Loremaster) (14-3) So here we have some of the most successful gladiators. What do we see? Well, out of the 13 of them, 10 are primary casters, 2 are secondary casters (a PsyWar and a Bard), and only 1 is a non-caster. (GO SPIKE!) We think that's a bit odd. In a real D&D game, Fighters and Barbarians and Rogues and Monks are powerful and useful; a party made up of only Wizards and Psions is going to have a tough time. Apparently, though, in the arena, casters wipe the floor with non-casters. Why is this so? Well, most of us believe that the difference is because in a real campaign, a Wizard or a Cleric or a Psion doesn't usually get to rest after each battle. They have to be careful about not using up all their spells in one fight, because then they won't have anything left for the next fight. This is their disadvantage. A fighter--as you point out--can swing his sword all day. He doesn't have to stop and think "Hey, should I go ahead and Power Attack this ghoul, or should I save it for some better opponent?" He can go all-out on every opponent, because he's not using anything up. Unfortunately, in the Arena, the mages and clerics can think the same way. They know that there's no one else after this one fight, so they can just blast away happily with all their spells. This is why they can kill fighters easily (most of the time), and this is why they are too powerful. In short, this is what we want to fix. And hey! What's with the lurking? Come on, make a gladiator, let's see you butcher some of our guys, eh? ;)
T'Var 10-06-04, 09:52 AM	I agree with your comments but i think there is a much easier way to solve this in the low level end. i have read several battles of low mages, and they are casting 9th lvl MMs from a scroll, or frankly they are casting spells from scrolls that are almost always of 6th lvl or better to beat there enemys. so simple way to stop the instant kill without limiting there casting would be limiting what you can buy and when. Now i know (somewhat) the rules for castng above your level but if you limit the scroll selection like 'only able to buy a scroll that you could make yourself' or 'scrolls of 2 caster levels above yourself' would seriously stop the ease of early kill casters
T'Var 10-06-04, 09:54 AM	i mean at 2nd lvl who airnt you going to kill with a 9th lvl magic missle or a Black Tentacil(sp) spell
Sindorin 10-06-04, 09:56 AM	Hmm... whatever you guys eventually decide on this, I am going to have a fun time trying to break it whenever I decide to remake my evoker. It will be quite a challenge.
Druid Roxors 10-06-04, 10:30 AM	I believe my opinion on this issue is more than known. Moh's proposal, which was voted upon on the council, failed to pass mainly because of my arguments against it. Something I want to make clear and I know EVERYONE can understand it is that Fighting 3 times with the same spell selection is like saying: 4 level 10 PCs fight A team of 4 level 10 well equipped (pc money), tactic using NPCs 3 times per day... I'm not sure if you guys have experienced this in a real game but, unless your PCs have considerably more wealth and the DM is "cheating" in favor of the PCs, you wont get past the second fight. It isn't reasonable, at all. I cannot quote the DMG on this right now because I am not home but paraphrasing: PCs should be able to handle 3 encounters of a challenge rating equal to the party's average level. Creature of a higher challenge rating should not be encountered more than twice... Considering that the average CR of a party of 4 level 10 gladiators is 10 (and not the combined CR, as encounters are prepared), 3 fights per day would be adequate for a 4v1 of the same CR according to the rules. Saying that a character can handle another well prepared PC of their same level is inaccurate because, in theory, he should have a 50% chance of success. This chance would decrease significantly after each fight. Lets suppose that a fighter's chance of success against a mage is 30%, after each consecutive fight the fighters chances would improve considerably, of course. But consider that if the caster who the fighter is facing just blew his last spells on a Caster duel. His chances of success would increase considerably while the mage's would decrease. What we are going to see is Mages trying desperately to challenge their weakest opponents in order to remain in the best shape. A prime example of this is the professor, suppose he has 2 options to fight against 1 wizard, one fighter and one cleric. If he chooses the wizard, he moves on round 1 against his enemy and uses finger of death which instantly kills him (save DC 29 anyone?). On his next level he decides to fight a fighter and he moves up and uses quickened (rod) empowered Enervation + Maze, which would make him automatically lose the fight (if you use the standard CoCo rules). After both fights, he used 1 level 7 spell, 1 level 6 spell and 1 level 8 spell. He can then blow the rest of his spell selection on the more durable Cleric. In order to successfully implement your idea, you would have to create 3 CoCo's, one with hybrids, one with pure casters and one with warriors.. What I mean to say is not that the Wizard is overpowered, what I mean is that if your previous opponent is move vulnerable to your attacks and luck favors you in this respect, it is not a good tool for judging the effectiveness of a build. That, is the goal of the CoCo. As I have said before, I agree that Casters are more powerful than Pure meleers and most Hybrids and I believe that my proposal best suits this purpose. Change a caster's spell selection (or powerpoints) to 2/3 of his regular one. Having a minimum of 1 spell per level and taking into account bonus, domain and specialty spells. This effectively cuts down the power of a caster, and to a lesser extent hybrids, and more appropriately reflects the setting of a campaign. I don't remember a single level 11 character fighting a CR 11 elder Air elemental 3 times per day, or maybe that’s just me...
Ashenai 10-06-04, 11:02 AM	I believe my opinion on this issue is more than known. Moh's proposal, which was voted upon on the council, failed to pass mainly because of my arguments against it. Something I want to make clear and I know EVERYONE can understand it is that Fighting 3 times with the same spell selection is like saying: 4 level 10 PCs fight A team of 4 level 10 well equipped (pc money), tactic using NPCs 3 times per day... I'm not sure if you guys have experienced this in a real game but, unless your PCs have considerably more wealth and the DM is "cheating" in favor of the PCs, you wont get past the second fight. It isn't reasonable, at all. You say "you won't get past the second fight". On average, how many fights do you think a gladiator in the Arena should "get past" without dying? What I'm trying to say is, of course Arena battles are more difficult than campaign battles. In fact, I've heard rumours that fully half the active gladiators die every week! ;) We're not trying to give Arena gladiators fair challenges. We're trying to give them unfair challenges. In a perfectly balanced Arena (ignoring superior tactics), a wizard (and every other character) should die every second fight, on average. Lets suppose that a fighter's chance of success against a mage is 30%, after each consecutive fight the fighters chances would improve considerably, of course. But consider that if the caster who the fighter is facing just blew his last spells on a Caster duel. His chances of success would increase considerably while the mage's would decrease. What we are going to see is Mages trying desperately to challenge their weakest opponents in order to remain in the best shape. So you're saying a mage might not make it through three consecutive fights and win them all? OH NO! Sorry, I'm not trying to be facetious. But consider that a gladiator dying every second fight is not some sort of tragedy here. It is the average. As for the "challenge the weakest opponent" tactic: that already happens occasionally. I don't see it as a problem; challenges can always be refused. A prime example of this is the professor, suppose he has 2 options to fight against 1 wizard, one fighter and one cleric. If he chooses the wizard, he moves on round 1 against his enemy and uses finger of death which instantly kills him (save DC 29 anyone?). On his next level he decides to fight a fighter and he moves up and uses quickened (rod) empowered Enervation + Maze, which would make him automatically lose the fight (if you use the standard CoCo rules). After both fights, he used 1 level 7 spell, 1 level 6 spell and 1 level 8 spell. He can then blow the rest of his spell selection on the more durable Cleric. In order to successfully implement your idea, you would have to create 3 CoCo's, one with hybrids, one with pure casters and one with warriors.. What are you trying to show with this example? That high-level casters are still overpowered, even with the balancing systems proposed? Well, yes. I agree. But that's all the more argument for balancing. What I mean to say is not that the Wizard is overpowered, what I mean is that if your previous opponent is move vulnerable to your attacks and luck favors you in this respect, it is not a good tool for judging the effectiveness of a build. That, is the goal of the CoCo. As I have said before, I agree that Casters are more powerful than Pure meleers and most Hybrids and I believe that my proposal best suits this purpose. I'm sorry, but I partly do not understand your argument, and partly disagree. A level 8 Wizard should not be more powerful than a level 8 Barbarian. In a campaign, a level 8 Wizard is not more powerful than a level 8 Barbarian. I don't think it's a really good sign that in the CoCo, a level 8 Wizard will almost always beat a level 8 Barbarian. Change a caster's spell selection (or powerpoints) to 2/3 of his regular one. Having a minimum of 1 spell per level and taking into account bonus, domain and specialty spells. This effectively cuts down the power of a caster, and to a lesser extent hybrids, and more appropriately reflects the setting of a campaign. I don't remember a single level 11 character fighting a CR 11 elder Air elemental 3 times per day, or maybe that?s just me... Yeah, I'm thinking your DM doesn't kill off half the players every play session. And yet, that's exactly what happens here. Don't compare CoCo challenges with campaign challenges. All in all: I don't think casters are meant to be more powerful than melee builds, at least, not at low-to-mid levels. The fact that they are more powerful in the CoCo is not "realistic", it is not fun, and it is in no way desirable, IMHO.
Druid Roxors 10-06-04, 11:15 AM	You say "you won't get past the second fight". On average, how many fights do you think a gladiator in the Arena should "get past" without dying?Thats the whole point... We are not trying to have "all characters should die at least once every 3 fights" We want to discover which builds are more powerful, great tactics and great character creation should be rewarding, not dying is testament of your character's success. What I'm trying to say is, of course Arena battles are more difficult than campaign battles. In fact, I've heard rumours that fully half the active gladiators die every week! ;) We're not trying to give Arena gladiators fair challenges. We're trying to give them unfair challenges. In a perfectly balanced Arena (ignoring superior tactics), a wizard (and every other character) should die every second fight, on average.One thing is balancing casters, the other is just having a caster die no matter what (if he ran out of luck) no matter how good his build was in the begining. This is not the purpose of the CoCo. And btw, I am not trying to push unfair fights, I am trying to get a nerf to the Casters across but not this brutal. So you're saying a mage might not make it through three consecutive fights and win them all? OH NO!Im not used to you speaking like this, are you mad about something? Chill out, a successful build should be able to win thrice against lesser builds. That is a fact. Sorry, I'm not trying to be facetious. But consider that a gladiator dying every second fight is not some sort of tragedy here. It is the average.Forcing a gladiator to die every second fight is not my idea of "showing results". So you say that a fighter should lose every first fight and win every second? What are you trying to show with this example? That high-level casters are still overpowered, even with the balancing systems proposed? Well, yes. I agree. But that's all the more argument for balancing.I am trying to show that this system will only sprout abuse that will compensate for it. I'm sorry, but I partly do not understand your argument, and partly disagree. A level 8 Wizard should not be more powerful than a level 8 Barbarian. In a campaign, a level 8 Wizard is not more powerful than a level 8 Barbarian. I don't think it's a really good sign that in the CoCo, a level 8 Wizard will almost always beat a level 8 Barbarian.A level 8 wizard should be more powerful than a level 8 barbarian. At least on the first 3-4 rounds (when he uses up his high level spells). What I propose is a considerable reduction of the above. That should be our main focus. Yeah, I'm thinking your DM doesn't kill off half the players every play session. And yet, that's exactly what happens here. Don't compare CoCo challenges with campaign challenges.What exactly are you trying to say? That the enemies that the PCs face don't die or lose? thats the other half, in fact, thats the vast majority. On a BBG (which should be most like the CoCo) they DO die. If what you are trying to do is bring balance (found in campaigns) I think I have all the reason for a comparison. All in all: I don't think casters are meant to be more powerful than melee builds, at least, not at low-to-mid levels. The fact that they are more powerful in the CoCo is not "realistic", it is not fun, and it is in no way desirable, IMHO.It is realistic that a caster is more powerful than a non-caster because their abilities are limited per use. If you limit their use in a CONSTANT way (not just randomly) it is a much more effective way of measuring a player's power.
T'Var 10-06-04, 11:28 AM	again words from a lurker, take them or leave them I think the problem is at the lower end not the higher. 2-5 lvl melee is stronger than caster as long as caster doesnt have access to spells that are out of his range. 6-10 melee and caster are even again as long as caster does not have access to spells beyond his caster lvl. 11+ casters are just stronger foes, but smart tactics can defeat even the strongest spell. i think the problem is allowing casters to get there hands on scrolls that are far beyond there own caster level **goes back into lurk mode**
Sindorin 10-06-04, 11:32 AM	Hmm... I think I could pull off not using higher level scrolls, I would just have lots of scribed ones... I think the caster would still win at low levels without access to higher level spells, yes, using smart tactics.
Ashenai 10-06-04, 11:33 AM	Thats the whole point... We are not trying to have "all characters should die at least once every 3 fights" We want to discover which builds are more powerful, great tactics and great character creation should be rewarding, not dying is testament of your character's success. One thing is balancing casters, the other is just having a caster die no matter what (if he ran out of luck) no matter how good his build was in the begining. This is not the purpose of the CoCo. And btw, I am not trying to push unfair fights, I am trying to get a nerf to the Casters across but not this brutal. Nerfing casters isn't the point, IMO. The point is that in D&D melee types have a special advantage: they can fight any number of fights without getting "tired out". As long as they can get their HPs replenished (in which they're the same as every other character), they can fight at full effectiveness all day long. Unfortunately, the current situation in the CoCo is that everyone can do the same. The fighters lose their special advantage of not having to economize, because nobody has to economize. The proposed changes aren't so much a nerfing of casters as they are an empowering of meleers: giving them the advantage they should have. Im not used to you speaking like this, are you mad about something? Nah. Sorry about the sarcasm. :) Chill out, a successful build should be able to win thrice against lesser builds. That is a fact. A very superior build, sure. The top 12.5% of gladiators will win 3 fights in a row. Currently, these are always casters. Maybe with this change, they won't all be casters. Surely there's something wrong with the fact that out of 13 successful builds, only 1 is a non-caster? Do you think that in D&D, "successful build" should be synonimous with "caster"? That's not my experience at all in real-life campaigns. In fact, my group tends to groan if nobody wants to play a dedicated meleer. Forcing a gladiator to die every second fight is not my idea of "showing results". So you say that a fighter should lose every first fight and win every second? No, I'm saying that if your average mage dies every second fight, there's nothing wrong with that; that is to be expected. Ideally, what we'll see is that the very well-built mages will win lots of fights, and so will the very well-built fighters. And the average mages and fighters will win every second fight, and the poorly made (or poorly run, or just plain unlucky) mages and fighters will lose more fights than they win. I am trying to show that this system will only sprout abuse that will compensate for it. The current system has the abuse built in... and the abuse you talk about has to be agreed on by the opponent! I don't see that as a problem. A level 8 wizard should be more powerful than a level 8 barbarian. At least on the first 3-4 rounds (when he uses up his high level spells). What I propose is a considerable reduction of the above. That should be our main focus. Make no mistake, I think that your proposal is a lot better than what we currently have. I just think the others are more fun, more interesting, and, yes, more realistic. What exactly are you trying to say? That the enemies that the PCs face don't die or lose? thats the other half, in fact, thats the vast majority. On a BBG (which should be most like the CoCo) they DO die. If what you are trying to do is bring balance (found in campaigns) I think I have all the reason for a comparison. It is realistic that a caster is more powerful than a non-caster because their abilities are limited per use. If you limit their use in a CONSTANT way (not just randomly) it is a much more effective way of measuring a player's power. None of the proposals would limit a caster's power randomly. You could (and people would) specify in their tactics that "I want to use only this and this spell against my opponent. If that doesn't work, use that as a last resort, but after that, stick to low-level scrolls." If a wizard blows his entire spell selection on the first fight and is then largely helpless for the next two fights, that's only the player's fault, nobody else's. Just like in a campaign; if you don't economize properly with your mage, he'll end up useless for a good part of the day. I don't see this as a weakness of the proposed system; I see it as a strength.
Sindorin 10-06-04, 11:39 AM	If we had a party vs. party arena things would get quite interesting... -the peanut gallery
Druid Roxors 10-06-04, 11:52 AM	Ashenai and I discussed on Yahoo for a while. I didn't have the time for a public boards discussion at the time. You can find the conversation Here. (http://www.prodigyweb.net.mx/rodomg/conversation.txt) It does a good job at discussing the current points, it is worth a look.
Zerone 10-06-04, 01:31 PM	I believe there are 2 big problems with the way the fights are structured. The first big problem is that the characters only need 1 win to advance. This is not a real estimate of how good a build is. In the CoCo you only get 1 to 3 fights at a given level, where a character in a D&D campaign will probably have many fights at each level. Having many fights is taxing on a characters resources, mostly gold, as spell components, arrows, bolts, potions, scrolls, etc. all cost money. So even the distribution of Gold becomes important as all characters will need to heal and re-equip every day, much like in real life. And the Second, as it is now, every character is free to spend gold without thought on preserving money in case something happens, and this is not a real tactic of a real campaign. Being allowed to spend money recklessly also favors the spellcasters, as they have the most beneficial magic items. If the spending of gold was limited to a more campaign style orientation, this would also hamper spellcasters, as they would need to preserve gold to replace items, heal, or whatever else any character might need… With these thoughts in mind, I propose these ideas: 1. You may fight as many fights per day as you wish, but you must fight at least 2 fights per day. 2. You must win 2 fights in 1 day to advance a level. 3. Free Heal after every even numbered fight (2, 4, 6, etc.). 4. You start each odd numbered fight (3, 5, 7, etc.) with hit points carried over from the previous Fight (the first fight of everyday would be full everything). 5. If you are killed on an odd numbered fight (1, 3, 5, etc.) you start the next fight at 1 hit point. 6. You may take non-aggressive, non-battle influencing actions between fights (cast healing spells, potions, buy healing from the Arena healer, get gear [arrows, bolts, etc.], buy scrolls, potions, etc). 7. We should not be allowed to gain additional gold from other sources (skills, selling items, selling spells, etc.) or else our Cohorts and other things (raising griffens) would be allowed to gain us money. I just think it is a bad idea to gain extra gold as is, as you are given the approximate gold for your level already to spend in 1 lump sum, which is not Core Campaign D&D. Thoughts? Zerone
Ashenai 10-06-04, 01:39 PM	Suggestion added, thank you! I quite like it... looks a little bit too complex at first glance, but I might change my mind after getting used to it. :)
T'Var 10-06-04, 02:18 PM	one thing i see that is missing from the arena is a tried and true honored right to loot the dead. maybe being able to take one item from a defeated foe
Moherajikuyx 10-07-04, 05:34 AM	I like this discussion, the arena is needing some renewal lately, I believe. DR: - why don't you suggest 1/3 of the spells... It's numerically a lot more similar to the other suggestions. 2/3 is not enough: the casters are more than 30% more powerful than the others given the win/loss Ash reported. - highest lvl spell: non-primary casters will likely have one or two highest lvl spells sooner or later. Bonanza, Iron and Babar did, or would have soon, since I was pumping strength rather than wis. - I believe the council voted against the proposal for other reasons...
Ashenai 10-07-04, 05:48 AM	@T'Var You had two suggestions; I'd like to respond to them. Your suggestion about limiting the scrolls usable by casters to spells that they could cast: I'm not fond of this idea; see the discussion in the Tavern for why not. Your suggestion about looting the dead: this was suggested before, and while I really like it from a flavour point of view, it's a disaster balance-wise. Not only does it mess up the "gold per level" equation, it makes strong builds even stronger, and weak builds even weaker. You might think it's fun to loot dead gladiators (and it is), but it is NO FUN to get your own most prized possession taken away when you lose. @MO I think 1/3 of the spells is too restrictive. The other systems suggested (with 3 fights per day) let the _wizard_ choose how to economize with his spells; maybe he can finish off an easier opponent with just one or two spells, and he can then use more on a more difficult opponent. Limiting them to 1/3 spells against every opponent would, IMO, be horribly crippling. If we go with DR's suggestion, I'd say 2/3 is about right; perhaps going down to 1/2 might be appropriate, but no lower.
Druid Roxors 10-07-04, 12:03 PM	@T'Var @MO I think 1/3 of the spells is too restrictive. The other systems suggested (with 3 fights per day) let the _wizard_ choose how to economize with his spells; maybe he can finish off an easier opponent with just one or two spells, and he can then use more on a more difficult opponent. Limiting them to 1/3 spells against every opponent would, IMO, be horribly crippling. If we go with DR's suggestion, I'd say 2/3 is about right; perhaps going down to 1/2 might be appropriate, but no lower. 1/3 of spells... might as well allow custom staffs for this outrage! I Think 2/3 is the way to go, 1/2 might work, but I suggest trying 2/3 before going any further. I believe the council voted against the proposal for other reasons... I was perhaps the only one actively persuing the debate in the fisrt place (in the "against" front). I can't see where else would those reasons come from.
Moherajikuyx 10-08-04, 08:24 AM	I'm not saying that your arguments weren't sound... I'm saying that their reasons were not. More in the lines of "I {didn't understand | don't like} it so I'd rather vote against" I'm afraid :rolleyes: That's actually why I like KR's idea: it's really impossible to find it hard to manage. Unless... Uh.... One has a gift for not understanding things! :D