Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caterane 03-31-06, 06:42 AM	The Council of Gladius http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Struktur/HouseCommons.jpg Welcome to the Council of Gladius! This thread is open for everyone and its main purpose is to discuss current issues, and the future of this board. The normal procedure is that the GM announces a topic which will then be discussed. To find a quick solution, you should stay focused on that topic and not open a new one. Your opinion is valued here so add your 2 cents and participate in the discussions. Link to The Council of Gladius (I) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=456309).
Usurpator 03-31-06, 07:54 AM	Cat, I will respond to your other comments later, but basically my questions boils down to: - Are you willing to entertain and truly openly discuss and consider my ideas about improving the current guild rules, even if those are totally incompatible with your own vision? If you are willing, then I am willing to invest time in working them out and explaining them. If you are a-priori against it, and use your position to veto anything that doesn't fit your vision, then I will drop it.
Usurpator 03-31-06, 08:17 AM	@Stormwind: I think you missed my point. The first question Cat asked was: 1. Do the current rules restrict RP opportunities? I answered that they do, and provided examples in what ways. A separate question is: 2. Is it bad that the current rules restrict RP opportunities? My answer was: no, certainly not! I said that I supported Cat in his efforts to get the guild into a rules framework. I just think we could have built a framework that does more to promote RP (and other things) than the current framework. We have stifled RP opportunities for what is essentially a non-interactive bookkeeping game between guildmasters. Just because Cat tried to sketch the choice as between 'these guild rules' or 'no guild rules', does not mean that those are the two choices here. You furthermore claim that my RP choices aren't restricted because I can just RP outside of the system. Sure, I know that, but what is your point? I do have several tabletop groups that I game and RP with. Surely the CoCo rules doesn't affect my freedom there. That the system doesn't restrict my RP opportunities outside of said system is besides the point. My characters do exist and play within the CoCo system, and it therefore it does restrict my RP. If I RP in CoCo, it should be *within* the CoCo system, or else why would I even post that RP here? What you are proposing is similar to me posting a victory for my character who actually suffered a loss in the arena. What would be the point? The CoCo would still treat it as a loss in all respects. It is not a question of half full or half empty cup. The DnD rules restrict what characters you can build, what options you have in combat. It is precisely these restrictions that bring out the creativity in people. The current guild system offers characters restrictions, but almost no options. I think there is plenty of room for options. Think of at as 3rd edition compared to 2nd edition. In 2nd edition the rules restricted you to one attack option. In 3rd edition you can fight defensively, cleave, power attack etc. There are more rules and more restrictions in 3rd editions, but they promote creativity rather than the more static 2nd edition system.
lonewolf 03-31-06, 08:25 AM	about the guild rules issue: If I get Usurpators post right, his main issue is the fixed number of guilds, and the resulting problems(you cannot open a new guild, ...). I think it may be possible to change this, but not without a good deal of effort. Its not as impossible as Cat seems to think it is(there are a good deal of homebuilt D&D baseclasses ;) ), but the workload should not be underestimated and there are many problems associated with making this possible. For example, I think that we would need more different districts to accomodate the probably bigger number of guilds. Then there is the problem that guilds who start at a later date than everyone else will have a major economical disadvantage. There is also the newbie-factor. At the moment we have 7 guilds which is a number that is fairly overviewable for a newbie(although I agree with Mindwanderer that they need to be a bit more focused). If you now have an arcane order, a wizards society and a diviners club, all of which may have different views on the world that you can read in the 15+ pages of their respectible guild hall threads, every newbie that just has created his first character here will be confused and overwhelmed with this and probably think that its not worth it and will ignore the guild part completely. Its a matter of opinion if these changes are worth the trouble and workload they come with. btw: I see both of your positions very well. Most of the things Cat worked on havent been tested yet and to change them completly without a test is a bit unfair; On the other hand IF we want to make such changes, we have to do them NOW. And with now I mean yesterday.
Caterane 03-31-06, 09:32 AM	@Usurpator: I am of course curious what you have in mind. I would love to hear ideas, no matter what. But you should know that asides from my personal opinion that the system is okay (opinions can be changed) there's another factor: my free time. The recent rules overhaul had cost me really every minute of my free time and beyond. I just cannot change the whole thing one week after Sauro and I completed it. It's technically not possible. Open new guilds: We do not have the capacity to sustain any more guilds. We have picked seven themes so that there is more or less a theme for every character (with some exceptions like the Harvester but he wouldn't fit into the guild system anyway). Some of the guilds are still looking for members. If we divide that further by allowing new guilds, then we're going into the wrong direction. Every guild would have like 5 PCs at best. And of course, we would restart and render the past 5 months nonexistent. You furthermore claim that my RP choices aren't restricted because I can just RP outside of the system. Sure, I know that, but what is your point? I do have several tabletop groups that I game and RP with. Surely the CoCo rules doesn't affect my freedom there. That the system doesn't restrict my RP opportunities outside of said system is besides the point. My characters do exist and play within the CoCo system, and it therefore it does restrict my RP. If I RP in CoCo, it should be *within* the CoCo system, or else why would I even post that RP here? What you are proposing is similar to me posting a victory for my character who actually suffered a loss in the arena. What would be the point? The CoCo would still treat it as a loss in all respects. That example is not appropriate because you're comparing two different things. You say: - Free RP in the current guild system is not attractive because it doesn't really happen. But if you base the system on free RP then your RP posts don't happen either. You build a Nunnery in Vilis? Where is it? I cannot see it. - You say Free RP happens outside the system. If we do away with the system it still happens outside the system because there is no system anymore. What makes Maeril's founding of a nunnery more realistic if we do away with the system? - You critizise that your RP doesn't affect the guilds. Does your system affect them? Can I miniquest [EL 1] to blow up the EHTC headquarter? You need rules to do that. And rules, we have.
SoulLord 03-31-06, 10:14 AM	I have an Idea about the new guilds They should cost Credits gather 20 credits among a bunch of similar minded people and buy your new guild. How does that sound?
lonewolf 03-31-06, 10:24 AM	I have an Idea about the new guilds They should cost Credits gather 20 credits among a bunch of similar minded people and buy your new guild. How does that sound? wowowo Slow down there a bit please. If creating a guild or not takes credits or not is one of the least important things to consider. Read my post above for some of the problems that would have to be dealt with first, IF we decide to do this.
Usurpator 03-31-06, 01:35 PM	@Usurpator: I am of course curious what you have in mind. I would love to hear ideas, no matter what. But you should know that asides from my personal opinion that the system is okay (opinions can be changed) there's another factor: my free time. The recent rules overhaul had cost me really every minute of my free time and beyond. I just cannot change the whole thing one week after Sauro and I completed it. It's technically not possible. I understand, and I would not be asking that. Also, one of my goal would be to preserve as much of the current rules as possible. There are a lot of good ideas in there, they just bypassed a few essential things IMO and I think they could be improved upon. But while it might not require a lot of changes in the details (what certain buildings do and how district traits work), it will probably require some changes in the fundamentals of the system, since as I posted before, I think the foundation is flawed. Furthermore, I agree with many of your points. Indeed we need rules, but there are many ways to create a rules framework. And it is my opinion that the current rules don't do justice to the possibilities. Simply put: they aren't a lot of fun (guilds are, don't get me wrong, its just the implementation). I had a lot of fun in 2nd edition AD&D as well, I just like the 3rd edition rules even better. That's how I envision the guild rules as well. Rather than continue to tweak the system, like 2nd edition AD&D did for 1st, maybe it is time for a breath of fresh air and a new vision? Also, I understand the limitations on your time. I continue to be impressed by the dedication you have to the CoCo. But you don't need to take the lead on this one, there are plenty of creative and intelligent people here who are quite able to do that and ease your burden. Lastly, this would not be a one week proposal of course. I feel fairly confident about setting up a decently balanced rules framework, but I overlook and miss things too. If a new system doesn't hold the promise of significant improvement over the old, then I'd rather keep the old guild rules.
Usurpator 03-31-06, 01:48 PM	I have an Idea about the new guilds They should cost Credits gather 20 credits among a bunch of similar minded people and buy your new guild. How does that sound? My idea for an officially recognized guild would indeed incur some cost, so we are on the same page about this. My first idea was gold (actual gold the gladiators lose), but credits would also be a possibility. I agree with Cat's goal of not having guilds randomly pop up and disappear on the whim of their creators. I do think that some people who would really like to found a guild should be given the opportunity to do so, and be prepared to pay a minor cost. 20 credits sounds a bit much to me, want to strike a balance between seducing people to put effort into their own guild, and guilds popping up and disappearing after a few weeks.
Caterane 03-31-06, 01:50 PM	Please tell me what you have in mind. When someone tells me that the system we currently have does not use its full potential, you have me curious. I'm still saying that - unless your proposal is really and obviously superior - we keep the current system. But! Sooner or later (hopefully later) one or two allied guilds will triumph over the rest and that's when we have to think about how to continue. I have a vision of an improved guild system sequel which not only deals with Gladius but also with the whole world which will hopefully be a bit more crowded by then. That's a reset of course, and when this reset comes, I am glad for every idea that helps to truly lift our current Guilds 1.0 to 2.0 and that's why your proposal here will not be futile. So if you're still interesting in telling us what so grabs your fervor, please show us the way :)
Stormwind 03-31-06, 05:50 PM	@Usurpator: I think you misunderstood me. Either that or I don't view your point from the same perspective as you do. I was responding to the first question: 1. Do the current rules restrict RP opportunities? I answered that they do, and provided examples in what ways. And I answered that they do not and tried to explain why. You furthermore claim that my RP choices aren't restricted because I can just RP outside of the system. Sure, I know that, but what is your point? I do have several tabletop groups that I game and RP with. Surely the CoCo rules doesn't affect my freedom there. I was not referring to anything outside the CoCo. I was simply referring to the CoCo as one system and the guild sytem (which is within the CoCo system) as a separate system. This is entirely different from the parralel you suggest with 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions. Consider it instead to be like 3.5 and psionics. Psionics is part of 3.5, but it is a separate system within 3.5 and does not need to be used to play with 3.5. Regardless, I think Cat has explained the same point as I was trying to make, so I'll leave this here. However I would be really interested in what you see as options that could be offered by the guild system. Storm
Caterane 03-31-06, 06:07 PM	Ok, let's get back to the real topic... Restricting Allies and Expendables The favorite choices so far were "Belt Slots" and "Ally Prebuffs". The belt slot idea can be taken a step farther in saying that we have to make a list with Body Slots on our sheet. Example: Equipment Head: Circlet of Persuation Torso: Fullplate Eyes: --- Neck: Amulet of Natural Armor+1 or the other way around: Equipment Fullplate Armor [Torso] Circlet of Pers. [Head] Amulet of Nat+1 [Neck]If you want to hold something in your hand, you have to prebuff with it. Allies can be restricted in three ways: - You must prebuff with allies but drop any unwanted ally in your tactic. - You must prebuff with allies and stick to them (ie they reduce rewards) - You cannot possess more than X CR/ECL of allies on your sheet.
SoulLord 03-31-06, 06:11 PM	My idea for an officially recognized guild would indeed incur some cost, so we are on the same page about this. My first idea was gold (actual gold the gladiators lose), but credits would also be a possibility. I agree with Cat's goal of not having guilds randomly pop up and disappear on the whim of their creators. I do think that some people who would really like to found a guild should be given the opportunity to do so, and be prepared to pay a minor cost. 20 credits sounds a bit much to me, want to strike a balance between seducing people to put effort into their own guild, and guilds popping up and disappearing after a few weeks. The cost of 20 credits wouldn't be paid by a single player rather a group of players would pool their credits to buy the guild. If the number of guilds must remain fixed how about after paying the credit cost that they be allowed to try to take over a guild Of course the weaker guilds would be more at risk than the most powerful ones but this is not nessesarily a bad thing. off the top of my head im thinking that for a guild to be taken over Fights would take place in the turf of the invaded guild something like this Guild XX members jhon ecl 3 steve ecl 4 Buffy ecl 8 invading forces members Shadow ecl 3 Fred ecl 4 Francis ecl 4 Drake ecl 7 1.-At least 2/3 of the defenders must be defeated among them the leader for a guild to be taken over. 2.-if the invading forces has more members than the defenders it most choose which members to use to invade, if the defending guild has more members then an automatic win is awarded to them for each extra member the losing members can remain in the new guild under the leadership of their invaders.
Usurpator 03-31-06, 06:29 PM	@Usurpator: I think you misunderstood me. Either that or I don't view your point from the same perspective as you do. I was not referring to anything outside the CoCo. I was simply referring to the CoCo as one system and the guild sytem (which is within the CoCo system) as a separate system. This is entirely different from the parralel you suggest with 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions. Consider it instead to be like 3.5 and psionics. Psionics is part of 3.5, but it is a separate system within 3.5 and does not need to be used to play with 3.5. Ok, I understand now, at least, I hope so. I see the CoCo as an integrative whole, with multiple parts you can choose to participate (or not participate in). If RP counts for one part, but not for the another, that would be very confusing to me. Has the Nunnery been destroyed or not? What if a article in the Weekly says that the Nunnery has been destroyed, but the guild system says it isn't, are we getting multiple parallel cities of Gladius? I don't think the separation of several parallel RP universes is an elegant way to gain extra RP. Then it might as well not be in Gladius at all.
Usurpator 03-31-06, 06:37 PM	The favorite choices so far were "Belt Slots" and "Ally Prebuffs". I can only say that I like the belt slots idea (for potions/scrolls). I also like the Body Slot idea, we just have to write up a small bit of rules about how fast you can equip items not fitted to a slot. The only thing I dislike about the body slot idea is the extra administrative task writing slots for all equipment. Possibly you can reduce the rule to be only neccessary in case of possible conflict (gladiators carrying two sets of armor, or two amulets), but not otherwise. I like the prebuffing of allies (and sticking to them) not only for reducing power of allies in the arena, but also so as the make it more comparable to mercenary use, and even more importantly, to reduce the need for players to write alternative sets of tactics (one for when X brings his mount, one for when X does not bring his mount etc.).
Zevox 03-31-06, 11:32 PM	The belt slot idea can be taken a step farther in saying that we have to make a list with Body Slots on our sheet. This works for me, though I'm of accord with Usurpator that perhaps it should only be necessary when you have multiple options for any given slot. If you want to hold something in your hand, you have to prebuff with it. This one, I'm not so much for or against as confused as to why it was even brought up. Does being able to select what you start holding honestly cause any problems for your pitlord or opponent? Why bother limiting that at all? Allies can be restricted in three ways: - You must prebuff with allies but drop any unwanted ally in your tactic. - You must prebuff with allies and stick to them (ie they reduce rewards) - You cannot possess more than X CR/ECL of allies on your sheet. I'd be fine with the first option, but not the second. As I mentioned over in the previous council thread, forcing a character to bring in an ally that would be useless against thier opponent just because they thought bringing it would be useful before they knew who they were fighting would be totally unfair, especially since they then take reduced rewards for an ally that neither helped them nor hindered thier enemy (it also makes no sense, as you pointed out previously, since you should just be able to tell the ally to stay back and let you handle the fight). I'm not so sure on the last one though - if you already have to prebuff the allies, why limit the number of allies you can have to select between when doing that prebuffing? It doesn't make things any harder on the pitlord or your opponent, so I see no reason for such a restriction, unless of course we opt against requiring allies to prebuffed. Zevox
Caterane 04-01-06, 04:15 AM	@Zevox: Sticking to allies would help writing tactics against. And you are basically 'travelling around' with your allies. It would also have the effect that everyone prebuffs with the maximum alloment (and drop the unwanted ones) because there's no disadvantage to doing so. Holding items in your hand should also be streamlined when we do that with other things like allies or equipment. You basically gain a surprise round to draw items as it is now. As for the limit on the number of allies, that might play a role when you challenge someone or when there are only a few active opponents like in the higher leagues. But I have little idea of what a good limit would be and what we should base that on (numbers, CR, size)
Usurpator 04-01-06, 08:22 AM	I'd be fine with the first option, but not the second. As I mentioned over in the previous council thread, forcing a character to bring in an ally that would be useless against thier opponent just because they thought bringing it would be useful before they knew who they were fighting would be totally unfair, especially since they then take reduced rewards for an ally that neither helped them nor hindered thier enemy (it also makes no sense, as you pointed out previously, since you should just be able to tell the ally to stay back and let you handle the fight). Zevox, you don't have to bring allies, there is no forcing involved. If the rule mentioned is not implemented, everyone will just prebuff with the maximum amount of allies possible, and then leave at home what they don't need (I know I would). Then people will still continue 'swapping' things after the fact. And it is still hard for your opponent to prepare proper tactics, because he cannot know what will be swapped/left behind. You memorized spells in advance, or precast long-duration spells, or use spellcasting services in advance, or hire a mercenary before combat. In all these cases you pay on opportunity cost in the hopes of gaining an advantage in combat. It is perfectly possible that you have memorized hold person but are facing someone immune to that spell. Or that you have paid for spellcasting services to charge your powerstoring flail with dissipating touch, but are fighting a pixie or a ghost. In the cases mentioned above there is no refund if you pre-combat actions/choices prove to be useless against the current opponent. I think allies should follow the same principle. Sometimes your weapons will be useless against your opponent: no refund. Sometimes your mercenary is useless against your opponent: no refund. Sometimes the spellcasting service you paid for is useless against your opponent: no refund. Sometimes the armor you put on is useless against your opponent: no refund. Sometimes your allies are useless against your opponent: no refund. I would be willing to hear why (non-class) allies are a special case in your opinion, and should receive an exception over the other things mentioned.
Stormwind 04-01-06, 09:10 AM	In the cases mentioned above there is no refund if you pre-combat actions/choices prove to be useless against the current opponent. I think allies should follow the same principle. Sometimes your weapons will be useless against your opponent: no refund. Sometimes your mercenary is useless against your opponent: no refund. Sometimes the spellcasting service you paid for is useless against your opponent: no refund. Sometimes the armor you put on is useless against your opponent: no refund. Sometimes your allies are useless against your opponent: no refund. I agree 100% with this. Allies and armour should be prebuffed. Equipment Fullplate Armor [Torso] Circlet of Pers. [Head] Amulet of Nat+1 [Neck] I also think that this would be the best way to define equipment and slots as it is consistent with other definitions (e.g. crafted). This would also mean that you have to specify which piece of equipment is worn in which slot, which effectively prebuffs your equipment.
SauroGrenom 04-01-06, 12:30 PM	BTW Cat I went to your rules post and the links for the Shadow and Alliph go to the wrong pages in the SRD. You may want to fix that. I didn't check them all, but those were the two I clicked on and they were both wrong. Something that I think will help us dramaticially is to decide on the conditions leading up to the Arena Battles. In a typical game the GM sets up the encounter. The party is ambushed by orcs, or the party supprises a couple ogres by the campfire. Each of these battles will have a set of conditions leading up to the battle and those conditions will naturally allow or disallow certian types of preparations on the part of the characters. We need to decide what the encounter conditions are for an arena battle. If we do that it will be eminently clear how much time characters have to draw a weapon or scroll and put on the cloak of charisma instead of the cloak of resistance or whatever is needed to get ready to do battle. Because some classes and types of characters carry advantages as to there constant state of readyness, how the encounters are setup is very important. A fighter is always ready, while a spellcaster may need to be able to cast a few spells or draw the appropreat scroll. Some character may want to head for cover or start hovering... you get the picture. The starting conditions will naturally favor some types of characters no matter how you set them up. The more you limit the time before an encounter to setup, then the more you screw the spellcasters, hiders and users of expendibles. At the same time you increase the power of streight melee types and especially mounted and ranged combat where you can start dishing out damage from the first round or even first action. I'm bringing this up because Cat's proposal is not only limiting allies and equipment swapping, but also limiting the "Prep time" that gladiators recieve. Limiting allies and equipment swapping is one thing that will only minimially effect the balance of power. However changing the prep time will have a more signifigant effect on that balance of power. The belt slot idea can be taken a step farther in saying that we have to make a list with Body Slots on our sheet. If you want to hold something in your hand, you have to prebuff with it. It's reasonaable to break up the Equipment section of the character sheet into body slots and have various pieces of equipment listed there. It will help with pitlording and managing unusual characters that have odd body slots. Incorpreal creatures, quadrapeds, tentacled beasts... whatnot. Not much of a change being suggested here, and it will indicate what that character is wearing for that fight. So we stop major equipment swapping. However prebuffing what you have in your hand is not a good idea in my opinion. A spell caster with the scribe scroll feat cannot reasonably have the right scroll in hand all the time. Against some opponent he may need black tentacles, and another may require hold person. Scribing all those scrolls is the benefit of his feat, if you force him to prebuff with the scroll in hand, his feat just became less usefull. This is because he cannot expect his scrolls to be appropreat anymore at the beginning of a battle. The fighter always uses his weapon, and can draw another as part of a move if he needs. Wizards cannot do that with scrolls. The equipment slots is one thing, but I do not favor pre-buffing what is held in your hand. Allies can be restricted in three ways: - You must prebuff with allies but drop any unwanted ally in your tactic. - You must prebuff with allies and stick to them (ie they reduce rewards) - You cannot possess more than X CR/ECL of allies on your sheet. I prefer the third and only the third option. The other two just do not mesh well with my vision of what an arena combat is like. Let me use an exmple to illistrate my point. Basher is a mercenary horseman who is going to be attacked and the combat will be in our arena conditions. Basher has two mounts that he uses. His trusty elite heavy warhorse in heavy barding and his fantastic but fragile pegasus. Basher probably travels around riding his trusty heavy warhorse. If he has any chance to forsee combat vs a flying opponent, he'll jump onto his pegasus and meet the foe in the air. If he is up against a large earthbound foe with reach and large damage output he knows his pegasus will probably be slain. He doesn't want to fall from the sky, so he uses his trusty armored warhorse. This senario feels reasonable to me. However it again falls back on the idea that there should be the equivalent of a supprise round spent before battle so that everyone can do something to prepare for combat. In this cash Basher gets on the needed mount and draws his weapon. A wizard may pull out the scroll he needs against his foe. A cleric may get his holy symbol ready to turn or cast a spell. And so on. Telling Basher that he is stuck stuck riding his warhorse is crappy. I think the limit on allies should be the same as the limit on allies allowed into the arena. That way if you have a max ECl ally, then you only have one. You can use forgery to have a second on your sheet. Class allies and allies gained by feats are exempt to the restriction. That's reasonable in my opinion. Yes the Harvester may still have 4 different allies at ECL7, but they must all total to ECL7. Each will be rather low ECL and probably mostly insignifigant in battles at his level. The abiity to swap allies is not totally stopped by this. It is limited. I think the limitation is enough and prevents abuse. We don't want to nerf any characters, just prevent abuse.
Zevox 04-01-06, 01:03 PM	Zevox, you don't have to bring allies, there is no forcing involved. If the rule mentioned is not implemented, everyone will just prebuff with the maximum amount of allies possible, and then leave at home what they don't need (I know I would). Precisely. If you're going to have allies at all, you'll prebuff them so that you can actually get some use out of them, but you can't predict whether bringing them in will be useful in any given match, and if you prebuff bringing them in but it turns out they aren't of any use but you're forced to bring them in nonetheless you take an actual hit financially for doing so without any benefit whatsoever, unlike with nearly anything else in the CoCo. I'm afraid I just don't see a problem with being able to leave an ally behind when you already have to list it as a prebuff as a way to prevent such pointless financial hits from occuring. Then people will still continue 'swapping' things after the fact. And it is still hard for your opponent to prepare proper tactics, because he cannot know what will be swapped/left behind. I disagree. This takes care of the problem of a character having too many allies for you to write proper tactics (i.e. Balbanes) by forcing them to select which allies they will bring in earlier. All thier opponent need do is write tactics presuming they'll bring them in, then perhaps add a short clause for if they don't (i.e. if Balbanes leaves that Dragon of his behind, ignore this avoidance section of my tactics and go straight for the attack one). I would be willing to hear why (non-class) allies are a special case in your opinion, and should receive an exception over the other things mentioned. Because they have a disadvantage that none of those other things (well, none of the ones that are often used) have - reducing the amount of xp and gp that you get from the fight. If the weapons you bought turn out to be useless in the fight, fine. That means they don't help you win, but they also don't actually hurt you in any way, unlike bringing in useless allies would. If the armor you bought is useless against that spellcaster you're facing, fine. It doesn't actively hinder you in the way taking a loss to your rewards would. If the spells you memorized or scrolls you scribed turn out to be useless in the fight you pull, fine. That means its harder to win, but you're still getting full rewards whether you win or lose, and those scrolls can be saved for later so theres no loss to you financially there. You'll note that neither NPC spellcasting services nor Merenaries get used much, quite possibly because they produce that similar situation of costing you either a fair sum of money (NPC spellcasting) or both money and part of your rewards (Mercenaries) for a one-shot, one-battle thing that could easily turn to be useless to you and thus do nothing but harm to you financially. I'd rather not see allies reduced to the point where they're so innefective as to be that unpopular. All that said, SauroGrenom's approach would be fine by me as well. No restrictions on prebuffing/selecting allies to bring in, but only up to your CA of allies on your sheet. Takes care of my complaint as well as the problem of having too many allies to write tactics against. The only problem I could forsee for it is guys with either the Thrallherd PrC or Leadership Feat you should have both a Cohort/Thrall and Followers/Believers. Zevox
SauroGrenom 04-01-06, 01:17 PM	All that said, SauroGrenom's approach would be fine by me as well. No restrictions on prebuffing/selecting allies to bring in, but only up to your CA of allies on your sheet. Takes care of my complaint as well as the problem of having too many allies to write tactics against. The only problem I could forsee for it is guys with either the Thrallherd PrC or Leadership Feat you should have both a Cohort/Thrall and Followers/Believers. Well you do spend a feat on it. I figure you should get a benefit from that. As it is a cohort is realy cool, but only a bit cooler than what you get from skills such as diplomacy. Nearly all characters have more skill points to spend than feats. Also all followers and believers are way below the ECL of the leader. These creatures are just cannon fodder. Seriously. I tossed this suggestion in there, because of psicrystals and cohorts. I just figured that you should be able to use a cohort and mabey have a mount for that guy as well as yourself.
Macbrea 04-01-06, 01:23 PM	Yeah, realized after trying to apply slots to Mektos what he is carrying is pretty unrealistic. I think as a GM in my game i would ask the player to please break out items alittle bit better into containers. If i was reviewing this sheet. Equipment Nobles Outfit (clothing) Free Small Leather Armor +1 (armor)[71/2 Lbs][1160 gp][39/40 Lbs (RP)] Ring of Protection +2 (left ring)[- Lbs][8,000 gp] Masterwork Whistle (neck)[1 Lbs][50 gp][5/40 Lbs (RP)] Holy symbol wooden (brooch)[- Lbs][1 gp] Spell component pouch (belt)[2 Lbs][5 gp][10/40 Lbs (RP)] Weapons Small Light Crossbow (back)[2 Lbs][35 gp][1/4 Lbs (RP)] Small Bolts, Crossbow (37) (2 bolt cases belt)[2 1/20 Lbs][4 gp 1 sp][5/16 Lbs (RP)] Expendable Items Elixirs, Oils, Potions & Tattoos Potion of Reduce Person [CL 5] (1) (belt)[1/10 lb][250 gp][1/80 Lbs (RP)] Wand of Magic Missile [CL 5] [46 charges](belt)[1/16 lb][3,750 gp][1/128 Lb (RP)] Wand of Magic Missile [CL 3] [43 charges](belt)[1/16 lb][2,250 gp][1/128 Lb (RP)] Scrolls: 5 Cure Light wounds [CL 1](belt)[CraftedCreation 12gp 5sp, 1 xp each] 3 Reduce Person [CL 1](belt)[CraftedCreation 12 gp 5 sp, 1 xp each] 1 Obscuring mist [CL 1](belt) [CraftedCreation 12 gp 5 sp, 1 xp each] 1 Mage Armor [CL 1] (belt)[ 25 gp each] 1 Shield [CL 1] (belt)[ 25 gp each] 2 Faerie Fire [CL 1] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:12.5 gp each, 1 xp) (25 gps, 2 xp) 6 Longstrider [CL 1] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:12.5 gp each, 1 xp) (75 gps, 6 xp) 2 Magic Fang [CL 1] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:12.5 gp each, 1 xp) (25 gps, 2 xp) 2 Magic Stone [CL 1] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:12.5 gp each, 1 xp) (25 gps, 2 xp) 2 Obscuring Mist [CL 1] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:12.5 gp each, 1 xp) (25 gps, 2 xp) 6 Produce Flame [CL 1] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:12.5 gp each, 1 xp) (75 gps, 6 xp) 2 Flame Blade [CL 3] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:75 gp each, 6 xp) (150gp, 12 xp) 2 Chill Metal [CL 3] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:75 gp each, 6 xp) (150gp, 12 xp) 2 Heat Metal [CL 3] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:75 gp each, 6 xp) (150gp, 12 xp) 8 Summons swarm [CL 3] (belt)(CraftedFeb 1:75 gp each, 6 xp) (600gp, 48 xp) Not bad only 67ft of velium stuffed in the 2ft tall kobolds belt!
Usurpator 04-02-06, 09:39 AM	If the weapons you bought turn out to be useless in the fight, fine. That means they don't help you win, but they also don't actually hurt you in any way, unlike bringing in useless allies would. Not so. My character Solon can choose between getting a +1 comp. longbow or a +1 longspear, but he has not enough money to buy both. If he faces Monks with Deflect Arrows the next several fights, his investment will have hurt him, because he could have had a useful +1 longspear instead. That is why I call it an opportunity cost. You pay for something, and then you find out your investment was useless. If the armor you bought is useless against that spellcaster you're facing, fine. It doesn't actively hinder you in the way taking a loss to your rewards would. Not so. Solon has a mithril chain shirt, this gives him 10% Arcane spell failure. If he is facing a spellcaster he much rather go without it entirely, since it is most clearly a disadvantage. If Flamehair faces Mektos, she would rather not be wearing her movement-reducing full plate armor, since it will not help her against the magic missiles, but will hinder her in closing or moving away from her target. If the spells you memorized or scrolls you scribed turn out to be useless in the fight you pull, fine. That means its harder to win, but you're still getting full rewards whether you win or lose, and those scrolls can be saved for later so theres no loss to you financially there. Solon has bought some scrolls of sleep. These will be next to useless after lvl4. If Solon only faces elves, undead or high Will save characters in his next fights, he will certainly incur a financial loss. I can understand your position, it feels bad to have a useless ally and 'pay' for it as well. I am not convinced by your arguments, though.
Usurpator 04-02-06, 10:07 AM	Question: do you consider allies A. A tactical choice? or B. A character build choice? I *love* that CoCo allows for allies. It allows horsemen to show us their prowess in the arena. It gives fighters a leg up by being able to use Griffons against dastardly flying wizards. Worg riding kobolds, druids with a band of animals in tow, necromancers with undead, elemental sorcerers with fire elementals, were-eagles with regular eagle friends etc. etc. That said, I think the possibility is there to allow for cool and interesting character builds, and not some hybrid tactical choice. How you *use* you allies should be the tactics, not what ally you bring after you have scouted your opponent. I think the penalty to XP and gp. should counteract the *average* advantage that bringing an ally gives you (and does a fairly decent job at that). If you have several allies to pick and choose from, I think the average advantage is larger than the current penalty (and also why I see the good players nearly always buying/training/questing for allies/cohorts). I clearly remember the Pirotess fight where her grappling horse defeated a grappling monk. When you can choose a particular ally, its values rises above its CR. For the defeated CR3 monk the CR1 horse was certainly not an equally matched opponent (let alone a weaker opponent), it was a much more powerful opponent! If you play a regular tabletop game and you bring allies into a dungeon, you can not suddenly decide that 'they are not there anymore' on the spur of the moment when you determine they are not useful to you.
SauroGrenom 04-02-06, 11:19 AM	Question: do you consider allies A. A tactical choice? or B. A character build choice? Why does it need to be a choice between those two? In my opinion it's both actually. My character Kracknol has a psicrystal with lots of ride feats and it will ride around on a griffon. Great tactical and character build potential in that. Imagine a little 1/2 pound grey stone riding on 500 pound griffon and trampling you from the sky! Totally cool and tacticially powerfull in my opinion. That said, I think the possibility is there to allow for cool and interesting character builds, and not some hybrid tactical choice. How you *use* you allies should be the tactics, not what ally you bring after you have scouted your opponent. I dissagree. The allies options are there to allow character builds, but that is intimately linked to tactical ability. If you are a thrallherd, your allies are your class features and your tactical potency as well as the basis of what your build is able to do. It's your character build choice and your tactical choice. If you play a regular tabletop game and you bring allies into a dungeon, you can not suddenly decide that 'they are not there anymore' on the spur of the moment when you determine they are not useful to you. Take this scenario, You are in a TT game with a bunch of leadership followers and your cohort on some kind of small war to protect your homeland from Ogre invasions. You're charging into a ogre camp, you tell everyone who won't be usefull in the battle or cannot survive at least one hit, to "Wait here untill I come back for you." I'd allow it. I'd consider it no big deal if you are in a position to "Scout" your opponent. This is why I say we should decide on what the prefight conditions are that govern a typical Arena fight. Do characters get the equivalent of a supprise round to draw the correct times (scrolls, potions, wands or other wondrous items)? We currently allow characters to position themselves and there allies in the starting block. We also allow them to choose there allies and the positions of those allies (which mount to use and so forth). We also allow them to choose what they have in hand. We also allow them to give unlimited instructions to there allies. All of these allowances are consistent with two opponents spotting each other from some distance and knowing that the enemy is upon them. For example in the battle I'm currently running with the Harvester, an important part of his tactic is the positioning of his allies. If you don't have enough time to tell someone to hold back and not participate in this battle, then you shouldn't have enough time to position your allies. I think it would be best if we decided on exactially how much time any gladiator has from the time they know there enemy and the time that initiative is rolled. If there are hours, let them swap armor. If it is 3 seconds, then they can get their items in hand and mount up or hide behind the nearest pilliar. If it is 10 seconds, then that's enough time to put on a different amulet or cloak or swap gloves. If you have 30 seconds you can hand a tanglefoot bag to your cohort and tell him to ready to hit a charging horse with it. If it's no time everyone starts in the center of the starting area with allies behind them and nothing in hand. You get the picture. All we realy need to decide here is how much time you have to prep before one of these battles. That will naturally give us the amount of things that can be done in that time. I suppose we should decide how much time it takes to give orders or items to all your allies. Although it's probably a free action to order them around. For those who are interested it should be noted that the "penatly" to xp and gp for having allies is not much of a penalty realy. The penalty doesn't cost your character anything but time it takes to level up. Infact if you use free activities to earn extra cash, the extra time translates into extra money. And we all know it's the gp/xp ratio that determines how much equipment you have available at any ECL.
Zevox 04-02-06, 12:33 PM	Not so. My character Solon can choose between getting a +1 comp. longbow or a +1 longspear, but he has not enough money to buy both. If he faces Monks with Deflect Arrows the next several fights, his investment will have hurt him, because he could have had a useful +1 longspear instead. That is why I call it an opportunity cost. You pay for something, and then you find out your investment was useless. For a those handful of battles, which you are still earning your full due from. In all likihood you won't face that many Monks in a row, and even if you do you will in the future face enemies the bow will be very useful against. There is a difference (in my mind at least, perhaps there isn't in yours) between a piece of equipment purchased with funds from your battles which will be useful in most battles and useless in a few and allies which actually slow your acquisition of both experience and funds whenever you use them. Not so. Solon has a mithril chain shirt, this gives him 10% Arcane spell failure. If he is facing a spellcaster he much rather go without it entirely, since it is most clearly a disadvantage. If Flamehair faces Mektos, she would rather not be wearing her movement-reducing full plate armor, since it will not help her against the magic missiles, but will hinder her in closing or moving away from her target. Certainly, but in both cases that simply makes that particular battle harder for them to win - the items are still useful in other matches, so you're still getting your money's worth out of them, and you still get full rewards for the battle you are in when using them. In another situation you can end up with my character Featylec facing a flying wizard - his +1 Mithril Shirt then neither helps him nor hinders him. In the case of allies however it always happens that whether they help or not they do hinder you financially by slowing the rewards you recieve. Solon has bought some scrolls of sleep. These will be next to useless after lvl4. If Solon only faces elves, undead or high Will save characters in his next fights, he will certainly incur a financial loss. Not necessarily. There are plenty of gladiators of ECL 5+ with an LA and thus 4 HD or less (examples include ECL 5 Half-Giants or Duergar, ECL 7 or less Half-Dragons, ECL 8 or less Half-Celestials or Half-Fiends, etc), and the likelihood of him facing only Elves or Undead for the rest of his career is slim indeed. Odds are he will get full use of them. But I think we're getting off-track arguing specific examples here. Perhaps a simple request for a clarification will help me to understand your position here better: I fear I am lost as to why you consider electing not to bring an ally after seeing your opponent a problem if you already had to declare which ally you will bring with you if you bring one. To my understanding, the original problem that sparked this was that characters could have far too many allies to predict which ones they would bring in, thus making writing tactics against them either impossible or at the least very difficult. This I can understand fully and agree that something should be done about. As near as I can tell, having the ally selection written in as a prebuff takes care of that problem, whether holding back the ally is allowed or not - you now know which ally your foe will bring should he brings any, and can write tactics accordingly. The ability to hold the ally back simply allows the ally-using player to select whether he feels bringing his ally into this particular match is worth the penalty he incurs for doing so. It does not compliate the writing of tactics since a simple clause for what to do if the ally is not brought can be added without much if any difficulty (i.e. "If the Harvester didn't bring his elemental allies, order my archer cohort to attack him rather than them, and go straight to attacking him myself rather than protecting my cohort." or something of the like could be used). Ergo I don't see how such an option creates any other complications or has any reason why it should be disallowed. Question: do you consider allies A. A tactical choice? or B. A character build choice? As Sauro said, I consider them both. That said, I think the possibility is there to allow for cool and interesting character builds, and not some hybrid tactical choice. How you *use* you allies should be the tactics, not what ally you bring after you have scouted your opponent. I am most certainly not saying you should get to choose what ally you bring after scouting the opponent, merely that you should get to choose whether you bring your pre-selected ally after seeing your opponent. As I said above, that is precisely the problem I thought was resolved by making allies listed as a prebuff. However, I do think that whether you use your ally should be a tactical choice. If you play a regular tabletop game and you bring allies into a dungeon, you can not suddenly decide that 'they are not there anymore' on the spur of the moment when you determine they are not useful to you. True in some cases, but similarly if you are in a dungeon and run into a pair of Hook Horrors that bar your way, you can order some of your followers you feel are too fragile for fighting such creatures to hold back and wait while you dispense with them - maybe that first-level Barbarian follower of yours wouldn't last a second there and should hold back, or your party wizard's apprentice would just make too easy a target for your foes. Even more so, if you're going in for scheduled arena fights (yes, I've had that happen in tabletop games a couple of times), you could certainly tell your Elemental friend to wait in the lobby while you deal with the mass-AC fighter you are about to face that he could never hope to land a punch on - or better, just tell him beforehand to wait at home during this match as soon as you get word of who your opponent is. As Sauro said, I think part of the problem with trying to give a roleplay explanation for how using allies is that we don't have any established set of circumstances preceding our own arena battles. If we want to establish some example of such, we need to decide just what the pre-fight conditions are for our own arena battles. Do you get a fights-of-the-week flyer mailed to you at home and have days to prepare before you are called to the arena? Are you surprised in some way and not able to fully prepare for your match, such as being teleported in by an arena-hired wizard with your pre-registered equipment, allies, etc? Otherwise none of the arguments about what you can and can't do with allies in a tabletop games are going to go anywhere. Zevox
TheMagister 04-02-06, 01:33 PM	I agree with Sauro on the allies issue. That was an awesomely well-stated position! TM
Usurpator 04-02-06, 02:37 PM	Why does it need to be a choice between those two? In my opinion it's both actually. My character Kracknol has a psicrystal with lots of ride feats and it will ride around on a griffon. Great tactical and character build potential in that. Imagine a little 1/2 pound grey stone riding on 500 pound griffon and trampling you from the sky! Totally cool and tacticially powerfull in my opinion. Totally cool, I agree! But everything you mention I see as part of A. Its all predetermined and independent of knowing your opponent. Your character build is part of your strategy, and your tactics post is part of your strategy, but your build strategy is created before the pairings, and visible to all, your tactics are made after the pairings, and visible to none. I don't think ally choice should be a part of invisible after-pairing strategy, but of pre-fight visibile strategy. Also, in Kracknol's particular case, I would not have a problem with it. Opportunity costs for many allies are low (horses cost little, diplomacy and handle animal allies are effectively free), but not so for a Griffon. You spend a sizeable portion of your gold on it, and if Kracknol chooses not bring it, he suffers for it. I dissagree. The allies options are there to allow character builds, but that is intimately linked to tactical ability. If you are a thrallherd, your allies are your class features and your tactical potency as well as the basis of what your build is able to do. It's your character build choice and your tactical choice. I agree, but we are talking about specific CoCo rules here. in a case like Balbanes the situation is reversed. Here we see a character build based first on CoCo specific rules, instead of regular D&D rules. Take this scenario, You are in a TT game with a bunch of leadership followers and your cohort on some kind of small war to protect your homeland from Ogre invasions. You're charging into a ogre camp, you tell everyone who won't be usefull in the battle or cannot survive at least one hit, to "Wait here untill I come back for you." I'd allow it. I'd consider it no big deal if you are in a position to "Scout" your opponent. This is why I say we should decide on what the prefight conditions are that govern a typical Arena fight. Do characters get the equivalent of a supprise round to draw the correct times (scrolls, potions, wands or other wondrous items)? Translating your sketch to the CoCo would be like: You are charging into an enemy camp with several opponents, who might all be there, or some might not show up, because they know who you are and what you can do (because the ogres can choose to 'leave behind allies too'). But now you have a conundrum, because if the ogres leave enough allies behind, it might become sensible again to bring certain allies. And while you have the apparent time to analyze the ogre's situation and ask allies to remain behind, you cannot prebuff something one round in advance? Besides, if you do leave certain allies begin against the raid of the scouted ogre camp, would those allies still not need upkeep, can they not be attacked by a secret counter-strike from the ogres. They don't dissappear in an untouchable limbo, as they do in the CoCo. We currently allow characters to position themselves and there allies in the starting block. We also allow them to choose there allies and the positions of those allies (which mount to use and so forth). We also allow them to choose what they have in hand. We also allow them to give unlimited instructions to there allies. All of these allowances are consistent with two opponents spotting each other from some distance and knowing that the enemy is upon them. For example in the battle I'm currently running with the Harvester, an important part of his tactic is the positioning of his allies. If you don't have enough time to tell someone to hold back and not participate in this battle, then you shouldn't have enough time to position your allies. That is the crux of the question. Some things should be allowed, since not allowing it would make for less interesting battles. Allies can have a *major* impact on battles, they can require wildly different tactics, not allowing your opponent advance knowledge of what allies will come to the fight, will have a much larger impact than not knowing what square they start in, or what what item your opponent will hold in hand. Why can't you decide what prebuffs (the 16+ hours ones) to take after the pairings? Why can't you decide your spell complement after the pairings, why can't you buy a few more scrolls after pairings? Because the impact on fights/tactics will be too big. I think allies are closer in impact to memorized spells and 16+ hour prebuffs than they are to positioning or having something in your hand. The same goes for armor-swapping. A lightly armored speedy character would require different tactics as one bearing a body shield and full plate armor. I would not advocate after-pairing swapping of armor for that reason. Quests are wholly different vehicles, because you can adapt. I would have absolutely no problem with leaving allies behind (and not getting the penalties) *if* I get to know this in advance. I think it would be best if we decided on exactially how much time any gladiator has from the time they know there enemy and the time that initiative is rolled. If there are hours, let them swap armor. If it is 3 seconds, then they can get their items in hand and mount up or hide behind the nearest pilliar. If it is 10 seconds, then that's enough time to put on a different amulet or cloak or swap gloves. If you have 30 seconds you can hand a tanglefoot bag to your cohort and tell him to ready to hit a charging horse with it. If it's no time everyone starts in the center of the starting area with allies behind them and nothing in hand. You get the picture. Yes, but do the gladiators get to know what happens in that pre-fight time they are allowed? That is the crux of this issue. My biggest problem is with invisible pre-fight swapping. For those who are interested it should be noted that the "penatly" to xp and gp for having allies is not much of a penalty realy. The penalty doesn't cost your character anything but time it takes to level up. Infact if you use free activities to earn extra cash, the extra time translates into extra money. And we all know it's the gp/xp ratio that determines how much equipment you have available at any ECL. This is a point why allies in general can be overpowered, either with or without the swapping. Balbanes uses three 'exploits': 1. ally swapping (making writing tactics against him more difficulty) 2. very cheap powerful allies (easily worth tens of thousands of gp. of equipment, but only costing him some skill points and a few quests etc.) 3. custom allies (improved effectiveness not balanced by equally improved CR's by advancing) Same goes for the Harvester, an 8 Cha character swarming with allies (partially due to custom magic items that raise skills)? That's a typical CoCo optimization, not a D&D optimization. Above we are primarily discussing point 1. But point 2 and point 3 are also reasons to restrict allies of course.
Usurpator 04-02-06, 02:53 PM	@Zevox: You claimed that certain choices that turn out to be useless in a particular battle (such as wearing armor or buying scrolls) didn't 'cost' a gladiator anything (unlike allies). I showed you several examples where they did. Your response primarily argues abouts odds, so I am assuming you agree with my point. The odds discussion is totally different discussion, which should include the odds that an prebuffed ally is useless to you in a particular fight. I agree that we will be getting of track if we discuss this. Let's just keep it at that other choices can also cost you something. Also, if the maximum total of allies you can have is equal to the maximum you can bring to the arena, I would certainly have much less of problem with leaving allies behind! It would not completely solve the tactics problem, but would prevent true 'ally-swapping' (and we still have problems 2 and 3 which makes allies extra powerful to deal with as well as sketched in previous post).
Zevox 04-02-06, 03:18 PM	@Zevox: Also, if the maximum total of allies you can have is equal to the maximum you can bring to the arena, I would certainly have much less of problem with leaving allies behind! It would not completely solve the tactics problem, but would prevent true 'ally-swapping' (and we still have problems 2 and 3 which makes allies extra powerful to deal with as well as sketched in previous post). Then it seems we are on nearly the same page with the ally-swapping issue after all. Like I said in my last post, I do feel that the type of ally-swapping characters like Balbanes take advantage should be regulated in some way: having that many allies and being able to change them at will does indeed complicate the writing of tactics immesurably. Having the max allies = max CA (plus some extra for the forgery skill of course, since otherwise part of its implementation becomes pointless) rule takes care of that, as would having allies be a prebuff, in my opinion. My argument, however, is that there is a difference between telling a character he cannot swap out allies in that manner and telling one that has pre-selected his allies for the convenience of his opponent or only has a few allies in the first place that he cannot elect not to bring those allies if he feels they would be useless. I think that such a decision on the ally-user's part should be allowed, since the tactical issue of ally-swapping (refering to it in the manner that Balbanes uses it) is taken care of by the other proposals. As for problems 2 and 3 of those you listed in your response to Sauro, those are seperate issues connected to the way we permit allies to be obtained and customized, not to our rules with regard to selecting allies for any given battle. I'm not quite sure what could be done about #2 short of a big change to our ally rules - that has its foundation right in the way we handle the acquisiton of diplomacy allies. For #3 simple house rules for the CR increase when customizing allies would probably suffice. But I don't think countering those via further restricting the choice an ally-user gets when selecting whether or not to use his allies is fair to those who are not abusing those two options yet would still be affected by those changes. Zevox
TheMagister 04-02-06, 03:27 PM	I'm going to go out on a limb here (in what is a very well-put-together debate) and chance a question (or observation) about the "allies" topic. I already consider myself (personally) outclassed by the participants of this discussion, and so it is a good thing that I don't mind sticking my foot in my mouth and looking stupid (some would state that I accomplish that nicely without trying. I'm a natural!). Someone was earlier making the comparison between allies and equipment and their relative usefulness factor to a given character in a given situation, and their respective cost-to-usefulness ratio. Perhaps this was already mentioned and I missed it (I did read through the posts fairly quickly), but, aren't diplomacy/leadership/handle animal allies effectively FREE? A character certainly puts points into the relevant skills or spends a feat slot on them (both things that have no tangible gp-type cost), but that CoCo character actually usually GAINS xp/gp for acquiring that ally on a miniquest/quest. It would seem to me that this makes having allies a win/win proposition from the start! Now, a CoCo character does have to outfit his ally (in some cases), but this is to his own advantage, and cannot rightly be considered a cost. A CoCo character gains what amounts to an extra round of actions every round per ally, and that is no small thing! Everyone knows (or should realize) that TIME is the most deciding factor in the arena (and in quests, and in D&D in general: consider Time Stop's usefulness, and/or the Haste spell's 3.5 nerf). Whether the ally is just firing a bow or casting bless or riding a horse, that is just one more chance (and this is a game of chance!) to roll a natural 20 and change the course of a fight. It's also an extra set of eyes and ears with which to find your opponent (air elementals, anyone?). I guess my point is that allies are very, very seldom completely useless against ANY opponent in an arena setting. Sure, the character that has allies takes a xp/gp penalty by bringing them into the arena. But in my experience, a character with an ally stands a MUCH better chance of victory than a character without an ally. Talk amongst yourselves. =) TM
MindWandererB 04-02-06, 03:49 PM	I don't think they're free, at least not completely. Skill points in Diplomacy or Handle Animal are design costs, and the XP/GP costs per fight are monetary costs (although perhaps they should cost only GP, as they currently do not upset the XP/GP ratio as all other expenditures do). Some of the new character builds that crash Diplomacy and Forgery do so at the cost of personal strength, with the end result that the opponent is still only fighting one character--but it's the ally and not the PC. Handle Animal is probably the worse offender here, since many characters take Handle Animal to use animal companions or mounts, and then they can turn around and use the skill on a HA animal later on. On the other hand, Diplomacy allies are much more useful, since they can follow complex orders. However, I will agree with Magister than allies are a bit overpowered. A heavy warhorse is a nasty combatant, and a light warhorse only slightly less so. A light warhorse can dish out quite a bit of damage, or it can alternatively be used to improve mobility--or both. I've seen numerous fights where the pet outshines the PC. I haven't seen Diplomacy allies abused this way yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
SauroGrenom 04-03-06, 03:47 PM	Cat, Basicially everyone here appears to be in agreement that placing a limit on the total CA listed on a character sheet is a good idea and will be a step in the right direction to solving the allies abuse. I am inclined to suggest that class feature allies and leadership cohorts should be exempt from this limitation. The point about class feature allies has not been challanged, but the leadership ally suggestion has been challanged. There is still some debate over whether it should be allowed to drop an ally from any given battle or if you are required to list such a change as a Pre-Buff. I would say no, but others dissagree. Atleast this part of the suggestion has general agreement. There should be some kind of limit on the total CA allowed on a character sheet. I think it should be equal to the Max CA of the character modified by the Forgery skill.
Caterane 04-03-06, 04:33 PM	(1) A limit on the amount of allies you can have will banish ally swapping and solve the problem of having an armada of allies from which you can choose to adept to the situation but if we go with maxCA it will at the same time have a huge impact on some builds. A character with a leadership cohort suddenly finds himself unable to ride his light warhorse and make use of his mounted feats. And it does not really solve the problem of making writing tactics easier. (2) Making it mandatory to prebuff with your ally solves the problem of writing tactics against different situations depending on the ally. You also cannot adept by using the best ally against your opponent. The disadventage is that the second effect is almost non-existant if there's only 1 or very few opponents in a league. (2x) If we add the option to leave the ally at home after pairings, there's no reason not to prebuff with max allies and leave behind what you don't need, and it requires also longer tactics - if the ally is at home, a different set of tactics has to be written for the easier kill (eg. set A with ally is totally defensively, and set B without ally is the opposite). This means we cannot allow the option to leave prebuffed allies behind without negating the effect of the rule in the same process. So we should probably either go with (1) or (2) or both. If we do both, then the maximum CA of allies you may possess needs to be thought about carefully! It comes down to the question: how much impact do we want allies to have? If we just want to prevent abuse by chosing the best-suited for a certain opponent from among 20 allies, and/or to make writing tactics easier then it's enough to say 'Prebuff' and 'may possess up to double CA'. If we want to lessen the impact of allies considerably, then maxCA is the way to go. This is a big change of course.
SauroGrenom 04-03-06, 04:45 PM	After being involved in two fights this week where a cleric with the Magic Domain and a whole shipload of scrolls was a better caster than a wizard, I'm more than a little fed up with the over use of expendibles especially scrolls. So what to do about it? My suggestion is a three fold limitation. 1: Place a hard limit on the total value of potions/scrolls/stones/tattoo's owned by a character. 2: Place a hard limit on the number of such items that can be brought into the arena for a battle. 3: Place a hard limit on the max CL of any scroll or stone you own and have it tied to your CL not your ECL. I can make rationalizations up the wazoo for both of these suggestions. But that is going to wrong direction. Instead I suggest we look at the effects it will have on our fights. This over-use of expendibles is caused by the CoCo house rule of the Ye' Old' Magic Shop for all. So we need a CoCo house rule to fix it. With fewer expendibles the battles will be less about what stuff your character has or whether they can use arcane scrolls. Instead success will be determined by what you do with the abilities and equipment that you do have. I think what I'll suggest as an implimentation below is simple to use and simple to track. Part1: Limit the total value of expendibles a character has to be: 20XECL2 Potions 20XECL2 Tattoos 20XML2 Stones 20XCL2 Scrolls Example from Kracknol's sheet: Expendable Items: Potion of Protection from Evil [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Potion of Protection from Good [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Potion of Protection from Law [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Potion of Protection from Chaos [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Potion of Shield of Faith +2 [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] 2x Potion of Hide From Animals [CL1] [0.0 lbs][100 gp] Stone of Escape Detection [ML5] [0.0 lbs][375 gp] Stone of Force Screen [ML2] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Stone of Animal Affinity [ML 3] [0.0 lbs][150 gp] Potions: [350/1280gp][7/20 Slots] Potion of Protection from Evil [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Potion of Protection from Good [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Potion of Protection from Law [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Potion of Protection from Chaos [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Potion of Shield of Faith +2 [CL1] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] 2x Potion of Hide From Animals [CL1] [0.0 lbs][100 gp] Stones: [575/320gp] [3/20 Slots] Stone of Escape Detection [ML5] [0.0 lbs][375 gp] Stone of Force Screen [ML2] [0.0 lbs][50 gp] Stone of Animal Affinity [ML 3] [0.0 lbs][150 gp] Part2: A character should be able to have easy (move equivalent action) access to a limited number of expendible items including scrolls, stones, potions, and tattoo's. I suggest we use the limits imposed by tattoo's and apply them to all expendibles. You can hold a maximum of 20 tattoo's. I suggest that this is the limit on the number of expendibles of any kind that you can have easy access to. Others can be brought into the arena, but must be stored in a pack that is listed on your character sheet as equipment. Also access to a pack should take 1 full round action to retrieve anything. So you could bring 5 stones, 5 potions, 5 scrolls and 5 tattoos Or 20 scrolls that all are retrieved with a move action and provoke an AoO to get them in hand. If you want something in your pack it is a full round aciton that provokes AoO to get it. Part3: With the current system a character with a single level in psion can use a stone of Mindthrust at ML11 causing 11d10 damage. This is too much in my opinion. Limit the purchased scrolls and stones to a CL/ML that is at most the character's ML/CL +2 unless you spend credits. This will allow scrolls and stones that are slightly more powerfull than what the caster can produce with there own spells but not drasticially so. This will also prevent a 11th level cleric with the Magic domain from having nearly unlimited access to 6th level wizard spells. Now for the effect of crafting feats: If you have a craft feat and can craft items of a particular type, then the total value limitation of that type of item is increased two fold. So with brew potion you can have potions that total in value up to 20XECL2X2. You are still limited to 20 items with easy access. Now for a final disclaimer: We obviously have a problem with over-use of expendibles in the Arena. These are my ideas about how to limit them in an easy to follow format. You may not like my ideas. If you have a better one I'd love to hear it.
SauroGrenom 04-03-06, 04:50 PM	(1) A limit on the amount of allies you can have will banish ally swapping and solve the problem of having an armada of allies from which you can choose to adept to the situation but if we go with maxCA it will at the same time have a huge impact on some builds. A character with a leadership cohort suddenly finds himself unable to ride his light warhorse and make use of his mounted feats. And it does not really solve the problem of making writing tactics easier. That's why I suggested that cohorts only are exempt from being part of the Max CA allowed on your sheet. You can still have a warhorse on there. If you use forgery you may even be able to have one for your cohort as well.
barrel_master 04-03-06, 05:18 PM	Concerning the expendables Way back when the fights where 1 win/level we got a lot more gold and I think one of the reasons why Jindl and Cat made it more fights + less gold/win was to make expendables less desireable. Unfortunately, the reduction and memorization of the # of spells in the arena has dramaticly increased the attraction to expendable items. Having said that, I don't think it's that much of a problem. I personaly find it a little silly when characters use these 300gp+ worth of items to win a single fight at lvl 1. Spending like that dramaticly reduces the amount of gold you have if you plan on fighting at higher levels. However, if you're still looking for a fix may I suggest reducing the amount of gold characters receive instead of some harder to manage limit on expendables (I'm also against more complex rules in the area)? Less gold will make buying and the subsequent use of expendables much less desireable. I'm not big on it personaly but if there was a 'fix' to be had I think this would be it.
Usurpator 04-03-06, 05:39 PM	but if we go with maxCA it will at the same time have a huge impact on some builds. A character with a leadership cohort suddenly finds himself unable to ride his light warhorse and make use of his mounted feats. And it does not really solve the problem of making writing tactics easier. Well, if the Cohort is of such a high ECL that the character cannot get an additional horse among his allies, he could not have brought the horse in the arena anyway (if max. allies = maxCA) together with that cohort. You can attract cohorts of lower level, BTW, if you really are interested in retaining your horse and use your cohort. But I get your point.
Caterane 04-03-06, 07:05 PM	@Sauro: You have an interesting proposal there but it is too strong in action. Part1: Limit the total value of expendibles a character has to be: 20XECL2 Potions 20XECL2 Tattoos 20XML2 Stones 20XCL2 Scrolls This would mean a wizard (with scribe scoll even) would buy a potion before writing a scroll. And the formula you use is very restricting. For example, a CL 1 guy cannot even have a single expendable using that formula. The Harvester would have a total of scrolls worth 500 gold! That's about 3-4 scrolls at ECL 7! ...provided they're not higher than level 2. That's way too steep. And finally, every wizard can craft as many scrolls as he wants. The argument against scrolls ("you can buy them here freely unlike in a real campaign") doesn't apply to self-crafted stuff. My RL-group wizard had a whole backpack of scrolls. Better would be a formula for all expendables combined based on ECL and you can divide it as you wish. And if it is based on the real price (not marketprice) it would make the craft feats for expendables much more useful as it effectively doubles your expendables (I have yet to see the first one who takes Imprint Stone). Part2: A character should be able to have easy (move equivalent action) access to a limited number of expendible items including scrolls, stones, potions, and tattoo's. I suggest we use the limits imposed by tattoo's and apply them to all expendibles. You can hold a maximum of 20 tattoo's. I suggest that this is the limit on the number of expendibles of any kind that you can have easy access to. Others can be brought into the arena, but must be stored in a pack that is listed on your character sheet as equipment. Also access to a pack should take 1 full round action to retrieve anything. So you could bring 5 stones, 5 potions, 5 scrolls and 5 tattoos Or 20 scrolls that all are retrieved with a move action and provoke an AoO to get them in hand. If you want something in your pack it is a full round aciton that provokes AoO to get it. That's the belt slot idea with the number set to 20. Sounds acceptable. Part3: With the current system a character with a single level in psion can use a stone of Mindthrust at ML11 causing 11d10 damage. This is too much in my opinion. Limit the purchased scrolls and stones to a CL/ML that is at most the character's ML/CL +2 unless you spend credits. This will allow scrolls and stones that are slightly more powerfull than what the caster can produce with there own spells but not drasticially so. This will also prevent a 11th level cleric with the Magic domain from having nearly unlimited access to 6th level wizard spells. Basing it on ML/CL is a bad thing. The CL 1 psion in your example has a 50% chance to blow up a 1650 gp stone. If he can use a CL 11 stone, he is in a EL 11 League and there, 11d10 will save Dc16 negates is really not much for that price. Keep in mind that a cleric with the magic domain needs essentially twice the amount of scrolls anyway so he's already restricted by the Part 1 rule. If you have a craft feat and can craft items of a particular type, then the total value limitation of that type of item is increased two fold. So with brew potion you can have potions that total in value up to 20XECL2X2. You are still limited to 20 items with easy access. That's what I proposed above just the easy way: use effective price instead of market price. We obviously have a problem with over-use of expendibles in the Arena. These are my ideas about how to limit them in an easy to follow format. You may not like my ideas. If you have a better one I'd love to hear it. I totally agree with your assessment of the situation. Characters like the Harvester III wouldn't be playable in a real campaign because you cannot rely on finding that many scrolls and stones (unless you have a crafting cohort). You have some good ideas but they're too extreme. I will continue to think about it tomorow and after I've read comments from the others. @Usurpator: yes but perhaps I would like to use a mount once in a while. Making the cohort one level lower than maximum to bring in a light warhorse is not going to happen. If anything it would increase the trade on figurines or allies with class allies like druids.
Zevox 04-03-06, 08:33 PM	Concerning allies: If we just want to prevent abuse by chosing the best-suited for a certain opponent from among 20 allies, and/or to make writing tactics easier then it's enough to say 'Prebuff' and 'may possess up to double CA'. That sounds like a good idea to me. It allows characters to have a fair variety of allies, doesn't screw up those who take the leadership feat but also want a mount or some such, allows for characters with the Forgery skill to use it to bring in more powerful allies than normal (one of its primary uses), but also prevents one from having an army of allies ala Balbanes. I'm still of the opinion that permitting allies to be left behind should be acceptable, but since I seem to be in the minority in that regard so I'll deal with whatever comes of that. Just one thing that would need to be clarified - do class allies count towards this double CA limit on allies as well (and if so, how precisely do we handle the CR of advanced class allies ala a Druid's animal companion or a Paladin's warhorse)? Personally, I don't think they should, since with the exception of Thralls and Planar Cohorts they don't count against your CA anywhere else, but I could see it argued otherwise as well. Concerning the expendibles issues: 1: Place a hard limit on the total value of potions/scrolls/stones/tattoo's owned by a character. Sounds like a good idea, provided the limit is reasonable. I'm in agreement with Cat that the limits you proposed aren't, however (wish I had time to come up with my own suggestion for some reasonable ones, but homework is pressing tonight, and this post is probably going to take too long as is...). 2: Place a hard limit on the number of such items that can be brought into the arena for a battle. A return to Cat's "belt slots" idea in other words. I'm not so sure doing that along with the first suggestion is such a great idea, but one or the other certainly would be fine by me. 3: Place a hard limit on the max CL of any scroll or stone you own and have it tied to your CL not your ECL. Not such a fan of this one, for one reason: Use Magic/Psionic Device. Such a rule automatically rules out anyone using those skills with scrolls or powerstones ever again unless they also take levels in a casting/manifesting class (which would kind of defeat the purpose of UMD/UPD in the first place). Part2: A character should be able to have easy (move equivalent action) access to a limited number of expendible items including scrolls, stones, potions, and tattoo's. I suggest we use the limits imposed by tattoo's and apply them to all expendibles. You can hold a maximum of 20 tattoo's. I suggest that this is the limit on the number of expendibles of any kind that you can have easy access to. Others can be brought into the arena, but must be stored in a pack that is listed on your character sheet as equipment. Also access to a pack should take 1 full round action to retrieve anything. So you could bring 5 stones, 5 potions, 5 scrolls and 5 tattoos Or 20 scrolls that all are retrieved with a move action and provoke an AoO to get them in hand. If you want something in your pack it is a full round aciton that provokes AoO to get it. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It doesn't prevent you from bringing in more items, but does make using them much more of a pain. I'd be quite happy with this. Zevox
Ariel23 04-03-06, 10:56 PM	Allies: I agree with the direction most of this is going, but what still bothers me is swapping allies before a fight (after pairings) when I cannot swap my equipment or change my pre-buffs. Why the exception for allies? What if I just had CR 1/6 donkeys that carried my stuff, and instead of selecting "equipment" before a fight, I would just select which CR 1/6 pets to bring in with me based on which equipment they were carrying? P.S. What are figurines of wondrous power? Expendables: I just don't understand how someone with 40 scrolls can find one automatically and pull it out as a Move Action. Do we use Search for anything? It seems to me that Search could be used to quickly find items when you have a lot of them. But that's a more complicated rule, and I prefer simple ones.
Zevox 04-03-06, 11:37 PM	Allies: I agree with the direction most of this is going, but what still bothers me is swapping allies before a fight (after pairings) when I cannot swap my equipment or change my pre-buffs. Why the exception for allies? Thats actually the primary problem that brought this up. Thats why the suggestion of prebuffing allies (which seems to be acceptable to most everyone) exists. What if I just had CR 1/6 donkeys that carried my stuff, and instead of selecting "equipment" before a fight, I would just select which CR 1/6 pets to bring in with me based on which equipment they were carrying? You could certainly put a bunch of equipment on a donkey or two and take it off them, yes. Of course armor takes so long to put on it wouldn't be worth it, so expendibles and weapons would be about all this would be viable for, and in the process you are taking a reduction to your rewards for those donkeys (even if its only ever so slight). Do we use Search for anything? Burglaries (though I think the only one who actually uses that in the whole coliseum is my Featylec). It seems to me that Search could be used to quickly find items when you have a lot of them. But that's a more complicated rule, and I prefer simple ones. Agreed, simple rules would be far preferable (ergo the reason I like the idea of full-round action to draw extra expendibles beyond a certain maximum of readily-available ones). Zevox
SauroGrenom 04-04-06, 12:33 AM	This would mean a wizard (with scribe scoll even) would buy a potion before writing a scroll. And the formula you use is very restricting. For example, a CL 1 guy cannot even have a single expendable using that formula. The Harvester would have a total of scrolls worth 500 gold! That's about 3-4 scrolls at ECL 7! ...provided they're not higher than level 2. That's way too steep. And finally, every wizard can craft as many scrolls as he wants. The argument against scrolls ("you can buy them here freely unlike in a real campaign") doesn't apply to self-crafted stuff. My RL-group wizard had a whole backpack of scrolls. Potions are more expensive that scrolls, so this is totally incorrect (you'd buy scrolls first if you could). Basicially the major effect of using CL/ML is that you cannot dip into one level of a class and get unfettered access to mid level spells and effects. For example Barthelby is a CL7 cleric with magic domain. He has CL9 arcane scrolls. The chance of him failing on any of those CL checks is a meazly 25%. He has more GP invested in arcane scrolls than into divine scrolls. How do you propose to stop such crap? He doesn't need divine scrolls because he can cast those spells from memory and has no need for a spellbook. Basicially he has a complete class spell list that includes the spells of two major spell casting classes. To get this he didn't even need to multiclass. The harvester has one level in psiwarrior. With that he is able to succeed on using ML4 vigor stones 85% of the time. At 200gp each for 20 hp this is a great deal especially at low to mid levels even though this stone is 3 ML above his manifesting ability. How would you stop that? If I use your suggestion to base it on ECL only, then you get more powerfull stones every level even if you don't spend any time improving your manifesting abilities. You become a cleric level 7 next and you are still able to buy ML5 or ML6 vigor stones that you will succeed using 75% of the time for 30 HP. Perhaps my suggested number are too restricting, instead make the multiplier ECL2x50gp and ML2x50gp. Whatever base number you choose I realy think that scrolls and stones should be limited by CL/ML not ECL. Mabey don't limit the total GP of expendibles just limit the ML/CL in a way that is based on the character's ML/CL. Better would be a formula for all expendables combined based on ECL and you can divide it as you wish. And if it is based on the real price (not marketprice) it would make the craft feats for expendables much more useful as it effectively doubles your expendables (I have yet to see the first one who takes Imprint Stone). Bassing things on market price is a great way to help those with crafting abilities. However mixing the pools of money together and basing them on ECL basicially eliminates the issue of limiting any type of expendible. No wizards (even with 1 level in the class) will buy potions or stones or tattoo's. All psions will buy only stones. Clerics with the magic domain will buy all the arcane scrolls they want. Stones and scrolls are cheaper, so they will spend all the money on those. Instead this will just make sure that casters and manifesters will have far more expendible power at there disposal because they can use items that are cheaper (scrolls and stones vs potions and tattoo's). If you make seperate pools of cash, and make them limited by CL/ML then you get an interesting effect. A character who is Cleric6 with magic domain and psywarrior2 is able to use divine and arcane scrolls as well as stones. However he has the highest "Budget" for divine scrolls. His has a much more limited budget of arcane scrolls, and for stones it is far more limited. If we think about how expendibles expand spell casting power... we find that scrolls will boost your power by probably about 4 levels. If you use a scroll more than 4 CL above your own, then you suffer a signifigant chance of failure. Most gladiators will not hesitate at success 80% of the time for casting ability 4 levels above there own. Once you go higher 30% failure is harder to take with increasing costs. Notice that this is an increase in CL, not ECL. So with the magic domain you can be a a cleric at CL8 and cast as a wizard at CL8 80% of the time. All it costs you is a few gp for the scrolls. In a TT game those scrolls wouldn't be freely available. Since we give them away for gp only, this domain is way overpowered. Putting a stop to that requires looking at the CL involved. You should be a cleric at CL8 and a wizard at CL4. My suggestion will eliminate the option to take a few levels in a casting class and gain spell casting power up to 4 levels ahead of where you are at. If you don't like the money limitations based on CL, just impose a limit on the CL/ML of available expendibles. We currently use a simular restriction. Just change it from scrolls of your ECL to scrolls of your CL+2. That allowes for some templates and multicasting and the magic domain to use scrolls to streach spell casting power a bit beyond what you have actually. In practice it's a simple change that will have drastic effects on the over use of scrolls by those who should never have the chance to cast them in the first place. I think the money limits would be harder to track, but have a more balanced effect.
Caterane 04-04-06, 07:14 AM	Basicially the major effect of using CL/ML is that you cannot dip into one level of a class and get unfettered access to mid level spells and effects. For example Barthelby is a CL7 cleric with magic domain. He has CL9 arcane scrolls. The chance of him failing on any of those CL checks is a meazly 25%. He has more GP invested in arcane scrolls than into divine scrolls. How do you propose to stop such crap? He doesn't need divine scrolls because he can cast those spells from memory and has no need for a spellbook. Basicially he has a complete class spell list that includes the spells of two major spell casting classes. To get this he didn't even need to multiclass. If Barthleby uses a CL9 scroll it uses up a third of his 3200 gp maximum (50*ECL²). He currently has expendables worth 9000 gold. He would be able to keep only 35% of his expendables with the formula 50*ECL². The Harvester has expendables worth 5275 gold. Limiting it to 50*ECL² gives him expendables worth 2450 gold. That means I would have to throw away more than half my scrolls. I have three classes but I would have to divide my limit among the three classes. Additionally, only 20 of those can be drawn as a move action. I'd say we rather limit the number of belt slots further. Ten perhaps. This shows that limiting it to ECL does have an effect. ECL Limit 1 50 2 200 3 450 4 800 5 1250 6 1800 7 2450 8 3200 9 4050 10 5000 With this formula, even Uhme has to drop from 7261 gp to 5000 gp worth of expendables (and he scribed everything!). Basing it on CL is very restricting in the lower regions! A CL 1 character could only have a single CL 1 scroll. There is no justification for that; especially considering why an ECL 20 Harvester should not be able to afford more than one ML 1 stone. Dipping into one class is a big aspect of the D&D system and the CL check (no matter wether you think it is a sufficient rule) is there to regulate that. Another problem Zevox has pointed out is that it makes Use Magic Device useless unless we come up with another rule. What happens when a character increases his CL with items. What if he has an increased CL for one aspect only (eg Good Domain)? The CL is just too dynamic to make for a good base for formulas. The harvester has one level in psiwarrior. With that he is able to succeed on using ML4 vigor stones 85% of the time. At 200gp each for 20 hp this is a great deal especially at low to mid levels even though this stone is 3 ML above his manifesting ability. How would you stop that? If I use your suggestion to base it on ECL only, then you get more powerfull stones every level even if you don't spend any time improving your manifesting abilities. You become a cleric level 7 next and you are still able to buy ML5 or ML6 vigor stones that you will succeed using 75% of the time for 30 HP. Vigor is a very bad example because it is broken in on itself. Let's say Expansion. Yes I have only 1 level of psiwarrior but why should I be prevented to manifest a ML3 Expansion? The idea with the CL check comes from the d20 rules, not the coco. There's a lot I would change in the D&D rules but it's not my place to do that unless it is realy broken (like the prices on psionic items which we fixed). My suggestion will eliminate the option to take a few levels in a casting class and gain spell casting power up to 4 levels ahead of where you are at. Yes exactly and I don't know if that's a good thing. It does not affect straight casters at all but only targets those who multiclass. If in a real group, the lvl 9 cleric can buy scrolls for 4000 gp in the local temple, then why should the fighter8/cleric1 only be able to buy a single CL 1 scroll of CLW? I think the question is wether we just want to restrict expendables somewhat or if we want to have class abilities outshine the rest. If we base it on your CL suggestion we will tremendously go back to the core abilities of a character. Out task is to counter the effect that you can freely buy any item. If we ever do a reset again, we'll use a Living Market system and/or Treasure Rolls. For now, we only have to counter access to items in some way. Brainstorming idea 1: What if you have to use a free activity to buy expendables? You can buy expendables up to 1000 gold with a free activity. Plus the imposed limit based on 50*ECL². Prevents item hoarding and limits access somewhat. Brainstorming idea 2: Expendables are alwas minimum CL and unmodified (unless you craft them yourself). This limits the versitality of those who dip into classes and promotes taking craft feats. Barthleby for example would not be able to polymorph into a planetar later (unless he spends 7 credits per scroll [CL7->CL14 = 7]). Plus 50*ECL² of course. Brainstorming idea 3: You can only buy a certain number of expendables per week. A pitlord makes a roll after the fight which reflects how many expendables the character may buy. It's a bit like a treasure simulation.
NiQil 04-04-06, 07:46 AM	Brainstorming idea 1: What if you have to use a free activity to buy expendables? You can buy expendables up to 1000 gold with a free activity. Plus the imposed limit based on 50*ECL². Prevents item hoarding and limits access somewhat. Brainstorming idea 2: Expendables are alwas minimum CL and unmodified (unless you craft them yourself). This limits the versitality of those who dip into classes and promotes taking craft feats. Barthleby for example would not be able to polymorph into a planetar later (unless he spends 7 credits per scroll [CL7->CL14 = 7]). Plus 50*ECL² of course. I had to jump in here on these two... For idea 1, this is a very bad idea, IMO. The reason? Everyone would be using their free activities to buy what expendables they needed (except those few that don't use them consistantly) and all of the other free activities that we have available would quickly fall into disuse. All of those skills that we have created uses for would quickly become useless again, simply due to everyone figuring that there was no need to use them since they were going to be using their free activities to buy their expendables every week. Also, this would cause higher level expendables to not be able to be purchased at all. Even a wand of cure moderate wounds, at 2250 gp, would never be able to be purchased under this type of rule without scaling of some kind...but even with scaling, my other reservations to this idea still hold true. (As an aside, I would really love it if we, as a forum, got out of the mindset that in order to nerf something we have to make it a free or full activity...we can do better than that, methinks.) For idea 2, I think this is kinda already in place. Tattoos, potions and oils are already always minimum CL. Purchased scrolls and powerstones are already considered minimum CL...it's only when you craft them yourself that it goes higher. I think what you may have meant here is that you can only purchase expendables equal to your CL/ML in your various classes....so a cleric 6/psywar 1 could buy up to CL 6 in clerical scrolls, but only up to ML 1 in powerstones. This would certainly make sense to me...but the problem with this idea is what happens with spell trigger items such as wands and rods for classes like ranger and paladin? They have a CL of 0 until 4th level, but are able to use these items anyway. Something like this would not allow any use of these items before being able to cast spells themselves, which would be in direct contraction of the core rules.
Abyssal Stalker 04-04-06, 08:18 AM	(1) A limit on the amount of allies you can have will banish ally swapping and solve the problem of having an armada of allies from which you can choose to adept to the situation but if we go with maxCA it will at the same time have a huge impact on some builds. A character with a leadership cohort suddenly finds himself unable to ride his light warhorse and make use of his mounted feats. And it does not really solve the problem of making writing tactics easier. (2) Making it mandatory to prebuff with your ally solves the problem of writing tactics against different situations depending on the ally. You also cannot adept by using the best ally against your opponent. The disadventage is that the second effect is almost non-existant if there's only 1 or very few opponents in a league. (2x) If we add the option to leave the ally at home after pairings, there's no reason not to prebuff with max allies and leave behind what you don't need, and it requires also longer tactics - if the ally is at home, a different set of tactics has to be written for the easier kill (eg. set A with ally is totally defensively, and set B without ally is the opposite). This means we cannot allow the option to leave prebuffed allies behind without negating the effect of the rule in the same process. So we should probably either go with (1) or (2) or both. If we do both, then the maximum CA of allies you may possess needs to be thought about carefully! It comes down to the question: how much impact do we want allies to have? If we just want to prevent abuse by chosing the best-suited for a certain opponent from among 20 allies, and/or to make writing tactics easier then it's enough to say 'Prebuff' and 'may possess up to double CA'. If we want to lessen the impact of allies considerably, then maxCA is the way to go. This is a big change of course. Why do we have to limit the amount of allies a PC can have at home? We already limit the amount of allies that can be brought into a battle with the maxCA (being ECL-2). So from this point of view it doesn't matter if the character has an army of allies at HOME! The swapping issue is easily taken care of with the prebuffing rule. You must mark the ally you are currently adventuring with as a prebuff with the limit of ECL-2. We don't need anymore boundaries on how many allies you have at home. Let's compare this to a cleric. A cleric must choose the prepared spells before the pairings (compare to prebuff). Quite the same way any other character would need to decide the ally he currently moves with. I have no doubt that someone wouldn't have already suggested this, but this is my opinion on the subject!
Caterane 04-04-06, 08:31 AM	@NiQil: Brainstorming 2 means that you can only buy scrolls and stones at mimimum CL. A polymorph scroll just doesn't ship other than CL 7 regardless of the character's CL. If you can scribe it yourself, you can scribe whatever CL you want. This is in line with what you will experience in a real campaign. When a DM hands out scrolls, they're most likely always of mimimum CL. The rare situations when the scroll uses a higher CL, can be simulated with a credit cost to buy higher CL scrolls. This idea basically makes expendables less worthwhile than they're now and at the same time makes expendable-craft-feats more attractive. Imprint stone then becomes a good choice. So expendables are limited by 50*ECL² and by their reduced usefulness. Btw, when I say expendables I only mean scrolls, stones, potions and tattoos.
MindWandererB 04-04-06, 02:26 PM	Allies: I see no reason to limit what a person has at home as long as they have to prebuff their selection. Of course, this would make it so that there would be allies at home that never see use. Expendables: I have mixed feelings about scrolls and stones being at minimum CL. That makes sense a lot of the time, but it makes some stones--like Grip of Iron, Expansion, and Compression--useless. I think augmentables should be an exception, although they should always be at the minimum ML for their augmentation (so you could have Expansion at ML 1, 3, 7, or 9, but nothing else; Grip of Iron could be at ML 1, 5, 9, 13, or 17). I agree that using a free action to go shopping would kill free actions entirely. How about a cap, not on what you can own, but on what you can use? In my P&P games, wizards commonly have a buttload of "contingency" scrolls, like See Invisibility, which they use very rarely. This allows for versatility without being an expendable-heavy environment. I'm thinking that a cap of total CL equal to your ECL per fight might be about right--again, only for potions, scrolls, tattoos, and stones. (Wands and dorjes could be included, but any number of uses of a single wand would only count against the cap once.) I prefer CL over GP because every caster in the CoCo would have to either 1) rework their characters to take Scribe scroll, 2) retire due to incompatibility with the new rules, or 3) come up with a miraculous new strategy to compensate. Slots: Bear in mind that it is a move action to dig an item out of your backpack. The only difference is that it provokes an AoO, while pulling an item out of a belt or other "ready" area does not.
Zevox 04-04-06, 09:31 PM	Out task is to counter the effect that you can freely buy any item. If we ever do a reset again, we'll use a Living Market system and/or Treasure Rolls. For now, we only have to counter access to items in some way. Er, I think you lost me. Why is this a problem? I thought that the problem that needed countering was the overruse of expendibles, which is largely caused by the 1/3 rule on casters/manifesters. Why is the free ability to buy what you wish suddenly the problem here? :confused: Brainstorming idea 1: What if you have to use a free activity to buy expendables? You can buy expendables up to 1000 gold with a free activity. Plus the imposed limit based on 50*ECL². Prevents item hoarding and limits access somewhat. I'm going have to agree with NiQil and MindWandererB on this one - bad idea. Implement that and we won't see much use of any other free activity - ever. Brainstorming idea 2: Expendables are alwas minimum CL and unmodified (unless you craft them yourself). This limits the versitality of those who dip into classes and promotes taking craft feats. Barthleby for example would not be able to polymorph into a planetar later (unless he spends 7 credits per scroll [CL7->CL14 = 7]). Plus 50*ECL² of course. Wait a minute - this solves what? I mean, aren't most scrolls/stones that are bought already at minimum CL/ML? Aside from augmented powerstones (mostly Vigor), a handful of CL 3 or 5 Magic Missile scrolls among wizards or magic domain clerics, and a few CL 2 or 3 1st level powers or spells for increased duration (example: Shield or Force Screen), I've not seen many such scrolls used, and personally I'd not call the above examples a problem (except maybe Vigor, but thats seperate from the issue of expendibles as a whole). Yes it'd make Imprint Stone a more tempting choice - for the augmented Vigor stones and ML 2 Force Screen/Biofeedback/Skate/etc powers - but beyond that is there really any significant benefit from such a rule? Brainstorming idea 3: You can only buy a certain number of expendables per week. A pitlord makes a roll after the fight which reflects how many expendables the character may buy. It's a bit like a treasure simulation. Certain numer of expendibles a week... okay, presuming we're excluding self-crafted ones. But why the randomization? Why not just pick a reasonable number and set it at that? Though I should also point out, wouldn't this cause some bookeeping problems (i.e. how to make sure a character doesn't buy more than his allotment per week)? [Rangers and Paladins] have a CL of 0 until 4th level, but are able to use [wands] anyway. Actually, to be nitpicky, Rangers and Paladins have no CL at all (not CL 0) until 4th level (else they'd be able to use scrolls before then, which they can't). Having a CL isn't a prerequisite to use Wands, just having the spell on your class list, which is why they can use those. Zevox
Ariel23 04-05-06, 12:40 AM	Um, seriously, what are Figurines of Wondrous Power? Are they allies or not? They seem awfully expensive to also cost me XP and GP every fight when none of my other magic items do. I'd say treat them like a class ability...they count against your Ally limit, but not against your XP or GP. I don't know what the CR of all of them is, of course, but it's a start. I would also like to see an absolute fixed limit on amount of creatures that can aid a character in the arena at any one time. I say make it ECL/2 (round up). What this means is you cannot have 50 rats. You also cannot go invisible and summon 8 monsters. The reason I say this is that summonings and multiple allies are unfair to the Pitlord who has to run the fight. Why should a pitlord running 4 characters get 2 credits but a pitlord running 2 characters and 8 other creatures get only 1? At ECL 6, my psychic warrior (not Psion!) can summon 13 allies per battle. Multiple allies/summons also greatly increase the likelihood of mistakes. This is always true of adding actors to the event. I would even be willing to say that you can have 8 allies or summon 8 monsters, but only ECL/2 may act at any one time. But this way, you have them all "queued up" and ready to go as soon as one goes down. Can we have a quest for 50 people where we kill the god of magic so that domain ceases to be available? Or how about a gigantic FFA all Magic Domain Clerics against everyone else. Everyone else would be outnumbered, but that's okay. :D Another problem Zevox has pointed out is that it makes Use Magic Device useless unless we come up with another rule. What happens when a character increases his CL with items. CL = UMD/2? Vigor is a very bad example because it is broken in on itself. Vigor gives 5 HP per PP, while CLW gives 5.5 HP at 1st level. It is only broken at higher levels where Psions have a ton of PP. If Vigor was only available to Psychic Warriors (with their paltry PP) it would be just fine. I think the question is wether we just want to restrict expendables somewhat or if we want to have class abilities outshine the rest. If we base it on your CL suggestion we will tremendously go back to the core abilities of a character. That depends on why we are here. I feel it is to test builds, not the efficacy of WotC potions and scrolls, but maybe that's just me. Wands I have less of a problem with. They do not offer the versatilty of 15 different expendables. They are a big GP commitment to something that may not be useful in every fight...you may not use all 50 charges, etc. One thing I don't understand is why all spells and magic items are cut 1/3, but in the DMG it clearly says that for one-shot adventures, expendables should be cut 1/5. It is supposed to take 13 encounters to level, but in CoCo it is less than that. CoCo expendables are at least 2x as valuable as in PnP. Brainstorming idea 1: I like this. Brainstorming idea 2: Seems okay but might take away the fun of free activities. Brainstorming idea 3: ... It's a bit like a treasure simulation.What is the treasure for people who don't use expendables? Also, it should probably be X for the winner and X/3 for the loser or something... That might discourage the heavy reliance on expendables. Can you see yourself when you are Invisible? Maybe that's in the FAQ or the rules of the game, but it doesn't say you can. I was thinking that if you pulled out any expendables while Invisible, the expendable would become visible wouldn't it? That seems explicit in the spell to me. That might cut down on 1st round Invis followed up by potion guzzling and scroll reading.
SauroGrenom 04-05-06, 12:45 AM	Additionally, only 20 of those can be drawn as a move action. I'd say we rather limit the number of belt slots further. Ten perhaps. If you decide on ten as a number then there should be options to increase it. A character should be able to buy equipment to expand that numer. Basing it on CL is very restricting in the lower regions! A CL 1 character could only have a single CL 1 scroll. There is no justification for that; especially considering why an ECL 20 Harvester should not be able to afford more than one ML 1 stone. Dipping into one class is a big aspect of the D&D system and the CL check (no matter wether you think it is a sufficient rule) is there to regulate that. Well we have a difference of opinion here. 1st is that a CL1 caster can have two CL1 scrolls. Each costs 25gp, so you can buy 2 with your 50gp. The second is that the ECL20 harvester is not unable to afford a ML3 stone. Rather he is unable to aquire a ML3 stone. Mabey the stone merchants guild will not sell advanced stones to those who are unable to use them. As a decent compromise make the money available based on ECL, but cap the CL of stones and scrolls at CL+2. This way a ECL10 cleric with magic domain can buy divine scrolls at CL10 and Arcane scrolls at CL7. That's a smaller but signifigant nerf. Another problem Zevox has pointed out is that it makes Use Magic Device useless unless we come up with another rule. What happens when a character increases his CL with items. What if he has an increased CL for one aspect only (eg Good Domain)? The CL is just too dynamic to make for a good base for formulas. These are all very good questions. I'd say that for UMD skill, take a 10 on a UMD check and you can have an effective CL equal to the best scroll you could use with that check. This basicially says that your effective CL is (UMD check modifier)-10. Effects that increase CL or ML should not modify the max CL of the items you can buy. They will certianly change the ML/CL check to activate those items. You'll also gain a number of other benefits due to higher ML/CL if you are able to actually cast or manifest. Yes exactly and I don't know if that's a good thing. It does not affect straight casters at all but only targets those who multiclass. If in a real group, the lvl 9 cleric can buy scrolls for 4000 gp in the local temple, then why should the fighter8/cleric1 only be able to buy a single CL 1 scroll of CLW? Because the wise clerics at the temple know of the various effects caused by Scroll Misshaps (A whole set of rules in the SRD that we do not use around here). They choose to not sell the more powerfull holy scrolls to those who may be harmed by attempting to use them. I think the question is wether we just want to restrict expendables somewhat or if we want to have class abilities outshine the rest. If we base it on your CL suggestion we will tremendously go back to the core abilities of a character. You are absolutely correct. Right now our battles are largely about what cool stuff you can buy and use with your character. I don't much like that. It drasticially devalues class features beyond spell lists as well as normal ranged or melee combat ability and inflates the power of caster classes. Your brainstoring ideas are a stab in the right direction, but not realy satisfying on all counts. I think that we should be able to either come up with better ideas or to combine some of those already out into a workable set of ideas. To Review: 1:A limit on total expendibles gp value appears to be something you and I both like. ECL2x50gp is a good place to start. 2:A limit on total number of battle ready expibles is also something we both advocate. Ten or twenty slots have both been proposed. I favor 20. 3:Create a standard random table of scroll mishaps to use in the CoCo when a scroll CL check is failed. 4:Limit the CL of avalible scrolls/stones (potions and tattoos are expensive enough that they should be exempt IMHO) to be character's CL+2. This gives slightly enhanced durrations and other level dependant effects as well as access to slightly more powerfull spells/power from the next level up. But it is not as open as what we have now. For example Harvester can still buy ML3 vigor and expansion stones, but not dissolving weapon (ML4 minimum) or inertial barrier. Also Barthleby cannot buy CL7 arcane polymorph scrolls untill he has arcane CL5 (won't happen till he is ECL11 if he stays cleric all the way). But he can easily buy any CL9 divine scroll he may want and can afford in his expendibles budget. I think we should do all 4. The changes will only effect a particular class of characters. Namely those with far too many scrolls and stones. Melee characters do not use many expendibles, so the slot and GP limits are unlikely to effect there equipment lists.
barrel_master 04-05-06, 02:01 AM	To Review: 1:A limit on total expendibles gp value appears to be something you and I both like. ECL2x50gp is a good place to start. 2:A limit on total number of battle ready expibles is also something we both advocate. Ten or twenty slots have both been proposed. I favor 20. 3:Create a standard random table of scroll mishaps to use in the CoCo when a scroll CL check is failed. 4:Limit the CL of avalible scrolls/stones (potions and tattoos are expensive enough that they should be exempt IMHO) to be character's CL+2. This gives slightly enhanced durrations and other level dependant effects as well as access to slightly more powerfull spells/power from the next level up. But it is not as open as what we have now. For example Harvester can still buy ML3 vigor and expansion stones, but not dissolving weapon (ML4 minimum) or inertial barrier. Also Barthleby cannot buy CL7 arcane polymorph scrolls untill he has arcane CL5 (won't happen till he is ECL11 if he stays cleric all the way). But he can easily buy any CL9 divine scroll he may want and can afford in his expendibles budget. I think we should do all 4. The changes will only effect a particular class of characters. Namely those with far too many scrolls and stones. Melee characters do not use many expendibles, so the slot and GP limits are unlikely to effect there equipment lists. If I may... 1. This seems like just another complicated rule that will not make things much better for everyone. In the early arena Alathar Vierce used to use an enlarge and a bulls' str and we didn't see anything wrong with it. Unfortunately this rule makes it not so possible. 2. I'm more okay with this but it's still a little artificial to me in the sense that it's another rule that I don't see as being effective. YOu can still buy 20 things and that would be, honestly, a bit too much. 3. I'm not so okay with adding non core stuff. This also seems a bit artificial and would not be effective in my opinion. 4. Again, I don't think this will add much more then another layer of complexity to the problem. I honestly don't think the expendables are too mcuh of a problem. However, if we want to reduce the number of them we can just make them 2x more expensive or give out 2x less gold.
Gonbow 04-05-06, 02:13 AM	Um, seriously, what are Figurines of Wondrous Power? Are they allies or not? They seem awfully expensive to also cost me XP and GP every fight when none of my other magic items do. I'd say treat them like a class ability...they count against your Ally limit, but not against your XP or GP. I don't know what the CR of all of them is, of course, but it's a start. *snip* They are items that summon creatures that obey your commands. See: Scrolls of Summon X, Bags of Tricks, Elemental Gem, Etc. These ones just happen to be used over and over again (See: Bag of Tricks). They are not allies.
Turin 04-05-06, 08:38 AM	To Review: 1:A limit on total expendibles gp value appears to be something you and I both like. ECL2x50gp is a good place to start.But isn't there already an inherent limit to the use of expendibles in the fact that if you spend more than you earn on the fight, you'll be only hurting yourself? (This is particularly an issue if you lose the fight.) 2:A limit on total number of battle ready expibles is also something we both advocate. Ten or twenty slots have both been proposed. I favor 20.I don't think the slots idea is worth the extra hassle. 20 slots is a good limit for upper-level characters, but I can see ECL3-5 gladiators pretty much just shrugging at that limit. 10 slots will be far too limiting for primary casters (Scroll Scribers), who will end up trying to get around the limit by creating "long" scrolls with the maximum number of spells on each. 20 slots x 6 spells = 120 spells... I just don't think this idea of slots is an effective limiter on the expendibles problem and only adds an extra layer of bookkeeping. 3:Create a standard random table of scroll mishaps to use in the CoCo when a scroll CL check is failed.I'm ambivalent about this idea. On one hand, if the effects are bad enough it might discourage folks from using scrolls out of their league. On the other hand, using such scrolls is pretty easy and you typically only fail on a really bad roll. If the effects are bad enough, it could lend the use of higher-level scrolls a "Russian Roulette" feel where the fight suddenly flops the other way because of a mishap. If the point of the CoCo is to be able to test builds in a fun environment (which I believe it is), adding such a randomizer to the arena fights is a no-go. 4:Limit the CL of avalible scrolls/stones (potions and tattoos are expensive enough that they should be exempt IMHO) to be character's CL+2. I think this is the strongest idea of the lot. We just need a way to define the CL of someone using UMD so that we don't nerf that skill. This solution seems rather simple and elegant, and falls in line with the rest of the CoCo rules regarding magic item purchase without adding some extra mechanic. The extra CoCo rules are intimidating enough to newcomers as it is.
SauroGrenom 04-05-06, 09:56 AM	But isn't there already an inherent limit to the use of expendibles in the fact that if you spend more than you earn on the fight, you'll be only hurting yourself? (This is particularly an issue if you lose the fight.) Look at a few examples if you don't think this is a problem. Barthleby and the Harvester 3 are both character builds that are fantasticially successfull. Also there success is derived almost exclusively from using power stones and scrolls to buff for 5, 6, or even 9 rounds of combat before finally engaging the opponents. In barthleby's last several fights he finally engages his opponent when he has an AC above 35. At ECL8 there is no melee character that can hit that especially after he casts dispell magic on you and removes all your buffs. They both rely heavily on the ability to use arcane scrolls as a cleric with the magic domain. If scrolls of every desired type and infinite quantity were not available, these builds wold be unable to buff like they do. They would not be nearly as sucessfull. The entire character concepts are based on the ability to buy and use all the scrolls you could want. Scrolls are cheap. Especially if you can craft them and use some free activities to earn extra cash. An ECL8 character earns over 1000gp on a loss if they are using profession or craft free activites to earn extra money. 1000gp is several powerfull scrolls at that level. If you win, then you can buy far more scrolls of even higher level. I'm ambivalent about this idea. On one hand, if the effects are bad enough it might discourage folks from using scrolls out of their league. On the other hand, using such scrolls is pretty easy and you typically only fail on a really bad roll. If the effects are bad enough, it could lend the use of higher-level scrolls a "Russian Roulette" feel where the fight suddenly flops the other way because of a mishap. If the point of the CoCo is to be able to test builds in a fun environment (which I believe it is), adding such a randomizer to the arena fights is a no-go.All I'm suggesting is that we use the SRD to determine the effects of a failed attempt to activate a scroll. For powerstones there is a single effect called BrainBurn. If you fail a ML check you can get hit by this. The SRD lists several possible effects of Scroll Misshaps. We should use those. Current pitlords just say the scroll is wasted, when infact a misshap should take place in addition to the wasted spell. Since the effects are wildly different in the SRD, I suggested a random table to govern which one takes place. All I'm suggesting here is that we use a piece of the rules that we have been ignoring. Scroll misshaps are in the SRD. We should use them. They are intended to represent an element of risk involved in using a spell beyond your ability to cast. I'm not saying we add in non core stuff. We just use the core stuff we are ignoring. The SRD leaves it up to the GM to decide what effect happens. Perhaps we should leave it up to a random table so that there are no complaints about unfair pitlording. I think this is the strongest idea of the lot. We just need a way to define the CL of someone using UMD so that we don't nerf that skill. This solution seems rather simple and elegant, and falls in line with the rest of the CoCo rules regarding magic item purchase without adding some extra mechanic. The extra CoCo rules are intimidating enough to newcomers as it is. I made a suggestion from above that UMD check -10 should be CL for this purpose. I still think we should limit the number of expendibles a character can carry and access with a move action. A more elegant way is perhaps to make all scrolls,stones,tattoo's and potions weigh something. That way it at least limits movement speed when you are 2 feet tall with a strength of 8 and carry around 59 feet of velum scrolls. Such a limit is also reasonable. As a GM I wouldn't let any character walk around in my game with 50 scrolls tucked into his belt pouch. He could fit a few into various storage places such as a belt or vest pocket, but not 50 places. Argue about 10 or 20 slots all you want. You're right that if you limit it to 20, then you can still have 120 spells. That's what the money limitation is for. You'll neve be able to afford 120 spells and keep them all under your money limit.
Sindorin 04-05-06, 10:07 AM	You only got to see THAT secret for about 3 minutes... hehe
SoulLord 04-05-06, 10:33 AM	I would favor to deviate as little from the rules as possible it is already a substantial amount of rules and house rules for newcomers and some of the suggestions agggravate this. from all the options I favor the belt slots the most with 10 slots at higher levels gladiators can buy more useful things like the efficient quiver or similar things.
Caterane 04-05-06, 10:36 AM	@Sauro: I'm still thinking but you have some good suggestions. Just a heads up: you have to fail a Wisdom Dc5 check to be subject to a mishap.
Turin 04-05-06, 11:46 AM	Look at a few examples if you don't think this is a problem.<snip> Hm, that's pretty bad and I guess I didn't realize just how explotive it'd become. I'll concede the point. Current pitlords just say the scroll is wasted, when infact a misshap should take place in addition to the wasted spell. Since the effects are wildly different in the SRD, I suggested a random table to govern which one takes place... The SRD leaves it up to the GM to decide what effect happens. Perhaps we should leave it up to a random table so that there are no complaints about unfair pitlording.I wasn't aware that pitlords were ignoring this rule... I certainly wouldn't have if it'd come up in a fight I was pitlording! But yeah, it seems like we need to have some way of determining the results more consistently and fairly. Otherwise you end up with players complaining in the same way they complain about "creative" delay penalties. Still, I don't think this issue is really related to the expendibles problem, as I suspect people will use scrolls regardless. Argue about 10 or 20 slots all you want. You're right that if you limit it to 20, then you can still have 120 spells. That's what the money limitation is for. You'll neve be able to afford 120 spells and keep them all under your money limit.Then why have the "slot" limit if the money limit is really the thing that's governing the solution for 90% of characters? The encumbrance suggestion isn't a bad one, though.
barrel_master 04-05-06, 11:48 AM	I would favor to deviate as little from the rules as possible it is already a substantial amount of rules and house rules for newcomers and some of the suggestions agggravate this. from all the options I favor the belt slots the most with 10 slots at higher levels gladiators can buy more useful things like the efficient quiver or similar things. I concur that creating a net of rules should be avoided. And, in part, for that reason, I'd like to see expendables prices simply increased... it'll all regulate itself in the end, in fact, I'd argue that it's all being regulated right now with the expensive items and all.
Zevox 04-05-06, 01:29 PM	To Review: 1:A limit on total expendibles gp value appears to be something you and I both like. ECL2x50gp is a good place to start. Sounds agreeable to me, though I'm not quite sure on the exact formula. ECL2x50 gp sounds a bit restricting. At ECL 3 that means you get 450 gp worth of expendibles. I've had plenty of ECL 3 characters with more than that whom no one would accuse of overrusing expendibles (example: my Druid Destra Stormwind had a scroll worth twice that from creation [3x Barkskin, 3x Resist Energy, all CL 3rd] in addition to a two other scrolls with 6 uses of CL 1 produce flame and 5 of CL 1 cure light wounds [respectively] and a couple of potions of shield of faith - is that unreasonable for an ECL 3 character do you think?). On the other hand if we increase it the number becomes a bit high at upper levels. 2:A limit on total number of battle ready expibles is also something we both advocate. Ten or twenty slots have both been proposed. I favor 20. This is my favorite of the suggestions. It makes it much harder to use a mass-expendible character like the Harvester or Barthleby while leaving the low-expendible characters relatively unaffected, which is in my opinion just what we should be shooting for - fix the problem without punishing the innocent in the process. 3:Create a standard random table of scroll mishaps to use in the CoCo when a scroll CL check is failed. Why not just use the one that already exists? I wasn't aware this was being ignored honestly, I simply thought it hadn't happened because the DC 5 wisdom check to avoid mishaps when you failed the CL/ML check was so easy to make (maybe we could consider removing that to make failing the CL/ML check more dangerous?). 4:Limit the CL of avalible scrolls/stones (potions and tattoos are expensive enough that they should be exempt IMHO) to be character's CL+2. This gives slightly enhanced durrations and other level dependant effects as well as access to slightly more powerfull spells/power from the next level up. But it is not as open as what we have now. For example Harvester can still buy ML3 vigor and expansion stones, but not dissolving weapon (ML4 minimum) or inertial barrier. Also Barthleby cannot buy CL7 arcane polymorph scrolls untill he has arcane CL5 (won't happen till he is ECL11 if he stays cleric all the way). But he can easily buy any CL9 divine scroll he may want and can afford in his expendibles budget. This too sounds reasonable to me. It limits the usefulness of dipping into a casting/manifesting class without removing it entirely. Provided of course we come up with a working definition of what scrolls/stones someone with UMD or UPD can purchase. I think we should do all 4. The changes will only effect a particular class of characters. Namely those with far too many scrolls and stones. Melee characters do not use many expendibles, so the slot and GP limits are unlikely to effect there equipment lists. I agree for the most part, but please do see my comment on the proposed formula for limiting the value of expendibles a character can have. I'm interested to see what the opinion on that one is, since I don't think that the character I mentioned could be described as using too many expendibles even though she would be affected by such a limitation. Zevox
Usurpator 04-05-06, 01:48 PM	What is it with Expendables? Expendables are used a lot in the CoCo. Now that is not is bad in and of itself. Mithril armor, stat boost items and deep crystal composite strength bows are used a lot in the CoCo too. But how come we don't seem mobs complaining about expendables and not about mithril armor? 1. We compare CoCo with regular D&D games In a normal D&D game expendables generally suck. Apart from the occasional wand of cure light wounds, I rarely see people buying expendables. Sure, they use what they find, but rarely buy anything. They generally perceive the value for money of most expendables is simply too low to warrant buying them. Why doesn't a character buy more expendables? 1. You have plenty of spells left and don't need to use expendables 2. You have a party member who can provide the same service better and cheaper 3. You wait until that one big fight when you really need to use it to win In the CoCo, 1. usually isn't true, the 1/3 rule makes spells very scarce, and thus expendables more attractive. In the CoCo you don't have any other party members to rely upon. You have to provide your own protection, your own healing, your own mobility boosts. This also makes expendables more attractive. The fights in the CoCo are *much* harder than most fights in a regular game. In effect, almost every fight is a big finale, and a fight where every additional +2 AC might turn the tide. Less and tougher fights per level make expendables more attractive. 2. CoCo Fight Rules make it hard to counter expendable use Due to the delay rule you cannot flee and outlast buffs. You cannot flee to 'fight another day' when you see your opponent powering up with expendables. You cannot properly react to a particular situation brought about by smart use of expendables because you have to prewrite your tactics and lots of expendables makes prewriting tactics difficult, because you cannot possible write a contingency for every occurence. This makes expendables more attractive. 3. In CoCo you know your opponent in advance In regular games you don't exactly know your opponent's AC, hp. saves etc. In CoCo you do. This gives you the advantage that you can focus on your opponent's weaknesses. Since each opponent has different weaknesses, it helps tremendously if you have a store of fairly cheap items available 'just in case you need it'. This also makes expendables more attractive. What to do with expendables? For a large part we should accept that expendables play a bigger role than they do in normal games. The way the CoCo is setup makes it so. Just because normal D&D rewards specialization and teamwork to shore up each others weaknesses, CoCo rewards diversivication and self-reliance, thus the popularity of Clerics with the Magic domain. Trying to limit expendable use of CoCo too severly is inherently self-defeating. You might as well nerf grappling rules because grappling is so popular here. Grappling is popular in the CoCo not because it is a powerful game mechanism, but just because good grapple targets are so plentiful here (much more than in a regular game), and you usually have to deal with only one powerful opponent. A blanket restriction of expendables is not something I would support, and would not help the worst cases anyway. Barhleby primary advantage is not expendables, it comes from alter self and polymorph being overpowered, especially when you are allowed to be an outsider. But isn't that why we are here in the CoCo, to look for overpowering combinations. The Harvester is not just winning because of expendables, he is winning because of smart tactics, making use of regular D&D loopholes, expendables, custom items, allies & grappling. While I support a 'belt slot' idea (with 6 expendables on your belt max., possibly together with two weapons) it does not 'solve' anything. Barthelby will just get a haversack and pull out scrolls just as easily if he needs to. I think loading up your powerstoring flail with a 5d6 dissipating touch for 50 gp. is way overpowered too, but hey, its smart use of existing rules. I'll cry when everyone walks around with said flail, but not before that. I still see plenty of character diversity here, and expendables are here to stay. A potion of protection from evil for a fighter is just neccessary equipment in this enviroment, your regular D&D builds will just not do as well here, the CoCo core setup is just to different from a regular game.
Usurpator 04-05-06, 02:00 PM	Sounds agreeable to me, though I'm not quite sure on the exact formula. ECL2x50 gp sounds a bit restricting. I am against anything requiring a lot more bookkeeping, also this. Besides, it isn't said that this will actually help. It makes it much harder to use a mass-expendible character like the Harvester or Barthleby while leaving the low-expendible characters relatively unaffected, which is in my opinion just what we should be shooting for - fix the problem without punishing the innocent in the process. I can tell you with confidence that a limit of 20 would not seriously hamper either Barthelby or Harvester. It would make their tactics somewhat more predictable, since they would solely stick to the 'power' expendables (vigor, alter self, invisiblity, fly, etc. etc.). The power expendables make the biggest difference, not the amount. The whole limiting to some artificial CL and making allowances for UMD seems weird to me. Diversity and level-dipping for limited advantages is core to CoCo. People take one level of ranger for a wand of cure light wounds, one level of barbarian for rage and movement, etc. etc. You are trying to counteract a core principle of the CoCo by having difficulty with scrolls. I think we should be careful before going this way. Obviously certain things are extraordinary powerful in the CoCo, but I just as soon forbid Alter Self, Polymorph or Pixies and Ghosts in the CoCo as limiting multi-class expendables users.
Ariel23 04-05-06, 03:18 PM	I know this post is long, but I am very passionate about this topic. I have been disappointed since my first fight in CoCo at the excessive reliance on expendables. I very rarely get to test a character "build" because I don't get beat by builds half the time. I made a C/E character with enchantment/charm specialization for the express purpose of making people use all their expendables in a fight. Maybe I should go back to playing her again. It doesn't need to work every time to have a major impact on the expendable economy. If you get 1 person per league to do the same, the market will correct itself in a hurry. I've also quit buying expendables of any kind (including healing). To begin my tirade, I need a clarification: What exactly is it we are trying to get rid of? 1) Are we talking about limiting how much you can have on your sheet or how much you can bring into the arena in one fight? I personally don't care if you own 500 scrolls and 50 potions, I only care about how many you use when you fight me. The only way that owning 100 scrolls affects me is it makes it hard for me to write my tactics (whereas looking at Spells Known is not difficult). 2) Are we worried about the impossibility of writing tactics against someone with 100 expendables? A 20 use belt won't solve that. That means I only have to prepare for 1x1023 possibilities instead of 1x1035. Having 100 scrolls is like having Limited Wish prepared 10 times...how do you prepare for that. 3) Almost no limitation we place will eliminate Invisibility + Fly or Bulls Strength + Enlarge, except maybe at ECL 3 or 4. So are we only talking about abusive characters/situations in the ECL 7+ leagues? The problem there is the amount of money those characters earn per fight as much as anything. I think the belt should be ECL x2 slots. A single CL 3 expendable can be outcome-changing in the low leagues. "Limiting" it to 20 would do nothing at ECL 3-6. I mean that literally. 4) Or is it just scrolls and powerstones (esp crafted ones)? I'm not sure that limiting a character to 1 Potion of Invisiblity is the same as limiting them to 4 self-crafted Scrolls of Invisibility (both 300 gp). 5) Or is it just the Magic domain? Get rid of it. Make a new special ability for it. Problem solved. I don't see how any of the proposed solutions would fix the imbalance in power level of a cleric/wiz/sorc with scribe scroll and the Magic domain. At the very least, limit a Magic domain character to CL/2 for wiz spells no matter what we do (not CL/2 +2 or ECL, etc.) 6) Is it multi-classed characters gaining access to a large amount of expendables at an unfairly high CL/ML? Why not limit items to CL+2 or ECL, whichever is worse? Your Ftr8/Cl1 can still use CL 3 scrolls, but not CL 9. Some brainstorming on limiting expendables used in a fight: -------------------------------------------- All characters can use a number of expendables = ECL independent of CL/ML of the item. These may be drawn from any source. 5 x Potion of CLW = 5 uses 5 x Scroll of Fireball CL 10 = 5 uses Expendables would each be limited to ECL or CL+2 or whatever we decide. Self-crafted expendables would count as 1/2. 10x brewed potions or scribed scrolls = 5 uses Charged items (i.e., wands and dorjes) would count as 1/2 (Self-crafted wands as 1/4). -------------------------------------------- Or perhaps you get an "Expendable Penalty" like the Allies penalty. Total CL(ML) of expendables used divided by ECL x 10% penalty. Potion of Invis + Bulls strength at ECL 3 = 20% penalty. I don't see how that is any more fair than bringing in a Light Warhorse. Self-crafted items would count as half. -------------------------------------------- Only items with spells/power that you have prepared (wiz/cl) or on your list (sorc, psionic classes) gain the 1/2 discount. Bringing in expendables which you yourself can not personally cast/manifest in the fight counts against you more heavily than expendables that duplicate an exisiting ability that your opponent is already preparing for. -------------------------------------------- "Expendables allowed per fight" would have to be increased for Hunter, FFA, etc. +50% per opponent, or something. -------------------------------------------- Make a rule that says we can ready to shoot/attack any expendable held by a character. It works at range and in melee it draws no AoO. This rule does not apply to permanent magic items. Fire & Acid automatically destroy scrolls. Force and Sonic automatically destroy potion vials. I don't know how you break a stone or tattoo, but that would do for a start. * * * * * * * * * * * I concur that creating a net of rules should be avoided. And, in part, for that reason, I'd like to see expendables prices simply increased... it'll all regulate itself in the end, in fact, I'd argue that it's all being regulated right now with the expensive items and all.All expendables cost double listed price. That would have a tremendous impact on everything except Scribed Scrolls, in which case it would have a moderate impact. It would not be overly cumbersome. Perhaps even at x2 cost we wouldn't need to limit CL/ML of items. A 3rd level Fly scroll would be 5x3x2x25 = 750 gp. A 10d6 Fireball would be 1500 (or Dispel Magic CL 10 to get rid of some Permanencies). @SauroGrenom: I'm opposed to adding a table for scroll mishaps unless there is a table for it in the SRD that I'm missing (or core book). It is way too much complication, it is not intuitive (you can't figure it out on your own, you must read the rule each time to enforce the rule), and the randomness is dangerous. Modifying existing house rules is a lot easier on everyone than adding new ones. Of course we can add a new one if we have to, but it should be avoided if it can be done within the existing CoCo rules. What is an expendable? There are things that are expended (i.e., crossed off) but not expendables. I don't know what the definition of expendables is, but I guess it is any item which temporarily stores the ability to create or simulate a spell/power or effect. Caltrops and arrows are definitely not. Are Tanglefoot Bags or Alchemists Fire? If we heavily restrict/prohibit expendables, these are a couple results I can think of, in addition to building more "pure" characters: People might have to PL more so they can buy custom 1/day items. Or else we might see an increase in Craft: Alchemy. Increase in Craft feats. More emphasis on Gold. Lots of Prof/Craft and some new Mavens...?
barrel_master 04-05-06, 03:19 PM	I agree with pretty much most of the stuff Usurpator said above. Expendable use is a symptom of our basic arena rules and in my opinion isn't too much of a detriment to the arena.
SauroGrenom 04-05-06, 03:30 PM	Usurpator, I agree that the major problem is that there are a few very powerfull combinations are further enhanced in the CoCo but not in a normal game. Grappling is a good example. However you say that "...your regular D&D builds will just not do as well here, the CoCo core setup is just to different from a regular game." The point I'm making is that there are a couple characters who use a particular class ability (the Magic Domain) and who are so fantasticially versatile and powerfull that they are nearly undefeatable in the Arena at there ECL. This is against all other "optimized" CoCo characters at there level. Pure grapple builds are defeated all the time even though they are often fairly sucessfull. Rebreg was my attempt at it, Ivangar is another that is out right now. Neither have perfect records and there are clearly character builds that easily defeat grapple tactics. I presonally don't have a problem with the Alter Self apell or even the polymorph spell. Rather my problem is with a cleric who casts polymorph at the same level as the single classed wizards can do it. If and only if you have unfettered access to arcane scrolls does it happen that clerics with the magic domain are equally powerfull arcane casters as pure wizards at the same level. The cleric is already an extremely powerfull class, but with unlimited arcane spell casting it is too much. I would say too much even for the CoCo. The central issue is that the magic domain along with ability to buy any desired scroll, provides a degree of flexibility that is unmatched by any other class combinations or abilities at the same level. No cleric will go Thaumaturg if they can just take the magic domain. Access to arcane and divine spell casting power at your ECL without multiclassing is given by no other class. In a world where you only had a few arcane scrolls it's not nearly a huge advantage. But in the environment of the CoCo the Magic Domain is a broaken domain. Broaken like the Gate spell. Also it is entirely acceptable in everyone's mind to allow fighters to have potions of protection from evil. What I'm saying is that scrolls and stones only should be limited to being the CL+2 of the character not the ECL of the character as it currently is. The slots idea makes sense, but you are right it does not solve the problem. The budget idea is an artificial limitiation, but it will limit high level scrolls especially. Your post suggests that you don't think anything should be changed and that there is no problem. I dissagree for all the reasons I mentioned in previous posts. Allies and especially advanced creatures are far too powerfull in the arena. Often they are more powerfull than the characters they "Follow". Classes that allow access to scrolls and stones are also extremely powerfull if you are allowed to buy all the scrolls and stones you want. The original intent of the 1/3rd rule was to limit casters who fling all there spells in one encounter. All that has happened is that casters bring along 3 times the number of scrolls to wield nearly the same or even higher casting power. Obviously the fix isn't complete. I was thinking about the imprint stone feat and why it's never been used. It's basicially because you still need to have the power to imprint the stone. Stones and scrolls are often used to give you access to spells you do not normally have access to. So making stones for powers you know is not much of an advantage and the feat will usually be spent gaining more usefull abilities.
Usurpator 04-05-06, 04:23 PM	Ariel23, I like your proposal (at least part of it). Increasing expendables price to twice the normal amount would roughly counteract the fact that character get half as many fight here than in a regular game. This would still allow casters etc. access to scrolls to supplement their spellcasting, only now the cost is more balanced. And true casters can earn back some many by crafting later in their career anyway. Increasing the price of expendables is also fairly simple in bookkeeping. I don't think we need any artificial limit on what you can use with this cost increase (and as I said, I think expendables have their place in the arena, they are just as much a part of a character build as any magic item, no need to banish them). As for Sauro's biggest complaint: just so no to the Magic domain, that is the simplest fix for that problem.
MindWandererB 04-05-06, 04:28 PM	I hate to hijack the thread to change topics, but something came to my attention that, in my mind, needs addressing somewhat urgently. It's a Guild thing, and it's not critical right this very minute, but it will be critical soon, i.e. as soon as PSI finishes their Espionage Headquarters. If you don't care at this time, leave the following sblock where it is. The problem I see is with the Covert Operation "Plant Corrupt Official." If successful, the only way to remedy it is with another Covert Operation. This could be a severe problem. If a guild with poor stealth skills is affected by this, they are basically stuck losing 25% of their total income every week. This problem is not fixed with countermeasures. You can make it as hard as you like for a guild to plant a corrupt official, but once it happens, you might as well close up shop for the whole guild permanently. Even if you build an Espionage Headquarters, you still have to have a character capable of getting past the other guild's defenses, which will always at least require Hide and Move Silently, and possibly involve other skills (Search and Disable Device for traps), combat ability (for a dungeon), and/or high Int (for a labyrinth). If your guild isn't built for those abilities and has no member that can perform the operation, it is severely crippled until such time as it does have such a member. As it stands, Plant Corrupt Official is the only bad thing that can happen to a guild that cannot be solved with strategic use of guild funds. Without a change, every guild would have to have at least one Covert Operation-focused character in order to survive--otherwise, all it takes is two or three--or worse, four--other guilds to plant officials in it, and it will stop being a competitive guild permanently. PSI is already planning on doing this, and I imagine EYE and EHTC will follow when they can, as covert operations are right up their respective alleys. TAO has, at the moment, exactly one character that might be able to perform covert ops with a reasonable chance of success, and WAR has two. That means that CEF and TLT will eventually, given enough time, get completely shut down, with 4 (or more) guilds fighting over every coin that crosses their doorstep unless they, too, acquire such a member, and build the Espionage Headquarters. Building HQ defenses will only delay the inevitable, because one successful attempt cannot be undone. If no rule is changed, I know what I have to do as Guildmaster of TLT. I have to create a new character who is specifically geared toward the required skills, and have him sit idle in a guild room and haul him out only to perform counterespionage. This is not the way the guild system is supposed to work, but it is the only viable option under the current rules. I am already trying to design a character with exactly this in mind, and I've already come up with a few ideas to get Hide and Move Silently through the roof while still (hopefully) being able to fight a random Dungeon monster. I don't want to have to use this solution, since it is basically metagaming my dual roles as player and guildmaster, but right now it's the only choice if I want TLT to survive. Thanks for your time.
Pittbull 04-05-06, 05:28 PM	Whow, what a discussion! Sorry, that Harvey and Barth cause so much bad feelings. I like the idea of class-level+2 for expendables and will accept a ban of the magic-domain too (if we are allowed to take anther one). Yes, it's too powerful! The only matches Barthleby has lost were because of my stupidness and incredible dice-rolls. If you write avarage tactics, you are almost invincable. When I made Barthleby I was pretty aware of this, but wanted to give him a go. He won't rely on scrolls on higher levels anymore, since he'll be able to change his form via PaO too (for a permanent duration). I don't like the ideas of increasing the price for expendables, it'll hit the non-casters more than you like, since nobody will afford a potion of fly for 1500gp for example.
barrel_master 04-05-06, 05:33 PM	Whow, what a discussion! Sorry, that Harvey and Barth cause so much bad feelings. I like the idea of class-level+2 for expendables and will accept a ban of the magic-domain too (if we are allowed to take anther one). Yes, it's too powerful! The only matches Barthleby has lost were because of my stupidness and incredible dice-rolls. If you write avarage tactics, you are almost invincable. When I made Barthleby I was pretty aware of this, but wanted to give him a go. He won't rely on scrolls on higher levels anymore, since he'll be able to change his form via PaO too (for a permanent duration). I don't like the ideas of increasing the price for expendables, it'll hit the non-casters more than you like, since nobody will afford a potion of fly for 1500gp for example. I belive PaO was banned here non?
lonewolf 04-05-06, 05:41 PM	I belive PaO was banned here non? AFAIK only Gate is banned.
Zevox 04-05-06, 06:21 PM	I don't like the ideas of increasing the price for expendables, it'll hit the non-casters more than you like, since nobody will afford a potion of fly for 1500gp for example. I definitely agree with that observation. Doubling the price of potions and tattoos has a lot more impact than those scrolls and stones - potions of Cure Light Wounds or Protection from Evil/Good/etc cost 100 gp a piece? Potions of Bull's Strength or Cat's Grace at 600 gp a piece? Tattoos of Vigor or Force Screen 200 gp each? Not a good counter in my opinion, since it hits those that aren't overusing expendibles as well, and hard at that. We could double just scrolls/stones, but then theres little difference between potions and scrolls and only a significant difference between tattoos and stones when the power is personal range, so that's not a good idea either I'd say. As for the Magic Domain, I agree that if thats the chief contributor to the problem, ban it (and of course let its users pick a new one in its place). Clerics are plenty powerful enough already, if the Magic Domain makes them that much more powerful in the arena conditions, why not just get rid of it rather than trying to change those conditions to fit it (particularly when changing those conditions could have a negative effect on those who aren't causing a problem with this)? And as an aside, could someone explain to this abbreviation-challenged player what PaO stands for? :confused: Zevox
lonewolf 04-05-06, 06:34 PM	And as an aside, could someone explain to this abbreviation-challenged player what PaO stands for? :confused: Zevox Polymorph any Object
NiQil 04-05-06, 08:51 PM	AFAIK only Gate is banned. As per the Court Decisions post, the following spells/powers have been banned so far: Gate Psychic Reformation Reincarnate Polymorph Any Object The bardic song ability Fascinate has also been banned in the arena only due to the definition of how it works...it may still be used in quests/campaigns.
Pittbull 04-06-06, 03:02 AM	I belive PaO was banned here non? When was it baned? :OMG! I've never heard of that! I need the time, the people and the reason. It's a level 8 spell, it means to be very powerfull. Barthleby's whole character-concept bases on this. Please NiQil, give a helping hand, since you are the one who runs the court-decissions. I'm really surprised now, cannot believe that I missed this discussion and the decission-making. This are pretty tough messages for me, since both domains of Barthleby seem to robbed their effectiveness.
Usurpator 04-06-06, 03:30 AM	@Pitbull I do think Polymorph any Object was banned for a reason. And if Barthelby's entire concept/power was purely based on the magic domain or use of three spells (Alter Self/Polymorph Self/Polymorph Any Object), you must certainly understand what Ariel23 meant by fighting expendables instead of character builds in the CoCo. Besides, Polymorph any Object is an 8th lvl spell, so shouldn't be available to Barthelby until he hits 15th lvl even if it was allowed. About your comment that nobody would buy a potion of Fly at 1500 gp., I think that is exactly the effect that Ariel23 intends. If two lvl5 fighters face each other in the arena, and one drinks a potion of Fly, while the other does not, victory will usually go to the potion drinker, purely because of the potion. Ariel23 doesn't like that idea (and more do). While I don't know if we really should solve the expendables problem, Ariel23's idea looks the the best solution (I think the problem lies primarily with combinations such as the outsider type and PaO, I hate losing to abusive rules loopholes).
Caterane 04-06-06, 05:46 AM	Here's the House Rule list including banned spells. Universal House Rules Augmented Powerstones/Tattoos: For every two manifester levels above the minimum, the power level increases by one. This directly affects the pricing of such items. It only applies to augmented stones and tattoos. Unaugmented ones use the normal formula. Example (augmented): VigorA [ML 5] = 25*5*3 = 375 gp [+25 hp] Example (unaugmented): Vigor [ML 5] = 25*5*1 = 125 gp [+5 hp] Caster level and crafting: the Caster level is not a prerequisite when crafting a magic item. Eversmoking Bottle: This item produces smoke. See DMG, p304 for Smoke effects. Gate: The Gate spell is banned in all its forms. Grappling while mounted: If you grapple someone who is mounted, you join him on the mount, or - if the mount cannot carry both of you - you are grappling your opponent adjectent to it (the mount gets an AoO unless the attacker has the Improved Grapple feat). If the mount decides to move, the rider falls off unless he wins an opposed grapple check against the attacker in which case he drags him along. Hiding: You are autospotted if you leave cover or concealment, and opponent has Line of Sight to you; while moving from cover to cover, you can remain hidden as long as you are no more than 1 foot per rank in hide away from a cover. You cannot hide within effects provided by spells or items that affect only you and give concealment or cover such as Blur, Concealing Amorpha and a Tower Shield. Psychic Reformation: This power is banned. Reincarnate: is banned.
Pittbull 04-06-06, 06:59 AM	Thanks, Cat! I can't see PaO on the list, but it's in NiQil's Court-Decissions. Since there hasn't been any use of this spell in LG-CoCo, I wonder who made this decission. It wasn't an Elder-one, I'm pretty sure. @Usurpator: Why shouldn't get Barthleby a spellcaster-service for credits when he has 9 hd and polymorphs into a Enrinye? I see nothing from rules which should prevent this, it costs credits and money. It isn't rule-breaking too, only very powerful. This isn't a loopwhole, these are the rules. Potions are crucial for non-casters to be able to defeat casters, believe me. I wouldn't raise the price. I can understand that it isn't balanced that the allready powerful cleric combines the arcane and divine spell-lists. But the a pure wizard is still almost as powerful as this cleric, we might consider to ban him too (just joking!).
NiQil 04-06-06, 07:29 AM	Thanks, Cat! I can't see PaO on the list, but it's in NiQil's Court-Decissions. Since there hasn't been any use of this spell in LG-CoCo, I wonder who made this decission. It wasn't an Elder-one, I'm pretty sure. @Usurpator: Why shouldn't get Barthleby a spellcaster-service for credits when he has 9 hd and polymorphs into a Enrinye? I see nothing from rules which should prevent this, it costs credits and money. It isn't rule-breaking too, only very powerful. This isn't a loopwhole, these are the rules. Potions are crucial for non-casters to be able to defeat casters, believe me. I wouldn't raise the price. I can understand that it isn't balanced that the allready powerful cleric combines the arcane and divine spell-lists. But the a pure wizard is still almost as powerful as this cleric, we might consider to ban him too (just joking!). If memory serves, this decision was announced by either Tellish_of_Ket or LLMC when I was serving as interim prisonlord (before I took it over full time). It was posted in one of the Tavern threads. When I get the time, I'll go back and find the post of that announcement.
Pittbull 04-06-06, 07:58 AM	Thanks lot in advance. I don't believe, that this was an official ruling, since Cat hasn't prooved it, perhaps it was only ToK's or LL's opinion. I haven't noticed this so far.
Usurpator 04-06-06, 08:28 AM	Why shouldn't get Barthleby a spellcaster-service for credits when he has 9 hd and polymorphs into a Enrinye? I see nothing from rules which should prevent this, it costs credits and money. It isn't rule-breaking too, only very powerful. This isn't a loopwhole, these are the rules. Because I would not fight Barthleby if you did? Using credits to bypass rules that are meant to provide some level of balance in the CoCo is just cheesy in my opinion. Same goes for Harvester with his 'instantly trained 50+ one-trick pony fearless mind-controlled rats in free action-openable freely swappable cage, with sufficient Handle Animal skills courtesy of custom magic items gotten by credits. I think that is pushing the limits over the top, and some self-restraint would be wise in such cases. IMO Alter Self is balanced in the assumption that you can only change into humanoids. The fact that you can make a character with the outsider type and thus use a 2nd lvl spell to get perfect flight, a huge natural armor bonus or all other kinds of goodies, with the benefit of flexibility per encounter, is way, way over the top for a 2nd lvl spell. WoTC has already banned Polymorph and its ilk from some Living Campaigns and generally admit it is broken, even for non-outsider types. I am glad CoCo sticks to core rules only, or we would have an arena of the War Trolls (or things like that). If you can use it to turn into an outsider (of your choice) Polymorph it is beyond broken. The polymorph family (let alone when having the outsider type) is an obvious and well-known abuse and has little to do with good character builds or good tactics IMO. Since I think you did not meant to abuse the system in any kind or manner, but just looked in the rules for a powerful combination, if such a particular combination is soo out of balance with other options, I call it a rules loophole. It is not your fault that the rules allow it. I do think its a bit too easy, I appreciate creativity in builds more than obvious power builds. And I think we have a lot of creativity here, from what I have seen many players like to see how a particular combination works, and are not solely interested in winning. I am very impressed by the variety of builds in the CoCo. I like to encourage that. I'd rather not see a domination of min-maxed power builds that are so effective or unbeatable that the casual CoCo player feels discouraged to try an unconventional character. Clerics with the magic domain are just getting boring. It is an too obviously effective choice in the CoCo. Compare any 3rd lvl fighter with a 2nd lvl fighter/1st lvl Cleric with magic domain. If properly prepared with expendables, the last will always win. The cleric can be a better grappler, better fighter, better mobility, better ranged ability, better AC. Whatever the pure fighter's specialism, the Fighter/Cleric will beat him hands down. With Kitaya I looked at the overpoweredness of the Cleric/Magic Domain combination too. That's why I asked Cat to pair her against three ECL 3 guys at ECL 4 (almost beat three ECL 3 characters single-handedly at ECL 3 the week before that), and you know what, the three lost, the range in expendables gave Kitaya that power.
Usurpator 04-06-06, 08:35 AM	Potions are crucial for non-casters to be able to defeat casters, believe me. I wouldn't raise the price. I agree with you. I also tried to argue is that the amount of expendable use we see is a neccessary part of the CoCo (for the reasons mentioned in a previous post), and I am not convinced we should limit it even more. *But*, if popular opinion has it that the expendable use should be limited further anyway, I think doubling the prices is the best idea I have heard until now. Simple to implement, effective, and still gives people the choice if they really want to.
SauroGrenom 04-06-06, 09:51 AM	After following the discussion some more I'm inclined to agree with some of Usurpator's points. I don't think that the overall number of expendibles being used is a problem. Really only scroll use is a problem. By extention so is Powerstones. The central issue is that characters that "dip" into a casting or manifesting class (or take the Magic Domain) gain far greater power because of that 1st level in the environment of the CoCo as compared to a normal game. This is all due to the ability to buy cheap and unlimited nubers of scrolls and stones. In a typical game the dip is still a potent option in the rules, but it is fantasticially more potent in CoCo. Cat has built a great example with the Harvester to use every advantage caused by the CoCo environment. I hope he won't mind if I examine it to illustrate my point. The Harvester is ECL7 with 5 levels in Cleric taking the magic domain. The Harvester also has a single level in PsiWarrior. In all he has 6 class levels and +1 LA due to the HalfGiant race. With this he has a ML of 1 a divine CL of 5 and an arcane CL of 2. Since we limit the CL of scrolls/stones to being ECL, the highest level scrolls/stones he can have are CL7. He has no CL7 scrolls, but he does have several CL5 arcane scrolls and a few ML4 stones. Interestingly even though he is a cleric at CL5, the highest CL on a divine scroll he owns is CL3. In effect this character is walking around with the manifesting power of a 4th level psiwarrior, and the casting power of a 5th level wizard and the casting power of a 5th level cleric. All packed into a tight ECL7 package. If you add up his casting power from various classes and tried to reproduce that with a multiclassed character using no expendibles, you'd be ECL14. No big supprise that every opponent at ECL7 is unable to handle the diversity of attacks and powers used against him. They are over matched by 2x there ECL. Especially consider what a ECL7 BAB+1 class would do against this character? They cannot compete with 14 levels of casting power and they loose every time. The battles aren't even close. I'm inclined to agree that most of the limits being suggested will complicate the arena rules. Also I'm inclined to say that use of potions is not a tremendous problem. Every fighter should be able to carry protection from alignment potions. The enlarge person/bulls strength combintion is potent, but it looses battles with reasonable frequency. That IMHO is balanced. Tactics can be written to counter it. How do you write tactics to counter a character with 14 levels of casting power when you're a measly ECL7? The Belt Slot idea appeals to me because it makes sense. You shouldn't be able to carry around 50 CL1 scrolls ECL3 and get to it easily. It probably won't have a huge effect on limiting expendibles unless the number of "Slots" is very low. And if the number of slots is low it will hurt those who need potions to counter spells (SoF and protect from___ and oil of magic weapon and fly and so on). This idea isn't perfect. The money limitation hits those who have lots of expendibles or very high level expendibles. It's also a bit more complicated with the fomula and all. Again it's not a perfect solution all by its self. The CL limit is perhaps the simplest one and it makes sure that the "dip" into a class doesn't automaticially grant 5 or more levels of casting/manifesting power. If you choose CL+2 then you get just 3. That's still a signifigant boost in power for multiclassing a single level. Just limited a bit. I'm leaning toward this last. It's easy to limit the CL of what you can buy. No accounting involved, and it still allows for dipping into a class to be beneficial. I recall when the rule to limit the CL of expendibles to ECL was done, that very few gladiators were effected by this and even then it was minor. Most notibly the gladiators that rely heavily on expendibles were not effected much. The CL limit idea is realy just a refinement of that previous rule, not a new rule.
Pittbull 04-06-06, 10:20 AM	Because I would not fight Barthleby if you did? Using credits to bypass rules that are meant to provide some level of balance in the CoCo is just cheesy in my opinion. OK, this is a point, the use of credits is unfair. But I think using polymorph any object, when you are able to cast it (in Barth case:Ecl16:15cleric+1LA), isn't broken. So I see no reason, to forbid that. I really like to see my cleric in his angelic form. BTW, I believe my psionic build Willbrock will be as powerfull as Barthleby, not speaking of Uhmentarymster or druids with shapechange. I really like the proposal of classlevel+2 CL or ML for scrolls/stones or the tougher version of only your class level. For example: Barthleby (classlevel=scroll-casterlevel): divine caster level 7, for arcane scrolls and wands it is 3. There would be no polymorph anymore and no alter self until ECL7. I think this is fair! Plus we get rid off the builds: +1 wiz for see invis. We have allready a rule that restricts the use of higher-level expandables. A fly-potion is CL5, so you cannot use them before ECL5. I think we should limit the access of expendables with the rule noted above and not with an artificial higher price.
Macbrea 04-06-06, 10:44 AM	I really like the proposal of classlevel+2 CL or ML for scrolls/stones or the tougher version of only your class level. I have a silly question for you guys while your doing this. I will use Marcus' as an example: Classes: Rogue 5/Assassin 1 (ECL 6) +09 Use Magic Device [7 Rogue +2 Cha][7 Ranks] [+2 vs Scrolls] Does this mean I would be limited to 1st level scrolls only on the assassin's list? You need to to make a decision about what your doing for those individuals with UMD and UPD. They very valid builds in a real campaign. I have played more then one rogue that had UMD.
SoulLord 04-06-06, 11:31 AM	well the only classes that have use magic device are experts, rogues, bards and assasains I would allow them to buy the scroll equal to the classes that have umd as a class skill +2 like regular casters as proposed. so for example your rogue 1 ranger 5 assasain 1 would be able to buy (+1 rogue +1 assasain = 2 ) [2+2= cl 4 ] either 1st or 2nd level scrolls. Still I like the belt slot idea better since if this is approved it won't be long before we start hearing nerf wizards, wizards are too powerful. *****edit** or in the case of Classes: Rogue 5/Assassin 1 (ECL 6) it would be 6+2 = 8 that is if it is CL+2 if it's only CL then it would be 2 in the first example and 6 in the second
Ravashack 04-06-06, 11:35 AM	I thought I'd chime in a short bit on the expendable issue. For the powerstone/scroll department, I agree with Macbrea that you need to consider the Use Magic/Psionic Device skills. If you limit the usage of them to the character's normal CL/ML, you need to throw in an exception for those skills. For expendables in a fight overall however, I think people should only have up to 4 miscellaneous items readily available to draw, use or tap without any sort of penalty other than default melee/ranged weaponry, and that these have to be so marked on the character sheet. No scaling by ECL. Any other items used require a standard action of searching through an appropriate container (or in the case of tattoos, a standard action to mentally maneuver the desired tattoo into position onto exposed skin for tapping). If you want to use a ton of expendables that's fine, but you should have a penalty of taking a much longer time getting what you want done. In addition, any 10 round delay primarily caused by buffing should always trigger a Dispel Psionics targeted on the violator with a ML equal to the character's ECL and appropriately augmented. As Ariel23 has pointed out, we're supposed to be fighting the builds, not fighting your expendable effects. That's all I can think of for now...
Usurpator 04-06-06, 11:43 AM	OK, this is a point, the use of credits is unfair. But I think using polymorph any object, when you are able to cast it (in Barth case:Ecl16:15cleric+1LA), isn't broken. So I see no reason, to forbid that. I really like to see my cleric in his angelic form. BTW, I believe my psionic build Willbrock will be as powerfull as Barthleby, not speaking of Uhmentarymster or druids with shapechange. I hate jumping the gun, so Polymorph any Object is perfectly acceptable to me until it really proves otherwise. I suspect that once at ECL 16, we get very weird, skewed battles, and the most interesting battles will take place in the lower levels. But I have been active for about 8 months now, and my highest character is ECL 7, so that's more than a year away for me. I really like the proposal of classlevel+2 CL or ML for scrolls/stones or the tougher version of only your class level. Your suggestion is also a fairly easy to implement, but I don't know if it will have the intended effect. It will certainly affect Barthelby, but I'm not looking for a Barthelby-nerf. But as rules go, I like it.
Usurpator 04-06-06, 11:49 AM	I recall when the rule to limit the CL of expendibles to ECL was done, that very few gladiators were effected by this and even then it was minor. Most notibly the gladiators that rely heavily on expendibles were not effected much. The CL limit idea is realy just a refinement of that previous rule, not a new rule. Well, the rule was instated when the 'problem gladiators' had already past the ECL where it would seriously affect them. :) Kitaya needs another level to regain user of her Fly scroll, and Maeril bought an 4th lvl shocking grasp scroll instead of a 5th, that was how my characters were affected.
Usurpator 04-06-06, 11:57 AM	For expendables in a fight overall however, I think people should only have up to 4 miscellaneous items readily available to draw, use or tap without any sort of penalty other than default melee/ranged weaponry, I like a number of six 'belts slots', of which up to two slots can hold weapons. More weapons or miscellaneous equipment takes longer than the standard time to retrieve. I don't like people running around with a greatsword, large bow, lance, a silver mace and a host of other assorted items all hanging from their belt as well. Assuming that an expendable user can put up to 6 powers/spells on a single stone/scroll, that would still mean a maximum of 36 available powers divided among all belt slots. And with many stone/scroll users choosing to evade (Fly/Invisible) first and then buff, they should have a lot of time to sort things out. It will make things harder on Pitlords, because they have the verify what spell is scribed on what scroll, and where each scroll is put back to. Additionally, what can a character hold in his hand? One of my previous tactics was to hold expended powerstones in hand and drop them together later to not give away invisibility. Is that still possible?
Caterane 04-06-06, 01:43 PM	Doubling the price for expendables is a bad idea. It will confuse newcomers and others alike. I can already see the legion of prisoners. Polymorph is indeed broken, and you don't even need non-core sources. The diversity it grants with just the Monster Manual is too much. In my group we have elegantly solved it in that you must have seen the monster first-hand which is in line with what the spell needs and not necessarily a house rule. Since this cannot be done like that in the coco, I have an alternative to that. What if you need the appropriate knowledge for that monster, like arcana for magical beasts? The value must be as high as the HD you want to polymorph in. That limits the amount of choices significantly. Access to the polymorph spell always gave me headaches when I had to write tactics against. Is he going Behir and grapple/swallow me? Or does he use the avoral form and out-maneuver me? Or a tiny hider perhaps? Burrow? Headache!
MindWandererB 04-06-06, 02:23 PM	Without an outright ban of Polymorph and all its derivatives (which is what WotC recommends these days), Cat's idea sounds moderately good. The downside: a quick rebuild of most Polymorphing characters will circumvent the problem entirely. Knowledge (arcana) will permit the ever-popular Remorhaz, Knowledge (the planes) will permit Avorals and ice Mephits, and Knowledge (local) would get you Troglodytes. And does anyone ever use anything else? There is one problem: quests. I think it makes no sense that you couldn't Polymorph into something you've encountered on a quest. Which means that you could go on a quest with the goal of encountering the target creature. Perhaps not such a bad idea: anyone with Polymorph in their repertoire could include a short section about what their available forms are, something like this: Available Polymorph forms: Magical Beasts and Dragons up to 10 HD (Knowledge (arcana)), Remorhaz (Quest), Avoral (Quest) Regarding belt slots: as several people have mentioned and are being ignored, what about a Handy Haversack? Expendable-heavy characters will have no problem slapping down 2000 gp for virtually unlimited easy-access storage. Limiting "belt slots" is a minor handicap at best, and a nod to realism rather than balance.
Zevox 04-06-06, 02:48 PM	Okay, wait a second - why are we now talking about restricting slots not just for expendibles, but for weapons too?? Aren't there plenty of easy-to-reach spaces you can store a weapon without resorting to your belt? For example, I could see someone having: Greatsword: Sheath on left hip/belt. Longsword: Sheath on right hip/belt. Lance: Sheath/casing on back. Bow: Slung across shoulders (perhaps two if only one or no other weapons were on your back - one for each shoulder). Knife/Kukri/Handaxe/wand/ect: Stuck in boot (or maybe in a tiny sheath on the side of your boot) or strapped to forearm (again small sheath), perhaps several of them. I really don't think theres any need to consider extending the "belt slots" suggestion to weapons as well. It can easily be worked out logically and doesn't cause any real problems in the arena, so why limit it? Anyway, a query for Ravashack - why specifically four as the number of available slots? Thats a terribly small number. I know a scroll/stone user can put six spells/powers into each of those slots, but consider what that does to someone who wants to use a few different potions - each of those slots is literally one use for them. If a fighter or monk wants to have a potion of fly (for dealing with flying spellcasters), a potion of shield of faith (or two, one as a backup since the first lasts merely 10 rounds), and several cure light wounds potions (for healing since they can't use anything else), is that really unreasonable to allow? Personally, that type of thing is why I like the 10 or 20 slot suggestion (10 more so than 20 due to the multi-spell/power scrolls ands stones option). Also, for the belt slots, how do containers fit into it? Belt Pouches, Handy Haversacks, Bags of Holding, etc? Do we ignore them entirely, or find a way to make them work with the slot system without breaking it? I'm not sure how to deal with that one - logically, potions, stones, and scrolls should all fit into a simple, cheap belt pouch, though not in large numbers. We could restrict that to just potions, which is an idea I like (say a belt pouch can hold 4 or 5 potions in one belt slot?), but then you lose the logic (since at the least powerstones are as small as potions, if not scrolls). And of course the Handy Haversack would bypass this idea entirely unless we either come up with some house rule as its use or just outright say it doesn't work with the belt slot idea. As for the CL+2 suggestion, I like it, but as pointed out before we need some way to incorporate UMD/UPD into it. Rogues and Experts have no CL, and Bards and Assassins probably are more interested in activating non-Bard/Assassin spells with it, since they can already use those with a CL check if necessary, and often automatically instead. It was suggested before that we use the total UMD/UPD value divided by 2 for this - I think that would work personally. Zevox
Caterane 04-06-06, 02:57 PM	@Mindwanderer: Questing for polymorph examples would negate my suggestion. We can instead come up with more sophisticated rules. Also, please show me how Barthleby or the Harvester can get the necessary ranks in knowledge arcana, planes, and local. I don't even have skill points for spellcraft or ride! As for the haversack, unless you're that strange guy from Fantastic Four, you obviously cannot just reach into a backpack on your back but have to unbuckle it first, THEN it's a move action to retrieve (or full-round if it's not a haversack), and you still hold the backpack in hand.
Sindorin 04-06-06, 03:19 PM	For the issue of PaO, I believe that it was one reason that there is a limit to the caster level of expendables. People were using an NPC casted PaO to make themselves insanely powerful at little levels. The spell is essentially not banned, but simply unavailable to the levels we are currently playing in. I do have one question that I posted then took away, but I don't think it matters either way whether you guys no my idea or not. Would Barthleby or Harvey III, magic domain clerics, be subject to the -4 to the will save against Feeblemind since they can cast Arcane Spells? It seems fairly obvious that it would, but I wanted a second opinion because I get optimistic and then disappointed a lot.
MindWandererB 04-06-06, 04:21 PM	@Mindwanderer: Questing for polymorph examples would negate my suggestion. We can instead come up with more sophisticated rules. Also, please show me how Barthleby or the Harvester can get the necessary ranks in knowledge arcana, planes, and local. I don't even have skill points for spellcraft or ride!It wouldn't negate your suggestion, merely augment it. No reason why you can't have both. And I agree that at least using skill points would represent a cost, in some cases a difficult one. Perhaps appropriately, Knowledge ranks are easier to get for wizards than for clerics, and it's largely Magic domain clerics that we're trying to nerf here. As for the haversack, unless you're that strange guy from Fantastic Four, you obviously cannot just reach into a backpack on your back but have to unbuckle it first, THEN it's a move action to retrieve (or full-round if it's not a haversack), and you still hold the backpack in hand.You can't reach into a backpack with one hand? I'm not particularly flexible, and I can, as long as whatever I'm looking for is on top. And with the Haversack, the item you want is always on top. And once again, retrieving a stored item is not a full-round action, it's a move action that provokes AoO's. All the Haversack does for you is prevent the AoO's. I don't know where this full-round action comes from. I'll agree that it's pretty tough to dig through a backpack for a specific item while wearing it on your back, but if the thing you want is on top, it's not hard at all. Would Barthleby or Harvey III, magic domain clerics, be subject to the -4 to the will save against Feeblemind since they can cast Arcane Spells? It seems fairly obvious that it would, but I wanted a second opinion because I get optimistic and then disappointed a lot.Unfortunately, they can't cast arcane spells. They can only use arcane spell items. So the -4 on Feeblemind doesn't apply.
SoulLord 04-06-06, 04:38 PM	As for the CL+2 suggestion, I like it, but as pointed out before we need some way to incorporate UMD/UPD into it. Rogues and Experts have no CL, and Bards and Assassins probably are more interested in activating non-Bard/Assassin spells with it, since they can already use those with a CL check if necessary, and often automatically instead. It was suggested before that we use the total UMD/UPD value divided by 2 for this - I think that would work personally. Zevox Easiest way to do it is to treat each class who has UMD as a class skill as a Caster level class for the purpose of buying scrolls
barrel_master 04-06-06, 04:48 PM	Doubling the price for expendables is a bad idea. It will confuse newcomers and others alike. I can already see the legion of prisoners. I don't think this rule is any more complicated then any other one being proposed... if confusion is really an issue we should just let things be. Although some fear that fighters will be punished the most by this rule, I disagree. It's the spell casters that need these buffs the most at lower levels as they can really suck then. I would like to introduce one thing though, if we really want to change a boat load of stuff (I personally don't but if we want to) just make one rule where after a certain amount of earned gross experience (not net experience) you must be moved up a level even if you are a ECL lower. This will simulate a real campain where if you keep on using craft and your xp you'll be left beheind fighting stronger foes while your allies do okay cause they saved their xp.
MindWandererB 04-06-06, 04:53 PM	I would like to introduce one thing though, if we really want to change a boat load of stuff (I personally don't but if we want to) just make one rule where after a certain amount of earned gross experience (not net experience) you must be moved up a level even if you are a ECL lower. This will simulate a real campain where if you keep on using craft and your xp you'll be left beheind fighting stronger foes while your allies do okay cause they saved their xp.Aside from the fact that this doesn't address the issues on the table at all, it's also not true. ELs should be based on the average party level. If you have a party that consists of a level 5 fighter, a level 4 wizard who would be level 5 if he hadn't made items, a level 4 cleric in the same boat, and a level 4 rogue who died once, you should be getting EL 4 encounters. Maybe around EL 4.5. But turning your XP into GP is a perfectly legitimate method of lowering the EL of your party's encounters. Cheesy but legitimate.
barrel_master 04-06-06, 05:43 PM	Aside from the fact that this doesn't address the issues on the table at all, it's also not true. ELs should be based on the average party level. If you have a party that consists of a level 5 fighter, a level 4 wizard who would be level 5 if he hadn't made items, a level 4 cleric in the same boat, and a level 4 rogue who died once, you should be getting EL 4 encounters. Maybe around EL 4.5. But turning your XP into GP is a perfectly legitimate method of lowering the EL of your party's encounters. Cheesy but legitimate. Ummm... I think it's a psudo neat way of doing things. If you run the risk of being a lower level then your opponents then I think it will discourage mass crafting and such.
MindWandererB 04-06-06, 05:48 PM	Ummm... I think it's a psudo neat way of doing things. If you run the risk of being a lower level then your opponents then I think it will discourage mass crafting and such.Crafting isn't so much a problem--if anything, we want to encourage crafting as a legitimate way of saving money. The problem is more with purchased scrolls and stones, ones that are beyond the ability of the owner to craft. Magic domain clerics routinely using scrolls of Fly and Polymorph are the worst offenders, but other "dippers" are bad, too.
Book5 04-06-06, 06:40 PM	Artisan’s outfit 1 gp 4 lb.1 This outfit includes a shirt with buttons, a skirt or pants with a drawstring, shoes, and perhaps a cap or hat. It may also include a belt or a leather or cloth apron for carrying tools. Cleric’s vestments 5 gp 6 lb.1 These ecclesiastical clothes are for performing priestly functions, not for adventuring. Cold weather outfit 8 gp 7 lb.1 A cold weather outfit includes a wool coat, linen shirt, wool cap, heavy cloak, thick pants or skirt, and boots. This outfit grants a +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather. Courtier’s outfit 30 gp 6 lb.1 This outfit includes fancy, tailored clothes in whatever fashion happens to be the current style in the courts of the nobles. Anyone trying to influence nobles or courtiers while wearing street dress will have a hard time of it (–2 penalty on Charisma-based skill checks to influence such individuals). If you wear this outfit without jewelry (costing an additional 50 gp), you look like an out-of-place commoner. Entertainer’s outfit 3 gp 4 lb.1 This set of flashy, perhaps even gaudy, clothes is for entertaining. While the outfit looks whimsical, its practical design lets you tumble, dance, walk a tightrope, or just run (if the audience turns ugly). Explorer’s outfit 10 gp 8 lb.1 This is a full set of clothes for someone who never knows what to expect. It includes sturdy boots, leather breeches or a skirt, a belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), gloves, and a cloak. Rather than a leather skirt, a leather overtunic may be worn over a cloth skirt. The clothes have plenty of pockets (especially the cloak). The outfit also includes any extra items you might need, such as a scarf or a wide-brimmed hat. Monk’s outfit 5 gp 2 lb.1 This simple outfit includes sandals, loose breeches, and a loose shirt, and is all bound together with sashes. The outfit is designed to give you maximum mobility, and it’s made of high-quality fabric. You can hide small weapons in pockets hidden in the folds, and the sashes are strong enough to serve as short ropes. Noble’s outfit 75 gp 10 lb.1 This set of clothes is designed specifically to be expensive and to show it. Precious metals and gems are worked into the clothing. To fit into the noble crowd, every would-be noble also needs a signet ring (see Adventuring Gear, above) and jewelry (worth at least 100 gp). Peasant’s outfit 1 sp 2 lb.1 This set of clothes consists of a loose shirt and baggy breeches, or a loose shirt and skirt or overdress. Cloth wrappings are used for shoes. Royal outfit 200 gp 15 lb.1 This is just the clothing, not the royal scepter, crown, ring, and other accoutrements. Royal clothes are ostentatious, with gems, gold, silk, and fur in abundance. Scholar’s outfit 5 gp 6 lb.1 Perfect for a scholar, this outfit includes a robe, a belt, a cap, soft shoes, and possibly a cloak. Traveler’s outfit 1 gp 5 lb.1 This set of clothes consists of boots, a wool skirt or breeches, a sturdy belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), and an ample cloak with a hood. Backpack (empty) 2 gp 2 lb.1 ... Barrel (empty) 2 gp 30 lb. ... Basket (empty) 4 sp 1 lb. ... Bucket (empty) 5 sp 2 lb. ... Case, map or scroll 1 gp 1/2 lb. ... Chest (empty) 2 gp 25 lb. ... Flask (empty) 3 cp 1-1/2 lb. ... Jug, clay 3 cp 9 lb. This basic ceramic jug is fitted with a stopper and holds 1 gallon of liquid. Mug/Tankard, clay 2 cp 1 lb. ... Pot, iron 5 sp 10 lb. ... Pouch, belt (empty) 1 gp 1/2 lb.1 ... Sack (empty) 1 sp 1/2 lb.1 ... Vial, ink or potion 1 gp 1/10 lb. A vial holds 1 ounce of liquid. The stoppered container usually is no more than 1 inch wide and 3 inches high. Spell component pouch 5 gp 2 lb. ... Saddlebags 4 gp 8 lb. A pack saddle holds gear and supplies, but not a rider. It holds as much gear as the mount can carry. Mah "Handibles" ... ya know yur hands/mandibles :teach: Here we have our containers. NiQiL brought up that dratted faq so I am have retrieved it for refrence as well. How long does it take to draw a projectile weapon? The Player’s Handbook says that drawing a weapon is a move action. Is this limited to weapons that are “drawn” from a sheath or scabbard, or to any weapon on the creature’s person that is not in a sealed container? The game rules do not differentiate between melee, thrown, or projectile weapons as far as defining the action required to draw them. A longsword, dagger, greataxe, or longbow each require a move action to draw, or they can be drawn for free as part of a regular move by a character with a base attack bonus of +1 or greater. If a weapon is stored in a container (such as a dagger in a backpack, or a short bow in a bag of holding), then it is retrieved as if it were a stored item (a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity). Does drawing a wand from a wand sheath provoke attacks of opportunity or can I draw it as if it were a weapon? If I have Quick Draw can I draw a wand as a free action? As described on page 142 of the Player’s Handbook, the “draw a weapon” action also applies to weaponlike objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. (The Sage would suggest that magic rods and staffs also fall into this category.) Thus, drawing a wand doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, and a character with Quick Draw could draw one as a free action. Wands and rods (but not staffs) also fall into the category of “light or one-handed weapons” for the purpose of drawing them in conjunction with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (see page 142 of the Player’s Handbook). In a previous column, the Sage ruled that switching weapons from one hand to the other should take a move action. My group and I thought that seemed pretty long, since it’s only a free action to drop something. Why can’t you just drop it into your other hand? It’s not really true that switching weapons from one hand to another is just like dropping a weapon. When you drop a weapon, you’re releasing it and letting it drop to the ground, with no real guidance (or attention) as to exactly where it lands. Switching a weapon from one hand to another is certainly more complex than simply dropping it. At the very least, switching hands would require you to use one hand to take the weapon from the other and at most it involves using both hands together in a coordinated action. Either way that sounds a lot like drawing a weapon, which is a move action. When you simply drop a weapon, you don’t really care where it lands, and it doesn’t require you to use the other hand to guide the action. Ok, so sticks and stones are weapons too. Simple enough, light weapons at that. This leaves scrolls and potions as inviable for the "Draw" action option. However, the question remains: Where did you put it. Lets consider the real (for a moment) to get some refrence] You have the ability to draw when an item is ready to draw. It has been put on your body for the purpose of being ready for combat. As myself and Zevox point out, there are any manner of crazy ways you could arrange your weapons to make them available. Lets talk military outfits, lets talk sheaths! Sheaths! An item refrenced multiple times.. an item that you somehow manage to make for a couple of items... and yet it is not something that you buy. You have to get a sheath with the weapon, when you buy it. You have to. No other explanation and its a good explanation. Weapons makers would make weapons with sheaths the exact same way gauntlets come with medium armor. Further its totally reasonable to assume that the container for the object would be sold with the object. Think batteries and cigars, oil and ammunition, or outfits and belts. Back to the rules, Oil comes with a flask. Technically anyone (if anyone has) using a bottle of oil to fill a lamp or just pour the oil out (on their sword perhaps) ... they just "got" themselves a "flask (empty)" item in its place. The oil comes in its container.. why shouldnt a sword? Now turning to ammunition. It comes in its container. Just like alchemists fire. Alchemists fire is not "ammunition" usable with the draw action. It is an item that goes somewhere like your backpack or your belt pouch. No, putting it in your "belt pouch" container no more qualifies it for the draw action than having it in your boot. Ready to Draw vs Storage and Retrieval The primary difference between these two states "ready" and "stored" is not that weapons can be readied and standard items can't. It is in that a ready item can be accessed from an outside source and a stored item cannot. Thats nearly it. Just because the item is ready does not mean it can be drawn.. but it does mean it can be disarmed/pickpocketed. Herin lies my current conundrum cracked! Stored vs hidden. Since stored only takes a move to draw, and hidden takes a standard... I propose this nifty workaround - Storing an item is taking 20 on Slight of Hand to Hide an item. Stored is Hidden. Retrieving a stored item as a standard action does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Also, an item that is stored is considered hidden and cannot be disarmed or pickpocketed. Now the first thing your gonna say is that "storing an item in combat" takes a move equivalent action! How can that be taking 20!? Let me remind you that this whole draw and sheath issue is very tangled... and every slight of hand action is at its core a free action. All of the item handling actions are specific and peculiar in that Draw, sheath, retrieve, retrieve from hide, and hide are all listed as seperate actions. Draw in particular has four (five?) listed modes? Cmon. If a stored item is considered hidden then we are able to recreate the "take longer to get it out" deal. Not to mention "what is storing?" Were you to describe the difference between storing and stowing you would probably think of stuff like "placement" and "efficiency." But either way - if we call stored hidden we simplify the scenario a whole lot. Now the current conundrum cracking.... So you can have as many scrolls and potions and what not in your back pack or on your belt and there is nothing in the core rules to support doing otherwise. what about this instead. Arena Rules The Gladius Arena officials have had it. Expendable items are ruining the odds in the tournaments and making paupers of the lesser gladiators. They have declared that no more than.... How about 10 scrolls, stones, or tatoos (single us). 5 wands/dorjes (charged). 2 rods or staves. No limitations on potions (they're heavy). Call all oils and alchimical objects potions. In addition to this rule add this one caveate. Crafter's Allowence. Any registered craftsman may bring any number of items they have persnally manufatured into the arena. Crafstmen must still comply with the standing limitations on expendable items that they did not create even if they are of a type that the crafter can make. This of course has no effect on your ability to BUY these items... simply behooves you to declare which ones your carrying around (in checklist format) and which ones you arnt. Another thought would be to limit via a calculus equation like (300*1/3ECL) gps worth of expendables (or something), but I don't like that idea. Perhaps saying "Low league = X expendables, Mid League = XX expndables, and High = XXX expendables" that would come out as three seperate entries in the rules (blech). The real big problem here is that the "belt slots" is a "1/3rd" rule. You can get really nitlicky and curtail the willy nilly free action usage of expendables. You can make sure everyone is aware that they can sunder items that are "ready" but the intended goal here is toi actually reduce the number of expendable in the arena. Don't make a faux rule that has no core rule support to jury rig that. Just say "No more than this number of this" and "no more of than this amount of these" because "the arena officials say so" boom done. cause everyone wants the slots - here they are! These are the item slots. They have nothing to do with equiping and everything to do with overlaping magical fields... and game balance. • One headband, hat, helmet, or phylactery on the head • One pair of eye lenses or goggles on or over the eyes • One amulet, brooch, medallion, necklace, periapt, or scarab around the neck • One vest, vestment, or shirt on the torso • One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt) • One belt around the waist (over a robe or suit of armor) • One cloak, cape, or mantle around the shoulders (over a robe or suit of armor) • One pair of bracers or bracelets on the arms or wrists • One glove, pair of gloves, or pair of gauntlets on the hands • One ring on each hand (or two rings on one hand) • One pair of boots or shoes on the feet edit: HEY! I just realized. If the expendable limit was an "arena" limitation - then forgery would allow you to bypass it! edit 2: and if you can also say that extradimensional spaces are exempt from the limit as well.
Ravashack 04-06-06, 06:56 PM	Anyway, a query for Ravashack - why specifically four as the number of available slots? Thats a terribly small number. I know a scroll/stone user can put six spells/powers into each of those slots, but consider what that does to someone who wants to use a few different potions - each of those slots is literally one use for them. If a fighter or monk wants to have a potion of fly (for dealing with flying spellcasters), a potion of shield of faith (or two, one as a backup since the first lasts merely 10 rounds), and several cure light wounds potions (for healing since they can't use anything else), is that really unreasonable to allow? Personally, that type of thing is why I like the 10 or 20 slot suggestion (10 more so than 20 due to the multi-spell/power scrolls ands stones option). That's 4 Miscellaneous items. As to why, look at just how much space you listed that you're cramming just for your weapons. Greatsword: Sheath on left hip/belt. Longsword: Sheath on right hip/belt. Lance: Sheath/casing on back. Bow: Slung across shoulders (perhaps two if only one or no other weapons were on your back - one for each shoulder). Knife/Kukri/Handaxe/wand/ect: Stuck in boot (or maybe in a tiny sheath on the side of your boot) or strapped to forearm (again small sheath), perhaps several of them. At least with (most) weapons, it's not very hard to tell which one is which. just from the shape. Wands shouldn't be included with that though. Say you have your tons of potions and scrolls. How are you going to tell them apart without looking? You can do right front side, right back side, left front side, and left back side easily without thinking, but if you add more than that you really should take the time to look to make sure you grabbed the right item. If you're going to use them to buff, you are going to start with one of each in each hand (or one in one hand in the case of scrolls since you need a free hand) anyway and have 4 more easily available, and if you need more than 5 potions/tattoos or 30 spells to buff, you have major issues. Limiting the number of items is less complicated than having the pitlord roll to see if you grab the wrong item each time you make a grab for one. Including weapons (and ammo) in the total slots really doesn't make a difference IMO--I really haven't seen fights where people use more than 2 weapons in a fight on a regular basis anyway, so I don't really see a point in further going down that path. The fact that you find 4 so restrictive Zevox is exactly what I was shooting for. It's supposed to be restrictive. If you want more items readily available you -should- take the time to search for them in a bag to put on your belt (or move tattoos onto exposed skin to be tapped), or plan a different tactic that uses less of them. The price of variety shouldn't be free.
Book5 04-06-06, 09:02 PM	@Cat - Just wanted to mention, I think you can pull stuff out of backpacks without taking the backpack off. As there is no declaration of Backpack usage.. there is room to say that you have to "use backpack" before you can get items out of it... which would really change the flow of play. I don't that is the way its intended. A haversack in particular says its a move action to use it. I assume that "using it" is replacing the "retrieve item" action (when item is stored therin). If I were not to assume that I would have to declare this the proper path of action: Start w/ two light weapons in hand and a haversack "stored" "sheath" weapon - move action "retrieve" sack - move action ... "sheath" other weapon - move action "use" sack - move action End w/ Sack in hand and one item out of it in hand as well. ... "Buying" sack - pointless (thats a mastercard joke btw) The other overboard possibility is this: Start w/ two light weapons in hand and a haversack "stored" "Use" haversack - move action. End w/ light weapon and item in hands and a haversack stored Usually "using an item" is an action. But using a jump ring isnt. You cant shove your sword in the haversack and pull out a potion. You have to have to have a free hand to use it, but you also do not have to retrieve the sack item as an action before using it.. as an action.. then store the sack as an action. The sack is a container item - you access container items as part of the store/retrieve actions. If that container is a belt pouch or a backpack the action is simple. If you are accessing a magic sack or bag that action is replaced with a special version of the store/retrieve actions, which is described in the item description.
Zevox 04-06-06, 09:53 PM	That's 4 Miscellaneous items. Actually, its more - note I mentioned having several potions of cure light wounds and perhaps a second of shield of faith. Wands shouldn't be included with that though. Why not? They're weapon-like according to the FAQ, counting for all the weapon-drawing rules. Cat's not including them among his definition of expendibles. Seems to me they could be stored anywhere a light weapon could with ease, and be as easily differentiable depending on design as any Kukri and dagger (perhaps one is metal while another is wood, for instance, or one has a crystal tip while another is blunt metal and yet another is entirely gem-studded). Say you have your tons of potions and scrolls. How are you going to tell them apart without looking? You can do right front side, right back side, left front side, and left back side easily without thinking, but if you add more than that you really should take the time to look to make sure you grabbed the right item. Let me give you a different example - you have five potions of cure light wounds in your belt (not an unreasonable situation, no?). You know they're all the same - why can you not draw the fifth with a move action as easily as the previous four under this rule? Not all the situations that can occur in battles with such a rule can be represented via real-world logic I'm afraid (much as I wish it could be). If you're going to use them to buff, you are going to start with one of each in each hand (or one in one hand in the case of scrolls since you need a free hand) anyway and have 4 more easily available, Well, we've also got the issue proposed to have items held at the beggining of the fight prebuffed, which would negate part of that outright :rolleyes: . and if you need more than 5 potions/tattoos or 30 spells to buff, you have major issues. True, but I'm not refering to using them to buff. I'm refering to having spares for when the first runs out, or having several healing potions for when you're wounded. Several of the same type, not many of different types. Limiting the number of items is less complicated than having the pitlord roll to see if you grab the wrong item each time you make a grab for one. True, but you'll note I never recommended such a thing be required. The fact that you find 4 so restrictive Zevox is exactly what I was shooting for. It's supposed to be restrictive. If you want more items readily available you -should- take the time to search for them in a bag to put on your belt (or move tattoos onto exposed skin to be tapped), or plan a different tactic that uses less of them. The price of variety shouldn't be free. I'm not contesting the overall goal here at all - certainly it needs to be harder than it is presently to use a wide variety of expendibles. The point I was trying to get across there is that such a tiny limit is far more limiting to potion-users than to scroll/stone-users. The scroll/stone users will just max out the number of spells/powers on any given scroll/stone - not a major problem for them, thats still up to 24 different options. However the potion users are suddenly limited to 4 easily accesible potions period? That punishes them far more, when its the scroll/stone users we should be looking to limit. As I said before, we should be looking for a way to punish those guilty of causing the problem we're discussing without punishing the innocent along with them. I could agree to this if there were some way for potions to have as many uses per slot as scrolls/stones (say, if as I mentioned before belt pouches permitted 5 or 6 per slot to be easily accessible), but as it is it just limits the scrolls/stones to a fairly reasonable amount while making potion use highly unreasonable. Zevox
Ravashack 04-07-06, 05:40 AM	Actually, its more - note I mentioned having several potions of cure light wounds and perhaps a second of shield of faith. I was trying to clarify that yes, I really mean 4 items readily available, not more. Why not? They're weapon-like according to the FAQ, counting for all the weapon-drawing rules. Cat's not including them among his definition of expendibles. Seems to me they could be stored anywhere a light weapon could with ease, and be as easily differentiable depending on design as any Kukri and dagger (perhaps one is metal while another is wood, for instance, or one has a crystal tip while another is blunt metal and yet another is entirely gem-studded). Wands, if you compare them to potions and scrolls, charge for expendable, are more efficient costwise by a significant margin. Spell level 1 wands cost 15 gp a charge. Spell level 1 expendables cost 25 gp while potions cost 50 gp. Spell level 2 wands cost 90 gp a charge. Spell level 2 expendables cost 150 gp while potions cost 300 gp. As the spell levels go up, the savings in cost does too. With that in mind, exempting them--and by extension, staves and dorjes--from the miscellaneous items because they are "weapon-like objects" is a really bad mistake. Let me give you a different example - you have five potions of cure light wounds in your belt (not an unreasonable situation, no?). You know they're all the same - why can you not draw the fifth with a move action as easily as the previous four under this rule? Not all the situations that can occur in battles with such a rule can be represented via real-world logic I'm afraid (much as I wish it could be). [...] True, but I'm not refering to using them to buff. I'm refering to having spares for when the first runs out, or having several healing potions for when you're wounded. Several of the same type, not many of different types. To be honest, yes, I do find that an unreasonable situation. You don't need 5 Cure Light Wounds potions for fights unless you're a class with d4 HD, IMO. And if you're such a class those convenience slots are probably going to be used for scrolls and such more. I really don't see a reason to keep that many Cure Light Wounds potions around unless you're trying to cut costs and not buy the more powerful potions like you -should- when HP matters. The benefit of 1st level potions is that they are cheap. The benefit shouldn't expand to because it is more efficient use of cash anyway. But to the point you were trying to make with that example, what does it matter if they are all the same in one circumstance? It can just as easily have all the potions being different in a different circumstance, or some being the same and others not. We can throw out all the what-ifs we want, but it really feels like a major part of the argument you are putting forth is based around an unwritten thought that level 1 potions should be the standard type of potions bought. If someone is going through more than 5 expendables each fight don't you think it's safe to say that it's the expendables winning the fight and not the build? Well, we've also got the issue proposed to have items held at the beggining of the fight prebuffed, which would negate part of that outright :rolleyes: . /shrug True, but you'll note I never recommended such a thing be required. Sorry, my intention was to just throw out a random example, not to imply that you did. I'm not contesting the overall goal here at all - certainly it needs to be harder than it is presently to use a wide variety of expendibles. The point I was trying to get across there is that such a tiny limit is far more limiting to potion-users than to scroll/stone-users. The scroll/stone users will just max out the number of spells/powers on any given scroll/stone - not a major problem for them, thats still up to 24 different options. However the potion users are suddenly limited to 4 easily accesible potions period? That punishes them far more, when its the scroll/stone users we should be looking to limit. As I said before, we should be looking for a way to punish those guilty of causing the problem we're discussing without punishing the innocent along with them. I could agree to this if there were some way for potions to have as many uses per slot as scrolls/stones (say, if as I mentioned before belt pouches permitted 5 or 6 per slot to be easily accessible), but as it is it just limits the scrolls/stones to a fairly reasonable amount while making potion use highly unreasonable. Zevox Well, IMO, it will start forcing scroll/stone users to be way more efficient in what powers they put in each stone. You can't just drop and draw a new one for every buff, and every scroll they don't completely go through just adds to their costs either from selling back at a loss or from buying spells they don't use. Recall that rescribing a scroll or reimprinting powers in a power stone is a legal nono and a violation, and suddenly the apparant 24 options shrinks down noticeably. In addition, nothing is stopping the potion reliant person from resupplying from his pack. If you want to have that many potions, I don't see why you should be stopped from restocking.
SauroGrenom 04-07-06, 08:16 AM	Wands, if you compare them to potions and scrolls, charge for expendable, are more efficient costwise by a significant margin. Spell level 1 wands cost 15 gp a charge. Spell level 1 expendables cost 25 gp while potions cost 50 gp. Spell level 2 wands cost 90 gp a charge. Spell level 2 expendables cost 150 gp while potions cost 300 gp. As the spell levels go up, the savings in cost does too. With that in mind, exempting them--and by extension, staves and dorjes--from the miscellaneous items because they are "weapon-like objects" is a really bad mistake.The problem is not with paying to little for each use of an expendible item. The problem is with having a huge diversity of expendibles. For example the Harvester has a wand of MM at CL9! This is a potent item well above his ECL and his CL (Caster Level is what I've always ment by this). Cat spent a bunch of credits and gp to aquire it. But you can write tactics against it and hope for a decent chance of defeating it. A shield spell for example will negate it. I don't have a problem with the existance of wands or dorjes or staffs or psicrowns. These items are actually rather limited because you must spend way more money on them in the first place. A ECL8 character could easily walk into the arena with 50 scrolls. With all those scrolls comes diversity as well as spell flinging power. This character can handle nearly every concievable situation because he has atleast one scroll with every spell he can cast. Memorizing spells is pointless, he has them all at his fingertips anyway. Wands and staffs are far more expensive. If the same money were spend on wand or staffs or the psionic equivalents, you find that he now has 50 CL5 fireballs and 50 mage armors and 50 see invisibilities, but far more limited diversity of spell effects for any given battle. It becomes prohibitively expensive for a person to use wands to buff with polymorph, shield of faith, energy resistance, mage armor, shield, bulls strength and ....whatever. All those wands are crazy expensive, so you cannot afford them all at the same time. And if I'm pared with this character I don't have to write tactics against 50 different spells and buffing combinations.
SauroGrenom 04-07-06, 08:48 AM	Polymorph is indeed broken, and you don't even need non-core sources. The diversity it grants with just the Monster Manual is too much. In my group we have elegantly solved it in that you must have seen the monster first-hand which is in line with what the spell needs and not necessarily a house rule. If you think it's broaken, why not just ban it? WOTC was willing to ban it entirely from some of there games. Call it a side effect of the Nexus that you cannot change form. Since this cannot be done like that in the coco, I have an alternative to that. What if you need the appropriate knowledge for that monster, like arcana for magical beasts? The value must be as high as the HD you want to polymorph in. That limits the amount of choices significantly.Yes that limits the diversity of choice, but you still have probably 7 or 8 that are all that are realy needed. What this does is allow wizards to freely polymorph. Most others will be partly limited by skills if not by CL. With a single dip level in a class the cross class skill limit is lifted. I could easily imagin a magic domain cleric with one level in wizard and dump stats in physical stats and a 14 or 15 int, just to get the needed skill points to max out Knowlege Planes and become the chosen outsider. Especially considering that someone could use credits to buy a vest of knowlege planes +5 for a measly 2500gp. @Mindwanderer: Questing for polymorph examples would negate my suggestion. We can instead come up with more sophisticated rules. Also, please show me how Barthleby or the Harvester can get the necessary ranks in knowledge arcana, planes, and local. I don't even have skill points for spellcraft or ride!Given the option between polymorph and ride? If you choose Ride, you must know something I don't. I'd choose polymorph every time. Questing would at the same time be more restricting and more open than the Knowlege skills idea. You'd have to quest to get access to a particular form, but you'd also have access to monsters at your CR or mabey even CR+?. We all know that CR is a measure that laggs well behind ECL especially as the LA on the race grows to huge numbers. For example an Astra Deva is CR14 and has 12 HD. I shudder to think if Barthelby quests to gain access to the Astra Deva form at ECL13 when he has 12 HD. As a character an Astral Deva is ECL20! That's without the 12 cleric levels and the magic domain. This monstrocity would be fighting in the ECL13 league. The more I look, the more I find awefull combinaitons that are caused by the polymorph spell. I say ban it. WOTC did, so can we. Ban it like the Gate spell. As for the magic domain, leave it if expendibles are limited to caster level +2. If expendibles are left to have CL equal to ECL, ban this domain as well. As for the belt slot idea, this one is tricky. This idea hits everyone not just the abusers that started this whole discussion. However it makes sense. It also reveals a more subtle abuse in that characters carry around way too much stuff that is all at there fingertips. For scrolls and stones there is a huge power increase that comes with that ability. For other types there is a smaller but still important increase in diversity and power of there attacks and countermeasures. On this issue I'm divided right now. The simplest things to do are: To change the CL of scrolls and stones to match the caster level of the character in arcane, divine, psionic powers. Also to ban polymorph in all its forms. Edit: If you think banning polymorph in all its forms is excessive, then just ban polymorphing into an outsider even if you are an outsider. Many of the most abusive uses of polymorph involve changing into an outsider. This is a small step in the right direction, but I think not quite enough. WOTC banned polymorph, so should we.
Ravashack 04-07-06, 09:51 AM	The problem is not with paying to little for each use of an expendible item. The problem is with having a huge diversity of expendibles. For example the Harvester has a wand of MM at CL9! This is a potent item well above his ECL and his CL (Caster Level is what I've always ment by this). Cat spent a bunch of credits and gp to aquire it. But you can write tactics against it and hope for a decent chance of defeating it. A shield spell for example will negate it. I don't have a problem with the existance of wands or dorjes or staffs or psicrowns. These items are actually rather limited because you must spend way more money on them in the first place. A ECL8 character could easily walk into the arena with 50 scrolls. With all those scrolls comes diversity as well as spell flinging power. This character can handle nearly every concievable situation because he has atleast one scroll with every spell he can cast. Memorizing spells is pointless, he has them all at his fingertips anyway. Wands and staffs are far more expensive. If the same money were spend on wand or staffs or the psionic equivalents, you find that he now has 50 CL5 fireballs and 50 mage armors and 50 see invisibilities, but far more limited diversity of spell effects for any given battle. It becomes prohibitively expensive for a person to use wands to buff with polymorph, shield of faith, energy resistance, mage armor, shield, bulls strength and ....whatever. All those wands are crazy expensive, so you cannot afford them all at the same time. And if I'm pared with this character I don't have to write tactics against 50 different spells and buffing combinations. I agree that the incredible versatility is the main problem. I pointed out wands though because if the idea of reducing easily accessible expendables is used, wands/dorjes are going to be even more of a good investment for spells/powers the character may be using extremely often--Cure Light Wounds and Vigor immediately come to mind. Even a character that always loses can easily shell out the 750 gp for one of those. But that's not the main issue at all--carrying 100s of scrolls and power stones is. I was merely defending why I felt wands and such should be included--it's not a subject that needs massive sidetracking on.
SoulLord 04-07-06, 10:25 AM	I just have to say Don't ban polymorph Wizards are nerfed enough as they are.
barrel_master 04-07-06, 10:58 AM	I just have to say Don't ban polymorph Wizards are nerfed enough as they are. I agree that we should not ban polymorph. If we really are looking to test builds we shouldn't be removing class powers that most members of the roleplaying community recognize.
Zevox 04-07-06, 11:04 AM	Wands, if you compare them to potions and scrolls, charge for expendable, are more efficient costwise by a significant margin. Spell level 1 wands cost 15 gp a charge. Spell level 1 expendables cost 25 gp while potions cost 50 gp. Spell level 2 wands cost 90 gp a charge. Spell level 2 expendables cost 150 gp while potions cost 300 gp. As the spell levels go up, the savings in cost does too. With that in mind, exempting them--and by extension, staves and dorjes--from the miscellaneous items because they are "weapon-like objects" is a really bad mistake. True, but as SauroGrenom pointed out the price per charge isn't the same as thier overall price. Nobody can afford nearly the variety of wands or dorjes that they can scrolls or powerstones. That Wand of Cure Light Wounds that every other fighter type takes levels in Ranger or Paladin for costs you a flat 750 gp - you don't get to spread that out like with scrolls. That wand of lightning bolt or fireball is 11,250 gp - thats a huge chunk of your money unless you're ECL 7+ at the very least. And I guarantee that if we started to see Dorjes of Vigor become popular they won't be the 750 gp versions that give only 5 hp - they'll be the 1,500 gp ML 2 augmented version for 10 hp or 6,000 gp ML 4 augmented version for 20 hp. If you're going to spend that much money on an item that grants you many usages of a single ability, I'd be more than happy to let you have it without taking up one of your expendible slots. Again, its not wands causing the problems here, its scrolls and powerstones, and it should be scrolls and powerstones we look to nerf, not wands. To be honest, yes, I do find that an unreasonable situation. You don't need 5 Cure Light Wounds potions for fights unless you're a class with d4 HD, IMO. And if you're such a class those convenience slots are probably going to be used for scrolls and such more. I really don't see a reason to keep that many Cure Light Wounds potions around unless you're trying to cut costs and not buy the more powerful potions like you -should- when HP matters. The benefit of 1st level potions is that they are cheap. The benefit shouldn't expand to because it is more efficient use of cash anyway. Here we simply disagree I'm afraid. An example of a reason I don't consider this unreasonable: one of my characters, Featylec Elendi, is a rogue/fighter (going on being a martial shadowdancer) with low hp (at ECL 3 he had 18, now at ECL 4 thats 23). If he wants to win his fights, he needs to have some way to keep that hp existant even after taking a couple of hits. Now that he has a level of Ranger he uses a Wand of CLW for that, but at ECL 3 he did keep a fairly large number of potions of CLW on him at all times, and in at least one fight did use five of them (and still lost), and I don't see any problems with that myself. His hp was (and I'd think still is) too low to warrant buying the more powerful potions - that 1d8+1 could cure up to half his hp in one use at ECL 3, and it can still be more than 1/3 at ECL 4. But to the point you were trying to make with that example, what does it matter if they are all the same in one circumstance? It can just as easily have all the potions being different in a different circumstance, or some being the same and others not. The point there was to show that the real-world logic applies to both sides of the argument. We can throw out all the what-ifs we want, but it really feels like a major part of the argument you are putting forth is based around an unwritten thought that level 1 potions should be the standard type of potions bought. No, I'm simply throwing out examples from my own experiences. That just happens to be largely in the ECL 3 and 4 leagues, where higher-level potions are rather prohibitively expensive for one-use items - my only character at a higher level is Asran, and hes not been active for too long (and outside of tattoos of force screen doesn't use many expendibles). If someone is going through more than 5 expendables each fight don't you think it's safe to say that it's the expendables winning the fight and not the build? No, but then again I'm personally not interested in the "expendibles vs 'build'" part of the argument anyway. I'm interested in the fact that those wizards/psions with massive numbers of scrolls and stones can have one for nearly every contingency at thier fingertips to make themselves nearly unbeatable. I don't care if you're trying to just beat me with a weapon or if you're firing off magic missiles from half a dozen scrolls throughout the fight and quaffing dozens of healing potions as well. The variety is what I see as the problem, not the "expendibles vs 'build'" situation. Well, IMO, it will start forcing scroll/stone users to be way more efficient in what powers they put in each stone. You can't just drop and draw a new one for every buff, and every scroll they don't completely go through just adds to their costs either from selling back at a loss or from buying spells they don't use. Recall that rescribing a scroll or reimprinting powers in a power stone is a legal nono and a violation, and suddenly the apparant 24 options shrinks down noticeably. This is true, and let me be perfectly clear that this is something about your suggestion that I do like. However I do think that the side effect on those who are not abusing the ability to have a large variety of scrolls available needs to be considered as well, ergo my reason for bringing up potions so strongly. In addition, nothing is stopping the potion reliant person from resupplying from his pack. If you want to have that many potions, I don't see why you should be stopped from restocking. Resupplying? If I understand you right there, you mean transfering items from the backpack/wherever to the "ready" position after emptying one of the ready slots? Thats not something that got mentioned before. An interesting thought. What are we looking at here action-wise - standard, full round? Zevox
Sunwolf 04-07-06, 11:09 AM	If we are concerned with polymorph perhaps a decent solution is to limit the forms available to use in polymorph -- similar to what is done in the Neverwinters night game. ie perhaps 3-4 forms available (total) or 3-4 forms for each hit die and the available forms of lower hit die. Then all we have to do is come up with the list of reasonable forms for the spell. This way we can keep the spell but limit the diversity problem.
Pittbull 04-07-06, 11:14 AM	Edit: If you think banning polymorph in all its forms is excessive, then just ban polymorphing into an outsider even if you are an outsider. Many of the most abusive uses of polymorph involve changing into an outsider. This is a small step in the right direction, but I think not quite enough. WOTC banned polymorph, so should we. But please don't ban polymorph any object. This is a 8th-level-spell and meant to be powerful. If you want to ban this spell we might consider banning shapechange too or even the shapechanging ability of druids (this is just a joke). I know, if Barthleby turns into an astral deva, this is very powerfull, but this isn't game-breaking. He'll still have problems to beat a normal wizard at this level. This whole class is broken regarding balance between the different types of gladiators. Yes, the normal polymorph is too powerfull in that given level, nothing matches the spell. I like the ideas for questing or knowledge-skills. Even if Barthleby has to take a feat (open minded) and he doesn't have many, I would support the knowledge-variant. I like Sunwolfs prosal of giving only certain forms in HDs-groups. Another point, you say WOTC have banned polymorph. From what? It is still in the SRD. My last two CP, following the discussion I'm a little afraid about one issue: The "If something becomes too good, we must ban it!"-attitude is very dangerous. I predict a ban of the eversmoking bottle, when Willbrock becomes active.
SoulLord 04-07-06, 11:51 AM	WoTc only banned it from their Mark of Heroes campaign. yes it's a very good spell but each list has a best spell if you start nerfing or banning them you'll eventually run out of spells. besides you need 7 or 8 caster levels to be able to cast it.
Usurpator 04-07-06, 12:33 PM	I think we should table the Polymorph issue for now. We were talking about limiting expendables after all. Until now: Limiting scrolls/powerstones to max item CL = max. character CL+2 seems to have nearly everyone's agreement (where classes that have Use Magic Device as class skill, count their class levels as CL that don't stack with any real CL). Belt slots is still under discussion (I only suggested including weapons previously, because during the prebuff discussion we were going to assign slots to most carried items anyway, so I thought it natural to bring it up). Limiting the number of 'draw as move action slots' (here called belt slots) forces a heavy scroll/powerstone user to buy either a Haversack or it limits the number of buffs they can complete before hitting the 10-round delaying limit if we say that getting an item from another place is a standard or full-round action.
Usurpator 04-07-06, 12:35 PM	WoTc only banned it from their Mark of Heroes campaign. yes it's a very good spell but each list has a best spell if you start nerfing or banning them you'll eventually run out of spells. besides you need 7 or 8 caster levels to be able to cast it. It was already banned from Living Greyhawk a long time before that, and it will not appear anymore in any future WoTC products. All references to the spell in the MM etc. were stricken. That counts as a general ban to me.
SoulLord 04-07-06, 12:40 PM	yet it still appears in the srd. If it was a general ban they would just remove the spell from their spell lists.
Usurpator 04-07-06, 12:57 PM	yet it still appears in the srd. If it was a general ban they would just remove the spell from their spell lists. The latest errata doesn’t seek to “fix” polymorph. Instead, it seeks to end polymorph’s stranglehold on other elements of the game—from class features (the druid’s wild shape) to related spells (animal shapes, baleful polymorph) to the many monsters who use powers based on the same effect (such as the succubus and yuan-ti)—by revising those elements so that they can function without referring to the problematic polymorph spell. This means that players and DMs who don’t mind their spellcasters using the polymorph spell can continue to use it as written in their home games, but the number of times they come across the spell in other aspects of the game will greatly diminish. Whole article here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a) Removing all references to polymorph *anywhere* in their products counts as a ban to me. And they retained it in the SRD specifically for use of "players and DMs who don't mind their spellcasters using the polymorph spell". I'll translate: Ooops, we made a mistake. We tried to fix it, but recognized that it so fundamentally flawed that it cannot be fixed. Therefore we have decided to ban it completely. You are free to use it if you really want, but it will not appear in any offical WoTC products anymore. Please help us find all mentions of polymorph in existing products so we can add them to the FAQ.
barrel_master 04-07-06, 01:01 PM	But please don't ban polymorph any object. This is a 8th-level-spell and meant to be powerful. If you want to ban this spell we might consider banning shapechange too or even the shapechanging ability of druids (this is just a joke). I know, if Barthleby turns into an astral deva, this is very powerfull, but this isn't game-breaking. He'll still have problems to beat a normal wizard at this level. This whole class is broken regarding balance between the different types of gladiators. Yes, the normal polymorph is too powerfull in that given level, nothing matches the spell. I like the ideas for questing or knowledge-skills. Even if Barthleby has to take a feat (open minded) and he doesn't have many, I would support the knowledge-variant. I like Sunwolfs prosal of giving only certain forms in HDs-groups. Another point, you say WOTC have banned polymorph. From what? It is still in the SRD. My last two CP, following the discussion I'm a little afraid about one issue: The "If something becomes too good, we must ban it!"-attitude is very dangerous. I predict a ban of the eversmoking bottle, when Willbrock becomes active. Agreed for the most part... he he... I think my Peter was one of the few dudes who ever used or was about to use polymorph any object. But I seriously agree that the 'this is too good let's ban it' mentality is dangerous and we should watch out for it.
Caterane 04-07-06, 03:04 PM	I think I should set a frame for our discussion so that we don't shoot in all directions. We will neither ban the magic domain nor polymorph. This is like hissing the white flag when there are still many ways to restrict their use with logical easy rules. My knowledge suggestions for example is a good step into the right direction. I know that the Harvester can never afford any knowledge skill (despite INT 14) and it is an investment others have to make if they want to polymorph. Even if you have only 2 knowledge skills, that greatly reduces the number of possible forms. And Sauro, we can set the knowledge DC as we want. Skill value = HD was just an idea. To go a step further, we could ignore Skip's clarification and stick to the SRD which says 'one step within your size category' so no more Rhemorazes and Behirs. The spells that were banned so far were way way more broken than polymorph could ever be. Gate wins you a fight at any level, Psychic Reformation let's you switch feats and skills as you wish, and Reincarnate enables you to create a character with all 40's and more in his abilities. This is obviously not comparable to the polymorph spell. Likewise, Wands are not the topic here. A handful of PCs use wands and they are expensive. I considered buying an invisibility wand for 4500 but decided against it because I never ever need 50 charges in all my carreer. If you are worried about a MM wand, cast shield or buy a brooch of shielding. We are talking about stones and scrolls. Their versitality is what makes them unbalanced, not the price, not their CL/ML, and not even the ability to draw them all as a move action. The latter we discuss mostly to streamline the rules in the wake of our ally prebuff proposal. There are some good suggestions out there. Let's see if we can find a common ground.
Ravashack 04-07-06, 03:27 PM	Resupplying? If I understand you right there, you mean transfering items from the backpack/wherever to the "ready" position after emptying one of the ready slots? Thats not something that got mentioned before. An interesting thought. What are we looking at here action-wise - standard, full round? Zevox OK, I think most of your original post was made not noticing half of mine. Any other items used require a standard action of searching through an appropriate container (or in the case of tattoos, a standard action to mentally maneuver the desired tattoo into position onto exposed skin for tapping). If you want to use a ton of expendables that's fine, but you should have a penalty of taking a much longer time getting what you want done. I have been writing based on the viewpoint that you did not miss this part of the post, and thus have had absolutely no clue why you found it so stifling to have 4 Miscellaneous item slots for no penalties. If you want to bring more items, you bring a container for them, and you spend time taking it out of the container and shifting it from "stored" to "ready to use." To reclarify my suggestion: - Everyone gets 4 Miscellaneous slots that they can fill with consumable items. - Any extra items are assumed to be in a container (if you bought one for the item) or in your pack, or in the case of tattoos, somewhere under your clothes. - If you use up your 4 Miscellaneous slots and want to refill them, you have to spend time to do so--normally 1 standard action for one item. - If someone ends up running into the 10 round delay rule primarily because of buffing, they should ALWAYS get targeted with a Dispel Psionics manifested at their ECL as their penalty and augmented to match. - An additional thought I didn't put up before is that if you have too many (something which would need to be set) containers, it takes an additional standard action to find the right container first. And as a corollary to that thought, maybe set each container to only be able to hold 20 items? Basically, sure, go ahead and have your 10 billion scrolls. I just essentially added an extra standard action casting time for each one of your non-primary scrolls. If you don't start buying scrolls with multiple spells on them specifically for buffing, you get 7 scroll spells max before the 10 round delay rule kicks in and wipes your buffs dry.
Book5 04-07-06, 03:41 PM	Limiting the number of 'draw as move action slots' (here called belt slots) forces a heavy scroll/powerstone user to buy either a Haversack or it limits the number of buffs they can complete before hitting the 10-round delaying limit if we say that getting an item from another place is a standard or full-round action. Note: I'm not certain scrolls count as "weapon-like" in fact I'm almost absolutly certain they do not. Both Potions and Scrolls have to be opened. Scrolls are in little scroll cases, potions are in little bottles. Both bottles and tubes are closed for protection from the elements. You cannot "fast draw" potions or scrolls like you can stones and wands because.... "sticks and stones are weapons" - bottles and cans are not. Also - nothing.. nothing at all - can be "fast drawn" out of a heversack. Anything in a haversack is considered stored. "not ready to draw"
Usurpator 04-07-06, 03:58 PM	Note: I'm not certain scrolls count as "weapon-like" in fact I'm almost absolutly certain they do not. Both Potions and Scrolls have to be opened. Scrolls are in little scroll cases, potions are in little bottles. Both bottles and tubes are closed for protection from the elements. You cannot "fast draw" potions or scrolls like you can stones and wands because.... "sticks and stones are weapons" - bottles and cans are not. Also - nothing.. nothing at all - can be "fast drawn" out of a heversack. Anything in a haversack is considered stored. "not ready to draw" I think you interpreted what I said in a way I did not intend. I never claimed that 'weapon-like', I said 'draw-as-move-action', which is what we are/have been doing all along with scrolls/stones. We are now discussing to increase that to standard/full-round actions, except for items in a limited amount of slots.
Book5 04-07-06, 04:47 PM	OK, I think most of your original post was made not noticing half of mine. - Everyone gets 4 Miscellaneous slots that they can fill with consumable items. - Any extra items are assumed to be in a container (if you bought one for the item) or in your pack, or in the case of tattoos, somewhere under your clothes. - If you use up your 4 Miscellaneous slots and want to refill them, you have to spend time to do so--normally 1 standard action for one item. - If someone ends up running into the 10 round delay rule primarily because of buffing, they should ALWAYS get targeted with a Dispel Psionics manifested at their ECL as their penalty and augmented to match. - An additional thought I didn't put up before is that if you have too many (something which would need to be set) containers, it takes an additional standard action to find the right container first. And as a corollary to that thought, maybe set each container to only be able to hold 20 items? Basically, sure, go ahead and have your 10 billion scrolls. I just essentially added an extra standard action casting time for each one of your non-primary scrolls. If you don't start buying scrolls with multiple spells on them specifically for buffing, you get 7 scroll spells max before the 10 round delay rule kicks in and wipes your buffs dry. STOP STOP STOP Please! No "body slots" bad rules - no raw support. Too many implications and ramifications. Really its a pandora's box that we don't need here. Instead the real issue is that by having 50 stones in your haversack you have prepared yourself to respond to so many different situations that you have thrown the balance of the arena out of kilter. Basically - Stones and Scrolls are unfair. Thats the problem. Thats the whole problem. (that and the fact that no one knows how to manipulate items) I suggest a strait-foreward "fair/foul rule" not a "core clarification" rule like the hide/spot thing. This is more like the Diplomacy Allies rules. There is no core explanation for how many allies you get - thats a DM call (a cat call if you will) and so is how "available" expendables are. So two things: Stones can be drawn, Scrolls cannot. Potions cannot. Thats something that is inconsistant amongst pitlords. This doesnt help much with stones because they are so small you can put 50 of them in your pocket. Honestly the stones are no larger than sling bullets - smaller in fact. This is a really bad idea but - "can I put stones in my ammo pack and draw them as a free action all the time?" .... :nonono: TTconceptually? sure.. Core/Technically? NO! The Arena officials can declare a limit on potions and scrolls without creating non-core rules and without violating any shared conceptual spaces. Im not an active pitlord .. nor a big expendable user.. but I have seen a few expendable blowouts in the few fights I have pitlorded. Seems like people are either using 2/3 expendables or they are using 10. Mages in particular are prone to a ream of scrolls. Crafters should not have to comply with the limits insomuch as their items are concerend. IOW - You can have as many self-crafted items as you want. All other expendables must comply with this simple rule: Max Expendables of any one kind (stone, scroll, potion, wand, whatever) are equal to your ECL. ECL 3 you get 3 potions, and 3 scrolls, 3 anything you want. If it expends.. you get 3 of em. ECL 4 you get 4 potions, and 4 scrolls, 4 anything you want. If it expends.. you get 4 of em. You can of course store 80 potions in your complimentary chest at your complimentary hotel.. "at home" as they say. But the arena officials will not let you in with more expendables of any one type than your league rating.
SauroGrenom 04-07-06, 05:07 PM	Alright, Alright, Alright, I got a bit overzelous when I looked at the 12HD astral deva with a 100 fly speed, 15 natural armor, 18's and 22 for stats and a stun attack, I thought "we've got to put a stop to this!" Sorry we don't need to band a bunch of things. I kept looking and kept finding crazy powerfull options. I thought about this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a) and figured we may want to do the same thing as the RPGA. Which would be to ban the polymorph spell in all its forms. Yes you are right that we shouldn't hit everything that is potent with a nerf stick. That would be no fun. It would be simple, but not fun. So in the spirit of searching for common ground... I'd like to come back to two of the previous suggestions and voice my approval for those. Also I'll propose a "fix" for polymorph. 1: I like a limit on the CL/ML of scrolls and stones that is related to the ML/CL of the character instead of ECL. I think it should be CL/ML+2 unless you spend credits. This allows the magic domain and multiclassed characters to get access to spells one level above what there CL/ML would allow. It does prevent a single level dip into a class from carrying the ability to cast from the entire spell list of that class. Rather you get the 1st and 2nd level spells and more if you spend credits. This is balanced, and it does not take any options from anyone. If you realy want to cast polymorph or phantasmal killer or black tentacles, then you'll need to get a CL5 somehow. With 1 level in wizard(or any caster class) you still get dozens of very usefull spells and options and the ability to use inexpensive scrolls. 2: I like a belt slots idea. It makes sense. The number of slots could be argued all over the place. I think 10 is a reasonable number. No wizard will actually carry around 10 scrolls with 6 different spells each. He'll need a slot for his wand of MM and a couple slots for his potions of protect from alignment. If you need to put weapons in those slots it becomes even more limiting. Besides he'll cast a few spells off his scrolls and then he'll need to buy/craft the whole thing new if he wants to have the diversity. 2.a This may complicate the issue, but if a person has a mount it is reasonable that saddlebags could be used and accessed as well. 3: I propose that we use polymorph as it is in the SRD with the following edit in the 1st paragraph. This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form. This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form.This change basicially removes outsiders and undead from the list of possible types even if you are an outsider or undead. The idea to use the alter self as it is in the SRD is also a good one that I favor. That will further limit the options so that huge and gargantuan forms are not allowed unless you are already large or huge. Many forms will still qualify, and this spell will serve as an advanced version of alter self that allows a much greater number of possible forms. 3.a To allow forms not normally allowed by size or type restrictions of the polymorph spell, we can employ Knowledge. If a form has a size or type that is not allowed, you must have a Knowledge check modifier at least equal to the form's HDx2. Characters who realy want to focus there builds on using a particuar powerfull form can still do so. To accomplish that goal they must focus the use of skill points, feats, items and abilities. These extreamely powerfull forms will be difficult to attain, but they will fall within the realm of wizards who have enough skillpoints and intelligence to meet the requirements. IMHO that woud be the correct place for the ability to transform into an Astral Deva or Remoraz.
barrel_master 04-07-06, 05:11 PM	Likewise, Wands are not the topic here. A handful of PCs use wands and they are expensive. I considered buying an invisibility wand for 4500 but decided against it because I never ever need 50 charges in all my carreer. If you are worried about a MM wand, cast shield or buy a brooch of shielding. We are talking about stones and scrolls. Their versitality is what makes them unbalanced, not the price, not their CL/ML, and not even the ability to draw them all as a move action. The latter we discuss mostly to streamline the rules in the wake of our ally prebuff proposal. There are some good suggestions out there. Let's see if we can find a common ground. I really do think that rasing the prices of expendables reduces their 'versitility' as more expensive items should keep the # of expendables low.
Pittbull 04-07-06, 05:24 PM	Expendables: I like the idea Sauro proposed: CL/ML is related to the class-level. UMD and UPD should be used without restriction. This gives rogues a new advantage. Polymorph: I don't like Sauros proposal, I'd prefer to stay with Cat's suggestion (stay within one size-catagory) Belt-Slots: I'm not sure about this, but I think Book5's idea the use of expandables=ECL, is nice too. But yet I'm undecided. As Snark always said: I'm off for a shower..... @BarrelMaster: I'm not sure, but I believe Peter Patroclus and Angosh have been the first characters that used PaO.
SoulLord 04-07-06, 05:33 PM	Expendables: CL/ML is related to the class-level. UMD and UPD classes with UMD as a class skill should be counted as CL/ML Polymorph: I would like to deviate from core as little as possible we have enough house rules as it is and polymorph needs a high caster level to use even more if you are an outsider so no banning or nerfing of the spell Belt-Slots: I'm all for it. just note that most characters will get an efficient quiver and be done with it.
SauroGrenom 04-07-06, 06:10 PM	My suggestion for polymorph is a hybrid of various suggestions and it has a basis. If you examine the options for polymorph that are available to an outsider, and you do the same for a elf, you easily find that the outsider has better options at every HD. Yes there is no LA+0 outsider race. So the Elf is ahead by one level. Still the elf is outmatched by the outsider when he casts polymorph. If you compare the outsiders of 7 HD to the dragons, plants, and magical beasts of 7HD, you are probably going to find that all the outsiders have higher CR values. Outsiders are just more powerfull at a given HD than other creatures. Outsiders have fantastic natural armor, physical stats, mobility and humanoid form. They can still cast spells, use items and wield weapons. A gargantual ooze may have a great con value and cool paralyzing attacks, but it cannot cast or use equipment. In nearly every case an outsider will choose to take the form of another outsider, because they are just the best options. And they are options no other type has available to them. The makers of the spell apparently didn't intend for characters to be outsiders. Now I don't think we should ban the ability to transform into an outsider. Just say that to take a form not listed in the spell description as being allowable, you need to form your character build around doing that. You just need to have the right knowlege skills. A teifling wizard can still use alter self to become an ice mephet, if he has knowlege planes+6 which is not hard to do. The playing field is a bit more balanced if we allow the elf wizard to become an ice mephet with the necessary knowlege skills. Same options for everyone and we make our knowlege skill very usefull to certian characters who have those skills as a class skill anyway. You're next going to say that the Teifling pays for his ability to morph into an ice mephet with his LA+1. The teifling gets lots of things for that LA. He gets +2 dex, +2 int, a special attack, energy resistance, darkvision and a few racial skill bonuses. Not bad. Certainly IMHO they should not also get the ability to polymorph into forms that have perfect flight, high movement speeds and extreamly high natural armor values and physical stats. In effect my proposal will simply allow characters of various races to use the spell in the same way and close the loophole where outsider casters have a much more powerfull version of the spell. This doesn't realy nerf the spell, just makes the spell function the same for all casters regardless of race.
Vathelokai 04-07-06, 06:29 PM	Allies Why limit the max number of allies? The prebuff of which ally you're bringing seems fine. So what if you have 20 lt horses that all have their own custom feats. As long as your opponent knows which one you rode in on, that fixes the whole tactics problem. Now the overpowered advanced allies thing is something else.... Belt slots It's like communism... great in theory, bad in practice. Scroll abuse So we have two 'problems'. 1) scrolls that are higher CL then the player causing unbalance 2) Wizards carry lots of scrolls since they can not cast lots of spells. The first one seems easy to fix, with some kind of cap. The second I don't see a problem with. Polymorph Making casters have a list of known poly-forms seems reasonable (either from skills or quests1). Putting limits/nerfs on the spell seems overboard to me. Overall I've seen lots of ingeneous uses of spell casting... but the victems of this are not making ingeneous strategies to counter it. Dispel magic is not that hard to come by. 1 I've never understood Cat's objection to using quests to define character knowledges. But that's another debate.
Usurpator 04-07-06, 06:36 PM	We are talking about stones and scrolls. Their versitality is what makes them unbalanced, not the price, not their CL/ML, and not even the ability to draw them all as a move action. The latter we discuss mostly to streamline the rules in the wake of our ally prebuff proposal. Cat, that's not entirely true, its part of the story. Expendables are also more powerful because you have less fights per level than in a regular game. They specifically say in the DMG that if you are playing only a one-shot game, that you should double or even triple expendables prices. Normal games are based on about 13 encounters to gain a level. The (in)famous expendable users need only 3-4 encounters to gain a level. That triples the relative usefullness (for its gold value) of expendables. Its certainly not versatility only.
SoulLord 04-07-06, 06:41 PM	Cat, that's simply not true. At least, its true, but only part of the story. Expendables are also more powerful because you have less fights per level than in a regular game. They specifically say in the DMG that if you are playing only a one-shot game, that you should double or even triple expendables prices. Normal games are based on about 13 encounters to gain a level. The (in)famous expendable users need only 3-4 encounters to gain a level. That triples the relative usefullness (for its gold value) of expendables. Its certainly not versatility only. I don't recall that particular recomendation would you please share a page number?
SauroGrenom 04-07-06, 06:58 PM	Polymorph Making casters have a list of known poly-forms seems reasonable (either from skills or quests1). Putting limits/nerfs on the spell seems overboard to me. So you see nothing wrong with the fact that when an assimar wizard meets a duergar wizard on the battlefield that the assimar has a vastly more powerfull version of the very same spell simply due to his race. I find this to be a clear example of something being unbalanced. ***Edit: I missed his sarcasm, sorry.***
NiQil 04-07-06, 07:18 PM	@ Pittbull and everyone else concerned about PaO. At Pittbull's request I did some digging with regard to when PaO made the banned list. What I have found...is that it appears I have made an error. Albeit an easily explainable one, but an error nonetheless. I have included the relevant posts below...this conversation occurred when Reincarnate was banned. For some reason I took it to mean that PaO had also been banned, when the post clearly shows it has not, and no further posts about banning it could be found in my search: Tellish_of_Ket SoulLord Snommelp Tellish_of_Ket So with this information, I will remove the PaO entry from the Court Decisions the next time I update the prison (in a day or two). I apologize for the confusion.
Book5 04-07-06, 08:54 PM	An additional thought I didn't put up before is that if you have too many (something which would need to be set) containers, it takes an additional standard action to find the right container first. And as a corollary to that thought, maybe set each container to only be able to hold 20 items? Being very cruel on derivitave carrying capacities might.. achieve small enough space requirments. The scrolls and postions list their sizes - the containers dont. Nor weigth allowences either.
Zevox 04-07-06, 08:56 PM	OK, I think most of your original post was made not noticing half of mine. <snip> It would appear the only thing I was unaware of was that the use of a standard actions was to place the extra expendibles in the "ready" positions. I had missinterpretted that to mean that the extras could instead be drawn with a standard action. Honestly it changes my opinion little, though it does give for example the ability to plop a backup potion of SoF into the slot of the one you buff with for when it runs out. Basically, sure, go ahead and have your 10 billion scrolls. I just essentially added an extra standard action casting time for each one of your non-primary scrolls. If you don't start buying scrolls with multiple spells on them specifically for buffing, you get 7 scroll spells max before the 10 round delay rule kicks in and wipes your buffs dry. And I repeat that this is indeed something I like about the suggestion. I'm simply saying that while the suggestion works great for scrolls/stones, as it is its a might too restrictive on those using potions instead of scrolls; and as I said before (and Cat reiterated) the problem is the variety of scrolls/stones, so we should be looking to hurt them, not potions. @ Book5 - Not a fan of that one. Too restrictive at the lowest ECLs, too open at the higher ones. At ECL 3 you get 3 potions period - a worse situation than Ravashack's suggestion puts potion-users in - but at ECL 8 you get 8 scrolls with up to 6 spells each in addition to the same number of potions, wands, and rods? To say nothing of the truly high (currently frozen) levels - carrying in 15 or 20 scrolls chock full of spells is precisely the type of problem we're trying to limit. @ SauroGrenom - I'm probably getting repetitive here, but I agree with your suggestions. CL/ML +2 for scrolls/stones solves the problem of the magic domain and limits the effectiveness of "dipping" while not totally neutering either, and if we just say that UMD/UPD uses the level of the class its a class skill of to determine whats available that problem is solved. 10 slots for items sounds reasonable to me (though I'm still of the opinion that weapons shouldn't count), and if the number is that high I would have no problem including wands/dorjes in the items that use those slots as well. And the polymorph suggestion fits nicely - takes care of the overpowered problem forms while leaving them available if you focus yourself towards that goal, but also leaves the spell usable if you don't. Nice fixes all around IMO. Zevox
Usurpator 04-07-06, 09:09 PM	I don't recall that particular recomendation would you please share a page number? Page 199: Limited Use Items (and it actually says 5 times the price or 1/5th the normal number of charges)
Book5 04-07-06, 11:08 PM	Note: I am not sure of the requirements for outfit declaration seeing as you get freebies on your first one.. (ba'al has cleric vestments and Tan has an entertainers outfit ... for refrence purposes). Honestly I don't remember seeing it listed. that said here's the list with my commentary, I will use the term "pockets" to refer to a place that can be accessed as "ready." A "belt" refers to a strap that will allow another container (sheath, ammo satchel, backpack, etc). Pocket rules apply to only "weapon-like" objects. Belt rules apply to weapons and other containers. Weapon-Like objects cannot be attached to a belt - they must be contained in a pocket. Boots can hold one (1) ready item - each (so 2 items in a pair of boots) The presumption is that weapons and ammunition come with appropriate sheath/satchels and can attached to any "belt" whereas weapon-likes have to be in a container. Working with the idea of a "truely cruel" with the default carrying capacities of the srd containers. Artisan’s outfit 1 gp 4 lb.1 This outfit includes a shirt with buttons, a skirt or pants with a drawstring, shoes, and perhaps a cap or hat. It may also include a belt or a leather or cloth apron for carrying tools. Should have lots of pockets obviously comes with a belt. Are these very common in the arena? 5 Pockets, 1 large pocket, and two belts. Cleric’s vestments 5 gp 6 lb.1 These ecclesiastical clothes are for performing priestly functions, not for adventuring. These should be pretty common outfits! 1 pocket, 1 belt. Cold weather outfit 8 gp 7 lb.1 A cold weather outfit includes a wool coat, linen shirt, wool cap, heavy cloak, thick pants or skirt, and boots. This outfit grants a +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather. A hearty outfit! 2 pockets, 1 large pocket, 2 belts, boots. Courtier’s outfit 30 gp 6 lb.1 This outfit includes fancy, tailored clothes in whatever fashion happens to be the current style in the courts of the nobles. Anyone trying to influence nobles or courtiers while wearing street dress will have a hard time of it (–2 penalty on Charisma-based skill checks to influence such individuals). If you wear this outfit without jewelry (costing an additional 50 gp), you look like an out-of-place commoner. Please god no! No one should be in arena with this outfit on! 2 small pockets, 1 lite Belt. Entertainer’s outfit 3 gp 4 lb.1 This set of flashy, perhaps even gaudy, clothes is for entertaining. While the outfit looks whimsical, its practical design lets you tumble, dance, walk a tightrope, or just run (if the audience turns ugly). Flashy and flexible! 2 Pockets, 4 Small Pockets, 2 belts. Explorer’s outfit 10 gp 8 lb.1 This is a full set of clothes for someone who never knows what to expect. It includes sturdy boots, leather breeches or a skirt, a belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), gloves, and a cloak. Rather than a leather skirt, a leather overtunic may be worn over a cloth skirt. The clothes have plenty of pockets (especially the cloak). The outfit also includes any extra items you might need, such as a scarf or a wide-brimmed hat. "Plenty of pockets eh?" 6 pockets, 3 belts, boots. Monk’s outfit 5 gp 2 lb.1 This simple outfit includes sandals, loose breeches, and a loose shirt, and is all bound together with sashes. The outfit is designed to give you maximum mobility, and it’s made of high-quality fabric. You can hide small weapons in pockets hidden in the folds, and the sashes are strong enough to serve as short ropes. Should be a very common outfit! 4 small pockets, 1 large belt. Noble’s outfit 75 gp 10 lb.1 [indent]This set of clothes is designed specifically to be expensive and to show it. Precious metals and gems are worked into the clothing. To fit into the noble crowd, every would-be noble also needs a signet ring (see Adventuring Gear, above) and jewelry (worth at least 100 gp). Again one that should not be in the arena. 2 small pockets, 1 lite Belt. Peasant’s outfit 1 sp 2 lb.1 This set of clothes consists of a loose shirt and baggy breeches, or a loose shirt and skirt or overdress. Cloth wrappings are used for shoes. HAHAHAHAHA 2 large pockets. Royal outfit 200 gp 15 lb.1 This is just the clothing, not the royal scepter, crown, ring, and other accoutrements. Royal clothes are ostentatious, with gems, gold, silk, and fur in abundance. My Leige!?! What are you doing here? 2 pockets, 1 belt. Scholar’s outfit 5 gp 6 lb.1 Perfect for a scholar, this outfit includes a robe, a belt, a cap, soft shoes, and possibly a cloak. Again why are you wearing this to a knife fight? 2 pockets, 1 large pocket, 1 belt. Traveler’s outfit 1 gp 5 lb.1 This set of clothes consists of boots, a wool skirt or breeches, a sturdy belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), and an ample cloak with a hood. 2 Pockets, 1 large pocket, 1 belt, boots. Combat Worthy Containers Backpack (empty) 2 gp 2 lb. "Huge Belt Pouch"- needs no belt to attached to outfit. Effectivly 4x pockets -or- 1 Huge Pocket, 1 lite belt. Pouch, belt (empty) 1 gp 1/2 lb This one is sorta a benchmark - must have a belt to attach to outfit. This is one medium sized pocket -or- 1 pocket. Sack (empty) 1 sp 1/2 lb. Needs a belt to attach Items stored in a sack are not considered ready Spell component pouch 5 gp 2 lb. The idea is that you buy this "pouch" full This item is a "belt puch" purchased full of components. Dependant Containers These must be within another container. Case, map or scroll 1 gp 1/2 lb. This only holds paper.. maybe wands too. Effectivly one pocket of odd shape (9x1 - cylinder) Flask (empty) 3 cp 1-1/2 lb. Holds liquid ... could hold stones too. effecivly one pocket of odd shape (2x8 - cylinder) Vial, ink or potion 1 gp 1/10 lb. A vial holds 1 ounce of liquid. The stoppered container usually is no more than 1 inch wide and 3 inches high. What SRD said + needs to be in a container (pocket) not attached (belt) The Problem Child Saddlebags 4 gp 8 lb. A pack saddle holds gear and supplies, but not a rider. It holds as much gear as the mount can carry. Note:Using this item as a premis I would rather assume that a backpack can hold "as much gear as the character can carry" in that "saddlebags" are "mountbackpacks" Mah "Handibles" ... ya know yur hands/mandibles[/list] Barrel (empty) 2 gp 30 lb. ... Basket (empty) 4 sp 1 lb. ... Bucket (empty) 5 sp 2 lb. ... Jug, clay 3 cp 9 lb. This basic ceramic jug is fitted with a stopper and holds 1 gallon of liquid. Mug/Tankard, clay 2 cp 1 lb. ... Pot, iron 5 sp 10 lb. ... Chest (empty) 2 gp 25 lb. ... How big is a pocket? A medium pocket. Well lets start with the smallest expendable - stones Roughly 2x1 in - lets say 12 per pocket (fairly). Lets make a pocket 6x2 in. and can hold no more than 1.5 lbs. Stones = ~1/10th lb so max 12 stones per pocket by volume. BTW - thats 1 potion vial and 1 scroll case. OR - 3 scrolls, or 1 potion and 2 stones OR - 1 scroll and 8 stones, or a handful of wands. PER single medium pocket. Large/Small pockets hold 1/2 and 2x weight/volume respectivly. What do you get with your belts!?! A target! HA, just kidding, no actually Im not. The Belt rule works like this: A belt is a visible component of your outfit (or backpack) that will accept certain containers being attached to them (such as pouches and sheathes). Belt pouches (spell component pouches or ammo pouches) and sacks can be attached to a belt - expanding the "pocket" capacity of the outfit. If the belt is target and disarmed (as an attack or as a slight of hand move) the belt and all additional pockets attached to it are removed at once. Further there is weight limit to the amount of equipment that can be attached to a belt. Lite Belt - 10 lbs. Norm Belt - 25 lbs. Heavy Belt - 50 lbs. Last question! - Is this clear? or should I try and explain it more thoughoughly? I have another idea but its a 180 from this one, be back to clarify tommarow I actually think it'll work better than this, and be one of those 5 birds at a time things. Spoiler: I have a reason to apply the fair or unfair tag!
MindWandererB 04-07-06, 11:26 PM	Just one comment at this time: I don't think one set of clothing should have an advantage over any other. Not only will beginning players get very confused, it will mean that everyone will choose the same outfit, limiting creativity without any real advantage.
Vathelokai 04-08-06, 01:37 AM	So you see nothing wrong with the fact that when an assimar wizard meets a duergar wizard on the battlefield that the assimar has a vastly more powerfull version of the very same spell simply due to his race. I find this to be a clear example of something being unbalanced.No, I don't see it as being too far unbalanced. You could take an assimar commoner and a halfling commoner and pit them and the assimar is ahead just by their race. I could rattle on with examples, but that would be a waste. All I'm saying is that D&D is rife with balance issues. Yeah, polymorph is powerful. Outsider polymorph is 110% as powerfull..... Actually, I think I'll take this to the tavern, since I sense the presence of Cat wanting us to get back on topic. How prey tell does a character for example a PsiWarrior get access to dispell magic? I was being facetious. I inappropriately said that dispel magic would be great for anybody, as though it was an alchemical item. My bad.
Ravashack 04-08-06, 07:25 AM	Zevox: Could you show more thorough examples of such a situation happening where someone is reliant on needing that many potions please? I think I understand your what-if scenario, but I really don't see when it will ever actually hamper things just because it's possible someone might need a lot of potions. Sure everyone can use a healing potion or three but do they usually go through all of them on a regular basis? Needing to chug through mass quantities of potions just doesn't strike me as an issue in the CoCo. It sounds more psychological than anything else. Book5: A scaling expendable limit doesn't solve mass expendable use--it delays it. You don't need an infinite supply of expendables to be prepared for everything. It really doesn't help the situation by moving the problem to later levels. In addition, I think you lost me with the clothes thought honestly. It sounds more complicated than it needs to be at first glance.
barrel_master 04-08-06, 12:27 PM	So with this information, I will remove the PaO entry from the Court Decisions the next time I update the prison (in a day or two). I apologize for the confusion. Thanks for the correction and the work you obiously put in to fix said correction.
barrel_master 04-08-06, 12:40 PM	So you see nothing wrong with the fact that when an assimar wizard meets a duergar wizard on the battlefield that the assimar has a vastly more powerfull version of the very same spell simply due to his race. I find this to be a clear example of something being unbalanced. It's simply a matter of the core rules being unbalanced in that regard. Honsetly, is it our place to 're-balance' them? How prey tell does a character for example a PsiWarrior get access to dispell magic? I suppose you'll suggest that the psiwarrior go and buy a ring of spell storing for 18000gp and spell casting services for every battle. Untill ECL13 or so this is not a very viable option because of the cost. By that time polymorph has dominated for 6 levels. Or mabey everyone in the CoCo should dip into a spellcasting class just for this purpose. Or mabey he should prebuff with imbue spell ability before every battle regardless of who he may be facing. Sure there are ways to get dispell magic on a fighter, but they are expensive and not suited to the CoCo environment where you don't know your opponent till it's too late to make such preparations. Take for example Barthleby's hide in a rope trick while he buffs tactic. There is no class besides a caster who will have the spellcraft and spell power necessary to counter this tactic. It's an automatic win for Barthleby vs any noncaster because he comes out of the rope trick with an AC so high that not even a fighter at his ECL with weapon focus and greater weapon focus and a magical weapon is able to hit except on a 20. I think his point is that it's possible for fighters to beat spell casters if they build the right way. Fair enough, casters are more powerfull higher up but that's an aspect of the core rules in themselves. Unfortunately, I think some builds are just plain not good as they go up in lvl.
Book5 04-08-06, 03:23 PM	Book5: A scaling expendable limit doesn't solve mass expendable use--it delays it. You don't need an infinite supply of expendables to be prepared for everything. It really doesn't help the situation by moving the problem to later levels. In addition, I think you lost me with the clothes thought honestly. It sounds more complicated than it needs to be at first glance. :bow: Thank You and Goodnight! Ya see I call it "reductio ad absurdum" - thats roughly what a real serious balanced belt slots thing would look like. Building off of srd concepts and srd materials. TOOO big. I happened to have it lying around :cool: but if the purpose is [Fairness] and perhaps [Citations]! Ok I like this idea! Playing with Tags We need a few more excuses around here to take your character's money. No were not kidding, but no were not all that serious either. You do not have to pay citations. You will never get thrown in prison and you have not broken "the rules." You are simply not playing fair, and as fairness is a community thing .. the details may change from time to time. Its a game of [tags!] and power ratings! Failure to comply with publically debatable standards of fairness. We apply citations to those that fail to comply. Failure to pay those fines gives you the aloof tag. Your not listening to anyone else right? Repeated citations (3) adds the cruel tag! Thats a total -3 to your leadership rating! hehe did I mention I like this one? Getting and Getting rid of Tags! [Great Renown] Win a few fights | Loose a few fights. [Aloof] Failure to pay lastest citation | Pay a citation (any 1). [Cruel] Failure to pay three weeks of citations | Pay all citations. [Fairness] All citations fully paid | Failure to pay any citation. [Generosity] Expending gp for rp | renigging via character change. [Failure] Loose a few fights | Win a few fights. I really like this part - even though I bet it'll hurt Tan. Public Standards of Fairness If you don't think you opponent fought "fair" say so. Ask for a citation, get two seconds and boom citation. 100xLevel in gp. 300, 400, 500, 600, etc. Thats really easy. And if three people agree than this guy is doing something pretty cheap. And! They dont have to pay if they don't want too. They just get tagged. Yeah, vote! Soooo easy. Does those other tags at the very least. I don't think this is going to "solve" the expendable problem - its a slight discouragment and a big (not very fair) gp penalty to get hit with. But it does mean that anyone going for the full allies thing will not walk into a fight with 300 odd potions in a sack. Looking overthings twice and three times I think that could consider these two rules as well, Equipment and items in a backpack or sack are considered stored and hidden. You do not need to store items in a backpack or sack. Instead you may store items loose in your outfit. Items stored in your outfit must be listed as either in a pocket or on a belt. Also, an "over full" backpack/sack requires an additional standard action to close or spill contents. A backpack/sack can hold your medium load before becoming overfilled. Stored/Hidden and the proverbial "full action item retrieval" - born from the description of the bag of holding btw. and of course, just to remind everyone, Items that are "on your belt -or- in a pocket" are considered ready to draw. If a peice of equipment cannot be drawn readily it is simply considered stored. An average belt can hold 25 lbs of equipment. You may have more than one belt or no belts as described by your outfit. You must declare the contents of your pockets and belts on your character sheet because you opponents may target both pockets and belts - thereby spilling the contents onto the ground or taking those items for themselves. Potions, scrolls, potions, and other bottles/flasks/vials cannot be drawn as a free action with a regular move. The 25 lbs is just for refrence. Technically they could put however much on the belt(s). The real deal is the declaration of targets! No new rules here! Just enforcing declarations of location - thereby providing disarmers and pickpocketers easy targets. I guess I am suggesting letting a pickpocketers/disarmers "take your belt" and everything on it in one move.... but I think thats fair. It does certainly increases the risks of ready items.
Book5 04-08-06, 03:40 PM	Just one comment at this time: I don't think one set of clothing should have an advantage over any other. Not only will beginning players get very confused, it will mean that everyone will choose the same outfit, limiting creativity without any real advantage. Actually each of the outfits does have their advantage over the other. The cold weather outfit grants fort save bonuses, they all have different weights and costs.. I should have included "holy symbol" as one of the clerical bonuses. Boots vs shoes alone is a pretty straitforward benifit statement. I have seen challenges that differentiate between sturdy boots, soft shoes, or foot wrappings. Courtiers outfits grant bonuses to diplomacy and bluff... they are not all the same.
Ravashack 04-08-06, 03:50 PM	:bow: Thank You and Goodnight! Ya see I call it "reductio ad absurdum" - thats roughly what a real serious balanced belt slots thing would look like. Building off of srd concepts and srd materials. TOOO big. I happened to have it lying around :cool: but if the purpose is [Fairness] and perhaps [Citations]! [...] I'm sorry, but you really lost me at this point. You've demonstrated that it CAN be complicated, not that it NEEDS to be complicated.
Vathelokai 04-08-06, 03:57 PM	Public Standards of Fairness If you don't think you opponent fought "fair" say so. Ask for a citation, get two seconds and boom citation. 100xLevel in gp. 300, 400, 500, 600, etc. Thats really easy. And if three people agree than this guy is doing something pretty cheap. And! They dont have to pay if they don't want too. They just get tagged. Bad idea, if only because it can only be applied subjectivly.
Book5 04-08-06, 04:25 PM	I'm sorry, but you really lost me at this point. You've demonstrated that it CAN be complicated, not that it NEEDS to be complicated. To do it right. Its complicated. refrence the bottom of the "play tag" idea to see the simpler version. The Problem with both indepth and brief belt slot rules is that they don't solve the problems they are intended to solve. To actually reduce the expendables in the arena you are needing to be looking at creating an artificial limit. There are already artificial limits - 1/3rd rule. Allies by ECL and Tag. Activities. etc. I can only imagine this as forcing everyone to put something like this onto their character sheet.... call it the "Arena Application" Magic Item Slots, Hat Slot (1): Glasses Slot (pair): Amulet Slot (1): Shirt Slot (1): Armor Slot (1): Belt Slot (1): Mantle Slot (1): Bracer Slot (pair): Glove Slot (pair): Ring Slot (2): Boot Slot (pair): Expendable Items, Potions (5): Scrolls (5): Stones (10): Tatoos (10): @ Vath - ok so the problem is how do you determin whats fair. I think I saw about a whole page go by without anyone being able to agree on how many potions you should be able to have. How much is too much? Not how much can you carry (plenty) nor how easy can you get them off (not as fast as you might think), but how much is a fair amount to allow you to bring into a fight.
Book5 04-08-06, 04:46 PM	What if you need the appropriate knowledge for that monster, like arcana for magical beasts? The value must be as high as the HD you want to polymorph in. Sorry, forgot to point out I think that is a superb idea - another might be to force a predeclaration of the form chosen when the spell is prepared. That would make it real easy to plan for.
SauroGrenom 04-08-06, 04:56 PM	It's simply a matter of the core rules being unbalanced in that regard. Honsetly, is it our place to 're-balance' them?So if a tire on your car is flat, do you look at it and say, "Is it my place to fix it?" Do you keep driving on it while it's flat cuz you don't think it's your place to fix it? I don't know about you, but if I see a problem I try to fix it. Sometimes the fix isn't worth the effort, so I decide to not fix it untill it becomes a big enough problem. Honestly the sheer broakeness of polymorph was something I hadn't noticed untill my characters hit ECL7. This was when I first ran up against others who were using it against me. I've thought about it over the last month, and I cannot develop a tactic for a melee character to beat polymorph if the caster can polymorph into huge, gargantuan, or outsider forms. I cannot know what form he will take, and each form will require a drasticially different tactic to defeat, and some forms may be impossible for a particular build to defeat. The problem is in my opinion a serious one and the fix I'm proposing is not difficult to do. It will allow us to make the knowledge skill usefull, and it will simplify the issue of writing tactics against these characters. I think it's very unreasonable for casters to cry about being nerfed. The conditions of the arena makes these characters excessively powerfull. So much so that if I look at the 15 "Great Renown" characters all of them have atleast 1 level in a casting/manifesting class. If I look at those characters more closely I find that of the 15, 9 are pure casters, 6 are characters that "dip" for 2 levels or less into a caster, 4 are magic domain clerics, 3 are pure druids, and none are pure members of a noncasting or non manifesting class. In the TT world of Dnd druids are widely considered to be the most powerfull character class, but in the Arena they are outnumbered by magic domain clerics and characters that "dip" into a class. If I add up the number of "great renown" pure sorcerers and wizards, it's equal to the number of pure druids. And with the highest ECL being 10, we haven't yet reached the levels where arcane power realy shines. Also ECL10 is widely considered to be the height of fighter power, where they are the first to gain access to the great combat feats and manouvers that others will gain several levels later. Yet there are no great renown pure fighters. None. There are two characters on that list of 15 that have taken levels in fighter and never more than 2 levels. The arena has no "great renown" single class rangers, monks, barbarians, rogues, paladins, fighters or soulknives. We do have "great renown" members who are single class clerics, druids, sorcerers, wizards, psions and psiwarriors. Every casting/manifesting class is represented except the wilder. To me that looks like a serious balance problem. If a person wanted to rectify the balance issue of that, casters need to get hit with the nerf stick and hit hard repeatedly.
Caterane 04-08-06, 05:10 PM	It's simply a matter of the core rules being unbalanced in that regard. Honsetly, is it our place to 're-balance' them? Yes, it is, Barrel. We have seen the fall of the coco's two predecessors. Likewise, I don't consider everything WotC writes or Skip tells us the equivalent of a bible text. They produced an overall good (core) system but as with something as complex as d20 and something based on nearly unlimited options and connections, they could not produce the perfect system right away. This might be acceptable for a real-life group, but in the coco we must have a balanced system. On a side note: looking at the rate with which WotC releases new untested material monthly and thereby destablizes an already flawed system further, I came to the conclusion that they have either no idea about what they're doing (incompetence) or do it just for money's sake regardless of the consequences to the game. Either way, the coco should better not follow this path but listen to its very competent members instead.
Vathelokai 04-08-06, 05:23 PM	To do it right. Its complicated.Yup. Communism. As an aside; I'm guessing that Prestidigitation will not be allowed to sort out the 20 scrolls I'm carrying either. And the 25 intellegince dosn't make a difference either. Or having an organized scroll case. @ Vath - ok so the problem is how do you determin whats fair. I think I saw about a whole page go by without anyone being able to agree on how many potions you should be able to have. How much is too much? Not how much can you carry (plenty) nor how easy can you get them off (not as fast as you might think), but how much is a fair amount to allow you to bring into a fight.Creating an artifcial list of whats fair is, in and of it self, unfair. As soon as there are hard rules, the lawyers of CocCo will push the limits of those rules, being entirely unfair, and claim fairness because they are within the rules. I get the impression that these arguements are comming up because we have nothing more productive to be working on. It seems like every time there is a lul in the public works projects we fall back on the 'how do we nerf expendables' debate. WHY? What is so damn horrible about an expendibles build? If a wizard sits and scribes scrolls all year, then you challenge him to a duel, what right do you have to get upset that he has 50 scrolls? I can sympathize with the sentiment that it's no fun to get get one shot killed by a spell. But it sucks to get one shot killed by a mounted lance charge, or a powerstoring sword or disolving sneak attack or .... Anyway, the second point about versitility.... Wizards have 100s of spells to choose from! The entire class is built on versitility! That's what they do! If this were table top it would be even worse becasue you wouldn't know at all what scrolls or memorized spells they have. Pardon this inflamitory statement, but it sure looks like people are getting pissy because the wizards (ok and the magic clerics) won't come down and fight the barbarians hand to hand. I've never once seen a spell caster complain about rage, or hide in plain sight, or lay on hands or turn undead. Yet from all sides I see non casters complaining about how wizards hide and cast spells instead of comming out and fighting!? WTF! And the belt slot thing; No matter how it gets fixed it will result in longer hiding for buffs or haversacks. Unless we ignore the RAW and force some kind of extra actions; then it will definitely be more hiding. Hell, why don't we just cut to the chase and start banning specific characters. "Sorry Bartleby, the crowds just don't like the way you fight, so the arena has revoked your contract. No hard feeling. Say, why don't you go watch some WWE for some ideas." Sigh. Well now that I've gotten on everyone's nerves, I appologize for that. But I really don't understand the point of this.
SauroGrenom 04-08-06, 05:50 PM	Yup. Communism. :rofl: Ahh a light heart is realy so necessary... That gave me a great chuckle. I think the idea keeps comming back, because every time a person tries to build a character concept that is not a caster, they get slammed by the casters. I've tried twice. Perhaps I'm not a very good person to consider as an example, because I've never had drasticially sucessfull gladiators. But the evidence of history reveals the fact that if you don't have any caster levels you will get beat by a caster almost every time in the arena. If you take just 1 level in a caster class, then you are increadibly more powerfull. This is very unbalanced. In an older version of CoCo it was thought to be because of the number of spells a caster can cast in a given encounter. That was corrected. Now it appears to be that the free access to scrolls and stones allows for even more casting power in a single combat than before. Yes casters are intended to be versatile. But if you think about a caster's role in a party, they are intended to be fragile as well. Woe betide the party wizard in melee with a hydra. That's what the fighters are there to prevent. In a TT game the wizard can cast fly once or twice at best before he needs to rest. So on his third combat of the day he is unable to fly away from melee. In the CoCo you cast fly for every combat. You can avoid getting in melee every time. You win vs the fighter every time. The conditions of the CoCo arena combat are very different from those that were used to balance all the core classes. Our conditions drasticially favor casters over melee characters. I have been around for a while and I have never seen a pure monk get the great renown tag for even a single week. My attempt to make a monk was going good for a while, but later even the casters were defeating me at every turn. Casters should be the ones to most feer grappling builds, but they were tearing my monk to pieces. The conditions of the arena are so far from the conditions where the core classes were balanced that rogues are mostly unheard of. Monks are outgrappled by polymorphing wizards every time, and clerics are casting arcane spells as potent as wizards at there same level. Whevever there is a "best" option, the game becomes far less interesting to play. We are looking at a game when being a caster is certianly the best option. If the purpose of the CoCo is to test the power and versatility of builds, we need to make our arena conditions more closely match the conditions of a TT game where the builds are intended to actually play. Otherwise the crucible of the Arena produces highly specialized creatures that are totally failures in the real game.
Argaud 04-08-06, 07:18 PM	It has come to my attention something I believe is a severe unbalance in the CoCo rules about the availability of expendables. This has probably little to do with the discussion at had, but I feel it is very important. I am told that when a character purchases potions or psionic tattoos he is strictly limited (barring expending credits) to purchase those potions available in the DMG table and the tattoos of the minimum ML possible according to the SRD. However, if the character purchases scrolls or powerstones, he is free to pick any manifester level he wants (limited to his ECL) therefore having much more freedom and versatility at the time to of picking his expenses and the duration and intensity of the effect of the spells. I really don’t see any logical reason to limit one kind of expendables while allowing the other more freedom. Logically if the NPC crafters are willing to create scrolls exactly the level the purchaser wants, so could they create the potions on demand. Or if they only create ‘stock’ potions and tattoos, they should also only create stock scrolls and powerstones. The differentiation is arbitrary. The main problem, however, appears when we consider who purchases potions and tattoos against who purchases scrolls and powerstones. Casters/manifesters generally purchase scrolls and powerstones, since they are cheaper and they can use them. Fair is fair, and their character classes come with that particular benefit. But what must be taken in consideration is that the possibility of picking the CL/ML of the scrolls and powerstones means they have a far wider versatility than non-casters/manifesters, which is blatantly unfair. It is not small matter. It is true that a CL1 potion of, for instance, protection from evil, costs half a much a scroll. While 3 potions cost, again, exactly twice as much as a CL3 scroll of protection from evil (and exactly the same than a CL3 ‘custom’ potion of protection from evil). But while the scroll could be cast in one standard action, while the potions need to be consumed using 3 standard actions and probably 2 move-equivalent actions to pull them out of the belt. As a consequence, if the protection was needed during 30 rounds, the caster is saving himself of two full rounds of action, as well as avoiding possible attacks of opportunity. Therefore the caster has an obvious advantage, and now just because scrolls are cheaper! I strongly feel this rule needs to be reviewed as soon as possible.
Usurpator 04-08-06, 07:19 PM	So much so that if I look at the 15 "Great Renown" characters all of them have atleast 1 level in a casting/manifesting class. If I look at those characters more closely I find that of the 15, 9 are pure casters, 6 are characters that "dip" for 2 levels or less into a caster, 4 are magic domain clerics, 3 are pure druids, and none are pure members of a noncasting or non manifesting class. Hey! Nexa is neither a pure caster nor a 2 level or less dipper. Or was she left out of the comparison? I'm seriously offended now. :P It is partially a caster effect. But there are plenty of full casters or dippers that are not Great Reknown characters. Good players now how to recognize good builds *and* know how to make use of them in the arena. Casters simply have more options, making them more flexible, and thus more powerful for good tacticians. Casters tend to bring out the difference in players. In table-top DnD, almost everyone can play a single classed fighter well, but some players make a caster seem more than twice as powerful as other players, just by sensible tactics. Maeril was actually a character of mine in a regular game. The CoCo character is almost a carbon-copy (besides being 36 point buy instead of 28) of my regular character. Everyone in the party thought he was the most powerful character, while it was just good use of limited Sorcerer spell power that gave that impression. A strategically placed web is generally more effective than just another acid arrow.
Usurpator 04-08-06, 07:24 PM	It has come to my attention something I believe is a severe unbalance in the CoCo rules about the availability of expendables. This has probably little to do with the discussion at had, but I feel it is very important. I am told that when a character purchases potions or psionic tattoos he is strictly limited (barring expending credits) to purchase those potions available in the DMG table and the tattoos of the minimum ML possible according to the SRD. However, if the character purchases scrolls or powerstones, he is free to pick any manifester level he wants (limited to his ECL) therefore having much more freedom and versatility at the time to of picking his expenses and the duration and intensity of the effect of the spells. I accepted this as one of CoCo idionsyncracies. Something to do with possible not being able to balance custom potions perhaps. Actually, this rule is easily broken if one of your characters takes brew potion. It would be insane if CoCo forbids characters to brew a CL 3 potion of enlarge person just because it isn't on the list. But because casters (for obvious reasons) rather take scribe scroll than brew potion, this conflict hasn't occured yet. You could apply the rule to scrolls, since the DMG does list scrolls, but that quickly runs into trouble in a similar way as the potion. And since powerstones are not listed at all, they could not be created at all. It is a strange rule, but I assume it has been made for balance reasons, and not to overburden the already expendable-heavy arena with even more potions etc.
Argaud 04-08-06, 07:58 PM	I accepted this as one of CoCo idionsyncracies. Something to do with possible not being able to balance custom potions perhaps. Actually, this rule is easily broken if one of your characters takes brew potion. It would be insane if CoCo forbids characters to brew a CL 3 potion of enlarge person just because it isn't on the list. But because casters (for obvious reasons) rather take scribe scroll than brew potion, this conflict hasn't occured yet. You could apply the rule to scrolls, since the DMG does list scrolls, but that quickly runs into trouble in a similar way as the potion. And since powerstones are not listed at all, they could not be created at all. It is a strange rule, but I assume it has been made for balance reasons, and not to overburden the already expendable-heavy arena with even more potions etc. Exactly. Potions has a list, and we are limited to that list. Scrolls has a list, but we aren't limited to that list. Tattoos has no list, but we are limited to lowest ML possible. Powerstones has no list, but we can purchase any ML we want. After thinking a little bit more about the problem, I think everything should be limited to the PHB list -or- minimum ML/CL. Otherwise, why stop with potions/scrolls/tattoos/powerstones? Shouldn't we be able to purchase wands as we want too? And if wands, why not everything else? Right now I just don't see any balance. Casters/manifesters have an very unfair advantage by being able to design their scrolls and powerstones, while everybody else needs to pay credits to adquire non-standard items.
Book5 04-08-06, 08:09 PM	warning, book5 may contain sporadic, irrational, and occasionally contradictory content. gives ya something to think about though... me? I think I have to say "vath wins" our old debate about whether fighters or mages are more powerful. The 1/3rd rule is a restriction of the caster, the polymorph thing as well. Expendables "casting things" are showing their ability to dominate a fight. And at no point have I suggested that those able to "create" a item should be prevented in any way from having as many of those that they want. This gives the mage an inherint expendable account.. add any other expendable craft feats and your mages are able to walk in and pull out what they need when they need it (note: the description says scrolls have nifty marks to make them easy to distinguish) because yes thats what they do. The sorcerer ... not so much. Fighters not at all! But it seems like every psiwarrior has a bag of marbles that do anything! (the reason they are easy to identify is because they're psychic duh! its the force) A character that creates stones should be like that, but not every tom, dick, and ba'al. The tatoos are nice psi-potions and are even more usable. Psi-items are really the ones that seem to be out of hand to me. Tap tat to use? Scrolls and potions have to be readied to your mandibles and then used! Really though I don't read every fight. I pretty much take cat's word that these things are out of hand. That and I have seen people use like 10-15 expendables in one fight before... they won. The other guy used nearly as much and obviously lost, so thats probably a bad example. As far as the prestidigitation thing? I would still call it's power "make things ready to draw like a weapon" specifically intended for potions, scrolls, wands, and daggers. The arcane caster's standard weapons (other than a staff). All under a pound in weight. I am harping on the item manipulation issue because I have totally noticed without anyone else needing to bring it up that item handling is neither consistant nor rigorous in pit fights. A location declaration rule would "highlight" the expendables as targets - remember how Luni sundered all the scrolls when they were flying around with prestidigitation? Would he have done that if they werent "standing out like that?" probably not. Can you sunder scrolls that are on your person? Yes. Unless they are hidden. @Argaud - sorry misunderstood... Ya know ... if powerful expendable were available to the other classes equally - then there would be less of a "mage/psion" buff. Really mages and psions use scrolls and stones, its the non-casters that could use the potions of fly! Again! Tats better than potions! Psi better than Magic! Tats cannot be sundered!
Vathelokai 04-08-06, 08:22 PM	Right now I just don't see any balance. Casters/manifesters have an very unfair advantage by being able to design their scrolls and powerstones, while everybody else needs to pay credits to adquire non-standard items. 1) I agree with you. 2) I think there should be an exception for characters that have spent a feat to make their own magic items. I can see putting a limit on purchased items, but not home-made ones. 3) To echo Usurpator, since we do 1on1 battles, no one takes brew potion, thus that's why the rule hasn't been challanged, methinks.
Book5 04-08-06, 08:41 PM	On a side note: looking at the rate with which WotC releases new untested material monthly and thereby destablizes an already flawed system further, I came to the conclusion that they have either no idea about what they're doing (incompetence) or do it just for money's sake regardless of the consequences to the game. Either way, the coco should better not follow this path but listen to its very competent members instead. I think they lean on rule 0 aka "mix/fix rules for your game style" a weee too much. I mean I'm all like The complete books.. aight, the heros books... umm ok.. races of ....... handy but what is all this extra nonesense? Miniatures? How does this .. like.. rationalize with .. that?? ugh. Then FR/Ebberon stuff.. yikes! Necro/Draco/Nomicanonsense.. neat. Yes. Woven elegantly into the entire system? Well.. I wouldnt go that far. Please no on one mention oath of poverty. Please.
Argaud 04-08-06, 08:52 PM	2) I think there should be an exception for characters that have spent a feat to make their own magic items. I can see putting a limit on purchased items, but not home-made ones. I agree with you here. If a character has the feat, he can design the items as he wants. Although it scares me a little what a crafter can do with the Create Woundrous Item feat. Some custom items I have seen are very broken, even if they follow the rules to the letter!
Vathelokai 04-08-06, 09:09 PM	Although it scares me a little what a crafter can do with the Create Woundrous Item feat. Some custom items I have seen are very broken, even if they follow the rules to the letter!That's why we have the 5-15credit cost for custom ones with multiple GM oversight before letting custom items in.
DSugui 04-08-06, 09:32 PM	Ok, before you continue to read this, I have to tell that I am a little drunk right now, so if you want to disregard what I am saying, very well... Spellcasters have a huge problem that I see few gladiators taking advantage of: Concentration checks. I haven't seen any tactics against spellcaster that ready actions vs spellcasting. If you can find the csater before he has time to buff entirely, then you can disrupt the casting readying attack against spellcasting. But nobody does that. Are spellcasters disbalanced? Maybe. I play RPG for 11 years now, and I can tell that in higher levels, spellcasters are the most powerful characters in a party. But they are fragile. If you cancel or disrupt their spells, they are doomed. So, are there really need to nerf casters even more? Or should we think of better tactics agains casters? I think the CoCo is not only a place to test my builds, but also a place where to train my skills as a tactician. If I can't write good tactics against casters, then I deserve to lose. (Ok, the polymorph thing is different because I can't actually write tactics against every monster in the MM, but you got the idea...) Anyways, my point is: are casters overpowered? Yes. But they are nerfed in the CoCo enough to balance with other classes, and I think we just need better tactics agains them, noit more rules to nerf them further...
Book5 04-08-06, 10:24 PM	If you take just 1 level in a caster class, then you are increadibly more powerfull. Because you have access to the spell list and are then able to use the "superior" scrolls and stones instead of the "inferior" tatoos and potions. Wands are really the kicker for that 1 level dip though. The question I have: Is it the flexibility that is the problem with expendables? Is it the mages/psychics that are the problem or is it the non-casters? I think (considering SauroGenom's commentary) The problem is the unbalanced reprisentation of the casting classes in the great renown category. Quick look at the failures and we have a pure psion, a pure sorcerer, a pure mage.. bard, wilder.. umm. So "just being a mage" doesnt win you any battles - but being a bard or a wilder might loose you some! All the failures are caster classes too... sounds like we might just have under-represented non-casters... in the coco. Lets look at another angle. Reviewing the three level 9 great renown characters - they each have well over 20 expendables on hand, and interesting.. very interesting.. of vandelar's 100+ scrolls that he has made he has used the vast majority of them .... :lightbulb I forgot where I was going with that, but :plotting: :evillaugh OMG I think I just noticed/realized something! In a TT game the fighters have expendables, and the casters have a library of scrolls in their pockets! This is generally true of the design mentality... which means.. that the reason the casters are outperforming the other classes... is that they are supposed to be wasting their time and experience buffing the other players! The fighter and rouge classes were written with the intent of having a cleric and wizard standing next to them. .... If you resticted the arena fights to 2vs2 fights... that would get us to a better representation of how the rules were intended to be used.. 4vs4 ( :love: ) ... would be exactly the conditions the rules were meant to work under. Reserving 1vs1 fights for challenges - would free up the pit lords too. Take the Bard for example - they are not designed for and should not be judged by their mano-e-mano performances. (Unless they are actual "performances" ) Even the best of bards is not going to be able to measure up toe to toe with even a medium good build fighter or caster. I have however noticed that bards have performed better in the multi-fights ... I assume thats because of their flexibility. They are not locked to one attack pattern because they are designed to assist the other members of the team. Is that a design flaw of the bard class? I don't think so. Its a design descision of the game. @DSugui - Dont drink and post (at least dont admit it say "your out of it" or something - thats actually against board policies what with the minors and all). Second I have put "disrupt casting with 10' reach weapon... almost everytime I went into a fight with Tan and it hasnt happend very often. I bet concentration checks are extreemly undercalled for - the rules are vaugely worded but actually do imply you are supposed to make contrationtion checks to disrupt pretty much any action. .... damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 action) or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action). Note: "activities being taken requiring no more than a full-round" iow "you can ready/AoO to disrupt any action that takes a full round or less." and "you can make a standard attack to disrupt any action that take more than a full-round." In other words you can ready to attempt to disrupt concentration on... attacking. Walking? Jumping? Thinking!?! Spotting? Retrieving? As a matter of fact, I do believe this is the case... (well maybe not spot and listen but deffinitly search. Have you ever tried to find something with disturbing you?) The problem is that gets back to the tactics thing. Fighters tend to have a balanced record because their fights are like a record. They have their tactics pretty much outlined with only minor differences for each opponent (oh use the iron arrows...). Casters on the other hand have all these options - so using them correctly becomes a much more pertinant factor. Its similar with the concentration thing, intelligent use of readies and percise action choices could give allot of fighters a better showing, but that has to be adequetly described in tactics and effectivly implemented by pitlord. "use fireball wand for ice elemental, and shatter wand for the constructs.... " allot easier to describe and do.
barrel_master 04-08-06, 11:31 PM	So if a tire on your car is flat, do you look at it and say, "Is it my place to fix it?" Do you keep driving on it while it's flat cuz you don't think it's your place to fix it? I don't know about you, but if I see a problem I try to fix it. Sometimes the fix isn't worth the effort, so I decide to not fix it untill it becomes a big enough problem. Arg man... I think some of these comments are misleading. You're characterizing me as a dude that doens't want to fix problems. That isn't true at all. All I'm saying is that spell casters are more powerful esp. at higher levels. Is that really a bad thing? If you ask any poster on these boards they'll probably tell you that the spellcasters are more powerful higher up and that's just how dnd is. Are we then to re-write/change a number of core rules so that all classes can be as powerful as all other classes higher up?
barrel_master 04-08-06, 11:36 PM	Yes, it is, Barrel. We have seen the fall of the coco's two predecessors. Likewise, I don't consider everything WotC writes or Skip tells us the equivalent of a bible text. They produced an overall good (core) system but as with something as complex as d20 and something based on nearly unlimited options and connections, they could not produce the perfect system right away. This might be acceptable for a real-life group, but in the coco we must have a balanced system. On a side note: looking at the rate with which WotC releases new untested material monthly and thereby destablizes an already flawed system further, I came to the conclusion that they have either no idea about what they're doing (incompetence) or do it just for money's sake regardless of the consequences to the game. Either way, the coco should better not follow this path but listen to its very competent members instead. Did they fail because of imbalance? If I recall, the previous 2 failed because there was too much material (non core rules), ally abuse and because they didn't have a Moh, Jindl, Cat, ect. Honestly, if we went back to the old Moh rules I think we'd still be okay and we wouldn't be at risk of 'failing' at all.
Usurpator 04-09-06, 06:55 AM	Spellcasters have a huge problem that I see few gladiators taking advantage of: Concentration checks. I haven't seen any tactics against spellcaster that ready actions vs spellcasting. If you can find the csater before he has time to buff entirely, then you can disrupt the casting readying attack against spellcasting. But nobody does that A. Casters usually start off with invisibility, rope trick, obscuring mist, fly, or something else to evade their opponent until they are good and ready to engage. Non-spellcasters have limited means to overcome these tactics. B. Readying wouldn't help one bit, since spellcasters can take a 5 ft. step and cast, and in CoCo you cannot take a 5 ft. step with your ready action as in regular D&D, so that won't work if even you got the chance to ready situation. C. Even if you did manage to get the caster within your reach, you must hit and the caster must fail their concentration check, which is not a sure thing. Just do as most gladiators do and grapple the caster. Much better chances, and much more effective.
SauroGrenom 04-09-06, 12:32 PM	Arg man... I think some of these comments are misleading. You're characterizing me as a dude that doens't want to fix problems. That isn't true at all. All I'm saying is that spell casters are more powerful esp. at higher levels. Is that really a bad thing? If you ask any poster on these boards they'll probably tell you that the spellcasters are more powerful higher up and that's just how dnd is. Are we then to re-write/change a number of core rules so that all classes can be as powerful as all other classes higher up?You are correct in your assesment that caster should be powerfull at higher levels, and this is how dnd is. However in the CoCO casters dominate at low levels as well. At ECL7 casters are already using polymorph to win nearly every battle. Polymorph is not IMO a highlevel spell. It's not even half way up to 9th. At ECL5 casters are using invisibility, flight and protection from arrows to avoid melee entirely and realy kick a fighters butt. At ECL3 outsider casters are using alter self to gain perfect flight and high AC. You are correct that the power differential just keeps growing as levels increase. However in normal DnD there is a time when the casters are the weakest players. This is never the case in the Arena, casters always dominate. This is not a balanace issue in the core rules. It's a balance issue of the Arena favoring spellcasters. If balance in the arena followed the balance of a TT game using core rules, then fighters would be very powerfull at ECL10 and casters would loose to a fighter about 1/3 of the time at this level even if they had all the right spells memorized at the begining of the day. There should be the possibility for a fighter to battle a wizard after he's already spent most of his spells but hasn't had the chance to rest. This happens in the TT games all the time, but it never happens in the arena. At moments like this the fighter holds an advantage over the wizard, and the sorcerer and psion spontanious casting realy shines. Moments like this never happen here. Only the strengths and never the weaknesses of prepared spell casters are revealed. A Radical Proposal: What follows is going to be a radical proposal. I ask that if you decide to read it, please take five minutes after reading the post to consider it's pro's and con's before your reply. This is an idea that has been stewing in the back of my mind for a while. I just this morning came up with a way to make it work, so it is not fully developed yet, but I hope you will see its merits and help me to develop the idea. My proposal stems from the fact that the standard conditions that govern combat in the Arena are wildly different from those of a Table Top game where the abilities of the classes are balanced. I hope to identify the balancing principals of a TT game and apply those to Arena Combat. In a typical DnD game you play with friends over pizza and beer, the adventures all take place in a single day much like the way that a quest is run now. There is no chance to resupply or rest in the middle of most encounters. All your resources at the beginning of the adventure are set and you must use them for the entire series of encounters in the adventure. Any wounds suffered, abilities used or resources consumed persist into future encounters. There are typicially 3 encounters in a day and that is equivalent to a small adventure. The hours between encounters is used to heal wounds and perform various activities important as preparation for the next encounter. Each encounter can begin with varrying conditions, for example the party may be supprised or may supprise opponents, or they may determine that foes are on the other side of a door and can prepare with a couple spells/potions before combat begins. Resupplying is only availabe at the end of the adventure. To summarize: 1: Three encounters between rests. 2: Abilities with x/day uses are unavalible when the abilities are used x times. 3: Wounds persist between encounters. 4: Resupply is only avalible at the end of an adventure. 5: Post and Pre Combat preparations are used. 6: Conditions of the combat (supprise, initial positions, precombat rounds and so forth) are set by abilities and skills. Our current arena conditions have none of these characteristics. Quests do use several of them, and the Iron Man Tourniment uses several of them. However I'm going to propose that we use all of them in every Arena battle. I hope the reasons are clear. I'd also like to point out that doing this will automaticially solve the expendibles and allies issues. From an RP perspective, when you go to the Arena you go for a day of fighting, not just a single battle. You must bring with you all the items you will need and all the allies you want to come with you. Let me explain how the two central issues of this discussion (allies and expendibles) figure into this proposal. If your character's build involves using expensive scrolls or stones, then you must carry 3 coppies of the same items to use them in each battle of the day. Suddenly the amount of your total money used to have polymorph scrolls for every battle is increased 3 fold. This will have a side effect of decreasing the amount of money available to buy a wide diversity of other scrolls. Every additional polymorph scroll removes many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level scrolls from your equipment list. Your diversity of spell effects is decreased. Any armor, equipment or ally you bring is set as a prebuff on the first combat of the day. Any wounds your allies suffer are then carried over, as well as your own wounds and spells or abilities used. This solves the issue of items that are usable 1/day being over powered in the arena. It also solves the issue of abilites usable 1/day as being over powered in the arena. Allies are an asset and become a burden if they get wounded. Now let me go through each one of the 6 parts above and explain how to mechanicially make this work. It is actually very easy. 1: Three encounters between rests. 2: Abilities with x/day uses are unavalible when the abilities are used. 3: Wounds persist between encounters. All these are done at the same time. Parrings are rolled normally. When a pitlord summarizes a fight, he includes in the fight summary a list of total HP damage, abilities and spells used as well as the rewards and items used much like a questlord does. We also include a [ sblock=used abilites/items ][ /sblock ] at the end of the character sheet. The person can edit there sheet to include these changes after each battle. At the beginning of the next battle, the opponent knows what items and abilities are unavailable and how much damage the character has already suffered. If a character uses too many of there abilities to win a battle, then they may have difficulty winning the following 2 battles before a chance to rest. 4: Resupply is only avalible at the end of an adventure, ie. after 3 battles. Characters may only rest and purchase items after 3 battles or after a loss. Spells are remorized and items are purchased. Also free activites used are recorded in the summary of the 3rd battle. This allows those with the scribe scroll or other crafting feats to craft items of 3000gp market value as free activites. Also training animals can be done in larger lumps. But the net amount of work done or gp earned or items crafted over a period of time is still the same. Wizards can now recraft the scrolls used in the first two battles that day and have them available for the next weeks battles. They would presumably know fairly well what scrolls will be used in the 3rd batle since the list of scrolls in the equipment will get rather small at that time. 5: Post and Pre Combat preparations are used. Characters will healing abilities, spells, magical items, potions, scrolls can use those abilities between battles to heal themselves or wounded mounts and other allies. We can presume that there is 5 hours between each arena battle. There is a very small list of spells/powers usefull in the arena that have durrations that persist for hours. I would allow casters to use there spell casting ability to prebuff with spells that have a durration of atleast 6 hours and are listed on the sheet as a pre-buff. If they have a pre-buff with a durration of 16 hours it can be listed on the sheet as a 16 hour prebuff and does not need to be renewed in each battle unless it is dispelled. Pre-Buffs of any durration must be listed in the pre-buff section of a sheet and fixed before parrings. Any such spells and effects still active at the end of a battle are listed in the battle summary as having been used and being still in effect for the next battle if the durration is atleast 6 hours. Powers:Adapt Body, Anchored Navigation, Attraction, Aversion, Psionic Charm, Claws of the Beast, Conceal thoughts, Danger Sense, Darkvision, Dispelling Buffer, Dream Travel, Ectoplasmic Coccoon Mass, Elf sight, Escape Detection, Inertial Armor, Minor Creation, Overland Flight, Greater Precognition, Share Pain, Suggestion, Teleport Trigger, Mass Timehop Spells: Animal Shapes, Change Staff, Charm Person, Dark Vision, Delay Poison, False Life, False Vision, Floating Disk, Helping Hand, LongStrider, Mage Armor, Greater Magic Fang, Magic Jar, Magic Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon, Minor Creation, Misdirection, Moment of Presience, Nondetection, Overland Flight, PassWall, Pass Without a Trace, Phantom Steed, Protection from Arrows, Prying Eyes, Reduce Animal, Rope Trick, Greater Scrying, Sculpt Sound, Shadow Walk, Shield Other, Spike Growth, Spike Stones, Statue, Status, Suggestion, Tree Shape, Tree Stride, Unseen Servant, Veil, Whispering Wind, Wind Walk, Zone of Silence So you ask, "what happens when my character dies?" Certianly he does not begin his next match as dead. Rather once a character looses a match, they leave the arena for that day and come back the next week fully rested and resupplied. It becomes a real feat to survive three battles without being defeated especially if you are a lone caster. Does this sound familiar? Isn't that what it's like in a TT game? 6: Conditions of the combat (supprise, initial positions, precombat rounds and so forth) are set by abilities and skills. This is difficult and complicated so I'll leave it for now. To my mind it should be possible to use your hiding and sneaking or listening abilities to get a supprise round or pre-buff round just before combat begins. Or if you have a very high spot check you should be able to prevent that. Perhaps if your listen check is good enough you can tell when the next battle is beign called in the arena and hear you name, so you can quick drink a potion or cast a spell to prepare. The rules for this would be some kind of CoCo add on rules for skill use. To summarize, what this proposal does is to bring the Arena combat environment closer to the game environment that the classes were ment to play in. It allows the strengths and weaknesses of each class to play a role in the way combat is resolved. There are some classes that require excellent resource management as a side effect of the class abilities. Others do not. This combat environment will require the players of casters to have the resource management that limits the class in a real game. In our current environment, a good caster player simply searches for the most devastating combinations of spells possible and throws them at every opponent. A good player in a typical game will throw just enough of the right kind of spells at each foe so that there are still spells for the last foe of the day. If you can make it through 3 encounters then and only then do you rest and renew all your spells without tasting defeat. All of these changes can all be accomplished without signifigantly increasing the complexity of the rules or the burden on pitlords and players when they run fights and edit sheets. If we do this we can probably ignore all the other issues and proposals about how to handle the allies and expendibles issues. I still think we should limit polymorph, because the spell is broaken. My proposal in a previous post is a farily simple limitation that allows the spells to remain very versatile and usefull. While the most powerfull forms are accessable only by characters who build around the ability to do so (by taking the right knowlege skills). Also the ability to take these forms is no longer limited by race.
MindWandererB 04-09-06, 02:45 PM	@SauroG: I proposed something like that a few weeks ago and was summarily ignored. I think it was too radical--even considering that I proposed it as an optional battle format, that people could volunteer for. Points 1, 3, and 4 are viable, I think. But the others have some issues. Healing: Unless we want warriors to invest a substantial portion of their funds on CLW potions, this isn't going to work. P&P games have a healer in the party with spontaneous curing or at least a CLW wand. Without a level in ranger, paladin, cleric, or druid, folks would be compelled to spend a lot on CLW potions--especially bad in light of the fact that fighters, barbarians, psychic warriors, and monks have fairly high HP. So I think healing should either be free and automatic, or purchased at the going rate (10 gp/CLW for NPC spellcasting). (Optionally, dead allies stay dead unless you pay NPC services for an appropriate spell. This discourages kamikaze tactics. The downside is that heavily ally-dependent builds are nerfed. I foresee a lot more people trying to kill Aerryl's bat.) Prebuffs: I think the 16-hour rule is fine as is. Don't assume the battles are spaced out evenly--that takes away from the similarity to P&P and is unrealistic besides. A 16-hour prebuff lasts you through all 3 fights, except for ones that are discharged like Dissolving Weapon. Dying: not a bad solution, but the problem is that characters will end up divided into three "tiers" depending on which week their first fight was in. I don't think we have enough gladiators for that. The alternative is to make losers wait out one to two weeks before they can fight again, which is terribly unfair--winners will level nine times faster than losers (one 1/3 reward every three weeks instead of one full reward every week). Experimental builds will go bye-bye in favor of totally min-maxed ones. Polymorph: Some kind of restriction on versatility is good. Changing the spell text (allowing humans to become outsiders, for instance) is bad, because it would be extremely confusing. Supplementary house rules to make the CoCo work is one thing; changing the RAW is another.
SauroGrenom 04-09-06, 03:55 PM	Dying: not a bad solution, but the problem is that characters will end up divided into three "tiers" depending on which week their first fight was in. I don't think we have enough gladiators for that. The alternative is to make losers wait out one to two weeks before they can fight again, which is terribly unfair--winners will level nine times faster than losers (one 1/3 reward every three weeks instead of one full reward every week). Experimental builds will go bye-bye in favor of totally min-maxed ones. No. There are no tiers. Just roll parrings as normal. It is entirely within the relm of possibillity to have a character who has already survived two battles get pared with a "fresh" gladiator who just rested. That gladiator who has survived 2 weeks may be a bit run down, but he has options the other does not. He can go nutty with spells and expendibles and allies charging in because he knows if he wins this last battle he's home free. The "Fresh" gladiator has to conserve his spells and items to survive this and the next two battles. I know it will become very hard for any gladiator to win 3 battles in a row. But that's how these classes were balanced to be. If you win every battle, then you either have an advantage or you're lucky or you're a genius. Right now casters have an advantage. This is how the game is balanced to use casters and melee types together. We should use it in our battles as well to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of all character classes.
MindWandererB 04-09-06, 04:38 PM	While that idea does have merit, I think it's too much. We can consider it if and when the CoCo gets reset again, but otherwise, character builds would have to be totally different. Casters will need to invest more in PoPs and craft feats, warriors will need to get some healing potential somehow... a huge number of current characters would take huge hits to their survivability. I've also learned an important fact about the CoCo in the months I've been here: changes this drastic will get vetoed by Cat the moment he decides to voice an opinion. It just won't happen. Even though it seems like Cat frequently introduces new rules, they are mostly peripheral to the main functions of the arena, and don't result in any fundamental changes. I think the best you can hope for with this proposal is an optional, alternate fight format--but even that probably won't happen. Remember the discussions of new fight formats, like Capture the Flag, that we had a couple of months ago? Nothing came of that whole discussion. Even FFAs and Hunter fights, the subjects of much complaint, were unchanged. So let's keep the discussion on minimal changes--and preferably only one at a time. Right now there are five seperate discussions taking place: ·"Belt slots" or other mechanic for limiting the number of items a character can wear within ready grasp. ·Limiting the use of scrolls and power stones--the cheap, class-exclusive, "dippable," scalable, do-anything items (all of which differentiate them from potions and tattoos). ·Consistency of rules regarding scrolls, potions, stones, and tattoos, and whether they need to be bought at minimum CL/ML. ·Polymorph. ·Prebuffing allies, armor, and "at home" equipment. Can we pick just one of these topics at a time to discuss? This thread is getting to be a major mess. Perhaps a seperate thread to discuss each one, or a "topic of the week/month" thread that closes after the time limit, at which point an elder vote makes a decision? The current format is not being productive, I feel.
NiQil 04-09-06, 04:41 PM	You forgot one...the one that started this flurry of discussion....the prebuffing of allies and equipment.
MindWandererB 04-09-06, 04:45 PM	I totally did. A testament to how sidetracked we got.
SauroGrenom 04-10-06, 08:30 AM	@SauroG: I proposed something like that a few weeks ago and was summarily ignored. I think it was too radical--even considering that I proposed it as an optional battle format, that people could volunteer for.That optional character was probably the characteristic that doomed your suggestion. If you add in any new options they will complicate the rules. There will be too many different types of battles formats and it will be confusing who is running in which format. The Radical Proposal will need to replace normal Arena Combat. It will need to be the standard that everyone follows and uses. Anything else will be confusing and complicated. Can we pick just one of these topics at a time to discuss? This thread is getting to be a major mess. To my perspective there are actually only two issues at hand: 1: Polymorph/alter self is broken and needs some fixing. 2: The arena combat conditions are too far removed from the actual dnd game environment and that causes issues with balance of class features, expendables and allies. For now I'm willing to set the polymorph issue aside and focus on the bigger issue of the environment that surrounds arena combat. There have been all sorts of proposals to modify the way allies or expendables are handled in the arena. Belt slots, money caps, ally prebuffing, equipment slots... Each is a contrived complicated solution added on top of the already staggering rules of the CoCo. With my "Radical Proposal" above we can make a fairly simple change to the way we run fights, and almost as if by magic most of the other problems are gone. Allies are no longer overpowered, certain racial and class abilities are no longer overpowered, certain items and tactics are no longer overpowered. Bam! We make the arena combat more like the environment where the classes were made to play, all the mess we've made with our arena rules, 1/3 rule, allies and expendables is cleared up by the nature of the fighting conditions being the way they are intended by the designers. We do nothing we are not already doing. All it takes is to use the format of a questlord's weekly summary and add it to the rewards section of each battle. Then a player edits there sheet, and copies the summary in an sblock at the bottom of the sheet, and uses the strikethrough on all the used abilities, spells and items on the sheet. A pitlord needs to make the fight summary cumulative so that if a combatant has just finished his 2nd battle, then the summary lists includes stuff from last battle and this battle, so that a cumulative list is then copied to the bottom of the character's sheet when he gets ready for next week's parings. That's all the work that needs to be done. Auditing will be done by the players mostly. I'll check my opponent's sheet and battle records to see if they copied the used abilities correctly and if they purchased any new stuff. If I notice they have cheated, I automatically win! That is very potent because I win without using any abilities or items, and I go on to the next battle without using any resources. This drastically increases my chances of winning my next battle, so I’d love to catch my opponent’s cheating. Whenever you win 3 battles, or loose a battle you can rest and refresh your sheet entirely and buy stuff. If you gain a level in the middle, then you gain ECL, BAB, HD, Saves, HP, feats, caster level, stat increases, class features... but not any new abilities that are used x/day or any spells, powerpoints, or equipment. Those new abilities/spalls are listed but with a strikethrough until you can rest. When you go to the arena it is like a quest in some ways. You commit to 3 battles or until you loose. If you want to quest, craft or miniquest you have to wait until the day at the arena is finished. That could be because of winning 3 battles or because you loose. Parings are rolled normally with out taking into consideration who has already had 2 battles. It is possible for a wizard to get pared with a fresh warrior after he has already defeated two foes. Lucky day for that warrior, or a warrior may barely survive his last fight with 10hp and no healing left, and he’s in bad shape for his next fight against the fresh wizard. Right now winning in the arena is playing the game of finding the most stackable bonuses. I’ve seen some characters stacking circumstance, enhancement, and competence bonuses on a skill for every battle. This is ridiculous. A major part of the game is to manage your resources so that you are able to defeat several opponents in a row and come out standing. We need to put this into the Arena. All it takes is one simple change.
Abyssal Stalker 04-10-06, 09:37 AM	[/sblock]A Radical Proposal: ---SNIP--- All these are done at the same time. Parrings are rolled normally. When a pitlord summarizes a fight, he includes in the fight summary a list of total HP damage, abilities and spells used as well as the rewards and items used much like a questlord does. We also include a [ sblock=used abilites/items ][ /sblock ] at the end of the character sheet. The person can edit there sheet to include these changes after each battle. At the beginning of the next battle, the opponent knows what items and abilities are unavailable and how much damage the character has already suffered. If a character uses too many of there abilities to win a battle, then they may have difficulty winning the following 2 battles before a chance to rest. 4: Resupply is only avalible at the end of an adventure, ie. after 3 battles. ---SNIP---[/sblock] I have to say I liked the ARP! The part I have quoted though has a disadvantage. If people are allowed to edit their sheets between fights, it allows cheating...or at least almost. It's really easy to "accidentally" buy some expendables between the fights just to give the little extra kick. Who remembers the expendables of every gladiator last week and checks if they have illegally bought some extra, not me! OK, it can be checked from the previous fight - but think about the workload! After you have read this - remember my first sentence in this post! :)
Usurpator 04-10-06, 10:28 AM	Hey Sauro! I like your idea very much. It has a few problems to work out though, and one fundamental flaw. The Flaw You are trying to restore balance by recreating a situation that resembles regular table top games more. There are two essential things missing in CoCo Arena combat that you have in your regular game: 1. Teamwork In normal games teamwork is encouraged (required even) to overcome challenges. Many buffs are designed to affect allies, not the casters themselves. Classes are balanced against each other when overcoming various challenges *as a team*. Those challenges also include non-combat challenges btw. Arena combat completely disregards the teamwork, and balance issues will surface as result. Arena combat also largely disregards alternate challenges, which also will create balance issues. These are not fixed by your proposal. Average Challenge Level In normal D&D games most challenges will be of an EL equal to the average party level when assuming a party of four. So four adventurers lvl 5 adventurers facing one ECL 5 opponent is the norm. In the CoCo everyone faces his opponent alone, effectively this raises the EL of the encounter by 4 (deadly). Spell power, curing ability etc. assumes 3 'regular' encounters per day, not 3 deadly encounters. Resource consumption will always be much higher in deadly encounters. Thus the 3 encounters until you rest concept in CoCo will force characters to rely on expendables even more than currently. Potential Issues 1. Levelling Those who are lucky enough to gain a level in between resting periods are at serious advantage versus those who do not. If my character is about to level, I will go on a quest instead of fighting, so I will be paired at full power. Lets take Nexa, she has won all her fights, but if she levelled just after her first fight in a series, she would constantly be fighting 2 out of every 3 combats without the powers of her current level. That is because she keeps winning, she would continue to level after each first fight (three wins = gain one level), trailing two-thirds of her whole career behind her actual level. Next to that, Fighters (who immediately gain BAB etc.) are at an advantage vs. those who need to rest/remorize. 2. Stealing What happens if someone cures himself in between with his (defeated) opponent's wand of cure light wounds? 3. Dying Do you come back at full hp. if you die. Would gladiators go around CdG'ing themselves to appear fully cured in next combat? 4. Unfair penalization It is the second fight in a series. Your opponent won his last fight by default (no tactics sent, illegal sheet, surrender, whatever) but you had a tough fight. Effectively your character will now be penalized (and affected) by another player's laziness/stupidity/cheating/unforseen circumstances. I wouldn't like that one bit. Right now winning in the arena is playing the game of finding the most stackable bonuses. I’ve seen some characters stacking circumstance, enhancement, and competence bonuses on a skill for every battle. This is ridiculous. A major part of the game is to manage your resources so that you are able to defeat several opponents in a row and come out standing. We need to put this into the Arena. All it takes is one simple change. I fear it can become a game of who has the least fights until the match-up. Most people tend to minimize their maximum loss. If I would face an opponent which I would think have only a small chance of defeating, I would surrender, since fighting such a character would severly hurt my next chances in next match-ups for little gain. I *hate* Maven-like fights, I am here to see an interesting fight, not surrenders. Currently I am at least challenged to give it my full, even though the odds of winning are small. Your idea would surely solve some problems, but it would create new ones too, that's one thing to keep in mind. EDIT: my train of thought was assuming you went on with the series after you 'died/were defeated'. If you allow gladiators defeated gladiators to rest fully it becomes even more a arena of the least tired gladiator. In any case, what your are saying than is: if you win, we will penalize you by not allowing you to rest or level. But if you lose, you get to rest, level, heal up and resupply. This seems counter-intuitive to me. It will surely pull the fights result towards the average, no 10-0 win records any more, since winning increases your chances to lose next fight. I would like an arena based on rewarding character builds and good tactics, not unequal matchups. Additionally, it would reward 'evasion' tactics 'one-shot-kill' tactics even more. Better to spend the money on a scroll of Fly or take a level of Barb and Speed of Thought and shoot arrows at my opponent at no risk to myself or charge myself up for a single 'do-or-die' attack and give up if it fails. As I said, people tend to minimize their maximum losses. I might even PM my opponent, agreeing we will deal non-lethal damage (if possible), so that the winner would not be penalized in his next match-up.
SauroGrenom 04-10-06, 10:35 AM	I have to say I liked the ARP! The part I have quoted though has a disadvantage. If people are allowed to edit their sheets between fights, it allows cheating...or at least almost. It's really easy to "accidentally" buy some expendables between the fights just to give the little extra kick. Who remembers the expendables of every gladiator last week and checks if they have illegally bought some extra, not me! OK, it can be checked from the previous fight - but think about the workload! After you have read this - remember my first sentence in this post! :) Wow my first supporter in the Council! Cookies for you... :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: :cookie: If you have a better idea on how to monitor the editing of sheets from battle to battle, I'd love hear it. There are a few things that need to hapen: 1:You need to allow characters to level. 2: It neads to be very simple on Pitlords. If you don't allow players to level or edit there sheets, a pitlord will need to have like 10 windows open at once for each battle. 2 sheets, 2 tactics, 1 mapper, 1 dice roller, 2 previous fights for each character, the current fight post... Blah what a mess! If you are allowed to put the summary in your sheet, its your opponent's obligation to check for cheating. As for tracking expendibles that's a bit harder, but I'll spend the time to look at my opponents and see if they are cheating. The rewards for me are just that good, not only this week do I win, but my chances of winning the next two weeks are also increased! I look at their sheets pritty hard anyway to see what they can do to me. No big deal to just look at the sheet in last week's fight and make sure no new scrolls and potions have appeared. I can just line up the two versions of the expendibles section and use alt-tab to flip back and forth looking for a mismatch, very easy if you ask me. Besides it helps me write my tactics, cuz it makes me look at one of my opponents previous fights and I know what kinds of items my opponent likes to use. 3: It would be a drag if you couldn't edit your sheet for 3 weeks in the Arena.
SoulLord 04-10-06, 10:48 AM	a radical proposal its is. but after reading it carefully I don't think it will aleviate the problem discussed at hand about gladiators using too many expendables. In fact I would predict players would stock up on things as if they were going on a quest before each of this 3 week fights.
SauroGrenom 04-10-06, 11:42 AM	Hey Sauro! I like your idea very much. It has a few problems to work out though, and one fundamental flaw. Thanks! So let's try to figure out how to make it better no? The Flaw You are trying to restore balance by recreating a situation that resembles regular table top games more. There are two essential things missing in CoCo Arena combat that you have in your regular game: 1. Teamwork In normal games teamwork is encouraged (required even) to overcome challenges. Many buffs are designed to affect allies, not the casters themselves. Classes are balanced against each other when overcoming various challenges *as a team*. Those challenges also include non-combat challenges btw. Arena combat completely disregards the teamwork, and balance issues will surface as result. Arena combat also largely disregards alternate challenges, which also will create balance issues. These are not fixed by your proposal. Average Challenge Level In normal D&D games most challenges will be of an EL equal to the average party level when assuming a party of four. So four adventurers lvl 5 adventurers facing one ECL 5 opponent is the norm. In the CoCo everyone faces his opponent alone, effectively this raises the EL of the encounter by 4 (deadly). Spell power, curing ability etc. assumes 3 'regular' encounters per day, not 3 deadly encounters. Resource consumption will always be much higher in deadly encounters. Thus the 3 encounters until you rest concept in CoCo will force characters to rely on expendables even more than currently. The teamwork issue is very important, and there are some builds that rely on it by bringing allies (bard for example). If your build is designed to have allies, then you will probably bring them. If you're a stand along build, then what do you need allies for? I think that if we allow allies from leadership, and dipomacy and handle animals that we will allow the creation of teamwork units if a player desires it. Yes non combat teamwork is not in there yet and putting it in would be a whole new addition to the CoCo rules. We may not be ready for that right now. But it's something we can still wish for and hope to have in the future. I think the challange level isn't that much of an issue for us. In a TT game when you have a TPK you are out of the game. Restart with new characters. The party should win every time in a TT game else you neve make it to ECL20. In CoCo you can face tougher challanges and come back to do it again next week with no penalty for the loss (not even level loss or gp loss). Isn't this the level of challange all our character face out alone on quests? We're supposed to have optimized builds tested against eachother anyway aren't we? I'm willing to accept losses every few weeks even on my best builds. Potential Issues 1. Levelling Those who are lucky enough to gain a level in between resting periods are at serious advantage versus those who do not. If my character is about to level, I will go on a quest instead of fighting, so I will be paired at full power. Lets take Nexa, she has won all her fights, but if she levelled just after her first fight in a series, she would constantly be fighting 2 out of every 3 combats without the powers of her current level. That is because she keeps winning, she would continue to level after each first fight (three wins = gain one level), trailing two-thirds of her whole career behind her actual level. Next to that, Fighters (who immediately gain BAB etc.) are at an advantage vs. those who need to rest/remorize. 2. Stealing What happens if someone cures himself in between with his (defeated) opponent's wand of cure light wounds? 3. Dying Do you come back at full hp. if you die. Would gladiators go around CdG'ing themselves to appear fully cured in next combat? 4. Unfair penalization It is the second fight in a series. Your opponent won his last fight by default (no tactics sent, illegal sheet, surrender, whatever) but you had a tough fight. Effectively your character will now be penalized (and affected) by another player's laziness/stupidity/cheating/unforseen circumstances. I wouldn't like that one bit. 1: Leveling is sort of a difficult issue. It will tend to make characters either mismatched from there current xp value down a step or fight several battles with level dependant powers unavailable. Leveling in the middle will basicially favor warrior builds over casters because there abilities do not require resting. The casters will step up an ECL without having those new highest level spells although there CL will increase. This could be solved by just awarding all XP/GP at the end of the day win or loose. You'll still play 3 battles at each ECL most of the time. 2:I thought stolen items had to be returned and the efects of used charges are ignored. Anyway how would you know the commandwords to use a stolen wand? I'm affraid I don't understand this criticism? 3: Die and your day at the arena is over. You rest and come back fully refreshed and resupplied. Yes this in a certian sense "Favors" the loosers. They will fight more battles fully rested. I'm ok with that. Weak builds will never make it to the 3rd battle and without doing that you will have at best a 50% record. Now having a winning record over 50% is a real accomplishment. This will probably be the end of characters with 20 and 0 records. 4: Both you and your opponent are in simular positions. Each has a resource management issue to work through. If you're up against an opponent who won his previous fight by forfit, then you are up against a tough opponent who may have good reason to use 1/2 his spells instead of 1/3. I suppose some times an unfair matchup could happen. I'm not sure how to realy solve this or even if it is a big enough issue to need solving. How often do we now catch people cheating or surrendering without a fight? Mabey you'll have a good simple idea on how to prevent or fix this kind of problem, because nothing jumps at me now. I fear it can become a game of who has the least fights until the match-up. Most people tend to minimize their maximum loss. If I would face an opponent which I would think have only a small chance of defeating, I would surrender, since fighting such a character would severly hurt my next chances in next match-ups for little gain. I *hate* Maven-like fights, I am here to see an interesting fight, not surrenders. Currently I am at least challenged to give it my full, even though the odds of winning are small. EDIT: my train of thought was assuming you went on with the series after you 'died/were defeated'. If you allow gladiators defeated gladiators to rest fully it becomes even more a arena of the least tired gladiator. As mentioned before at every fight untill the last each participant will have a resource management problem. If you are on your 3rd fight up against a fresh opponent and he uses everything at you, he'll certianly loose one of his next two fights that day. Anyway in a fair arena each class and each character will have a very tough time winning every battle. Everyone should loose about half the time and it should be spread evenly over many different classes and characters. Why are there now no pure barbarians with Great Renown? Because the arena combat doesn't favor them and it favors other classes. These guys only have a chance against other melee types, while they should have a good chance vs exausted casters. They should get a chance to beat the living **** out of a wizard with 1/5th of his spells left! That's what those characters are best at and it never happens. The fear of having that happen will force some mages to conserve there power untill they are in dire situations. In any case, what your are saying than is: if you win, we will penalize you by not allowing you to rest or level. But if you lose, you get to rest, level, heal up and resupply. This seems counter-intuitive to me. It will surely pull the fights result towards the average, no 10-0 win records any more, since winning increases your chances to lose next fight. I would like an arena based on rewarding character builds and good tactics, not unequal matchups. Well I think of it as saying that if you win, you go on to the next challange right away. You are not realy penalized. Yes your next opponent may be fresh, but if you have a perfect record, then there should be something realy special about you other than your scrolls and spell list or other x/day special abilities. Winning three battles in a row should be hard. Perhaps we can give gladiators who accomplish this grand feat some kind of minor reward for the obvious prowess (+10-20% rewards or reputation tags). I don't think it's reasonable to say that "Well I'm not going to be able to win every battle against a deadly challange anymore with my spells and scrolls, so I think it's going to be unfare." In the Arena even great builds should loose some of the time. Only the most cunning tactics and increadible god like builds will win all of the time if they have luck on there side. Additionally, it would reward 'evasion' tactics 'one-shot-kill' tactics even more. Better to spend the money on a scroll of Fly or take a level of Barb and Speed of Thought and shoot arrows at my opponent at no risk to myself or charge myself up for a single 'do-or-die' attack and give up if it fails. As I said, people tend to minimize their maximum losses. Evasion and 1hit tactics rely heaviliy on abilities which are either expensive or usable a limited number of times a day. If Kracknol gets his flail charged up, he makes it through the first battle of the day, but on the second he has no dissolving weapon prebuff nor does he have the spell casting services on his powerstoring weapon. This tactic is now only effective 1/3 of his battles instead of 100% of them as before. If a character needs to cast fly at ECL5 to evade his opponents, he needs to go into the arena with 1125gp worth of fly scrolls so he has one for each battle. Thats enough money that he probably doens't have the money left over to buy the wand of scorching ray or 9th level MM. If you have a level in Barb and Speed of thought and somehow a few levels in monk, sure you can ry to evade, but there is a good chance that the horses or flying opponents will still chase you down ior a ranged attack will slay you. This tactic works vs some opponents, not everyone. As it should be. You can only evade for so long before you get beat by the 3rd opponent with a ranged attack or flying mount. I think these tactics will be used some, but not any more than they are used now.
Abyssal Stalker 04-10-06, 12:09 PM	1: Leveling is sort of a difficult issue. It will tend to make characters either mismatched from there current xp value down a step or fight several battles with level dependant powers unavailable. Leveling in the middle will basicially favor warrior builds over casters because there abilities do not require resting. The casters will step up an ECL without having those new highest level spells although there CL will increase. This could be solved by just awarding all XP/GP at the end of the day win or loose. You'll still play 3 battles at each ECL most of the time.Why not level up when the needed amount of XP is achieved and then start like a fresh character. OK, every now and then somebody gets "unfair freshness", but I don't see that as a big deal. 2:I thought stolen items had to be returned and the efects of used charges are ignored. Anyway how would you know the commandwords to use a stolen wand? I'm affraid I don't understand this criticism?Why not just say that instantly when the opponent dies, his equipment and body are teleported away. That way if you manage to steal some equipment from your foe you have to use it during the fight and all that time the foe gets to smash you. And it's not that easy to steal stuff from a foe that keeps hacking you, so if you manage to do it - then you should get to use it as a part of your build! But when the foe is down, the equipment is instantly returned and the used expendables recreated to the loser. Maybe the reason I like your proposal is that I'm here to have fun and RP, winning isn't a matter of life and death to me! Thanks for the cookies! Here you go, have some pumpkins! :pumpkin: :pumpkin: :pumpkin: :pumpkin: :pumpkin: :pumpkin: :pumpkin:
SauroGrenom 04-10-06, 12:48 PM	a radical proposal its is. but after reading it carefully I don't think it will aleviate the problem discussed at hand about gladiators using too many expendables. In fact I would predict players would stock up on things as if they were going on a quest before each of this 3 week fights. It doesn't solve it compleately, but it does make it more difficult to have every good spell on the class list ready for every battle. But if you stock up on things like that, then you have that much less money to spend on wild diversity of scrolls. Let's use the Harvester as an example. If he wanted to have a scroll of fly and all his other options available for every battle, he'd need to spend 3 times the gold to ensure that all that stuff is there for each battle. He doesn't have enough money for that.
barrel_master 04-10-06, 12:57 PM	Would you be open to say simply increasing the costs of scrolls (something which I am in favor of) It doesn't solve it compleately, but it does make it more difficult to have every good spell on the class list ready for every battle. But if you stock up on things like that, then you have that much less money to spend on wild diversity of scrolls. Let's use the Harvester as an example. If he wanted to have a scroll of fly and all his other options available for every battle, he'd need to spend 3 times the gold to ensure that all that stuff is there for each battle. He doesn't have enough money for that.
SauroGrenom 04-10-06, 05:10 PM	Would you be open to say simply increasing the costs of scrolls (something which I am in favor of) Sorry. I don't like that idea much. If you increase the cost of scrolls so should potions, and wands go up in price. Then you're hitting melee characters with an added expense and they are not the problem. Also it doesn't realy solve the issue of the way many class, racial and item abilities are way more usefull in the Arena with a 1/day fights than on a real adventure.
barrel_master 04-10-06, 05:51 PM	Sorry. I don't like that idea much. If you increase the cost of scrolls so should potions, and wands go up in price. Then you're hitting melee characters with an added expense and they are not the problem. Also it doesn't realy solve the issue of the way many class, racial and item abilities are way more usefull in the Arena with a 1/day fights than on a real adventure. I suppose it could all work in a similar fasion to your 3 copies of scrolls proposal where it only applies to scrolls. We can if we wish, treat those x/day things in a similar manner to spells where we reduce the amount of spells by 2/3s.
SauroGrenom 04-10-06, 06:10 PM	Barrel, I'll move over to the Tavern with your reply.
NiQil 04-10-06, 09:07 PM	2:I thought stolen items had to be returned and the efects of used charges are ignored. Anyway how would you know the commandwords to use a stolen wand? I'm affraid I don't understand this criticism? I wanted to address this point... It has been consistantly ruled that all wands of the same type (i.e. all CLW wands, all MM 1 wands) have the same command word, and therefore you can pick up and use someone else's wand, provided you meet the requirements to use a wand normally (i.e. you must have the spell on your spell list). I strongly disagree with this ruling, but that is the way it has been ruled by LLMC in the AaE thread and in several arena battles (see most recently the FFA run by Usurpator on March 29th pairings that saw Tan, son of Sty using Death's own CLW wand against him with no check of any kind).
Caterane 04-11-06, 01:35 PM	I think we should solve one of our two issues so that we can concentrate on one thing. Polymorph seems to be more or less clear so here's how we're going to do it from Wednesday 19 on instead of banning it. You must have an (appropriate) total Knowledge score equal to twice the HD of the monster you want to polymorph in. This also applies to Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape. Polymorph/Metamorphosis forms must be within one size category just like Alter Self. Polymorph, Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape that change your size count as a size change for purposes of stacking with other size-modifying spells and powers. Polymorph is not shared with your familiar. You can specifically cast polymorph on it though (instead of yourself). Just like resist energy and other spells, expendables with polymorph, alter self, or metamorphosis must be specified beforehand. Example: Scroll of Alter Self (Troglodyte). This only applies to expendables; not to memorized spells. This reduces the versitality of polymorph aswell as its power, and saves it from a ban. It is impossible to write tactics against with all monsters available. It is also too powerful by granting flight, natural armor and other benefits with just one spell. Huge size and impr.grab/swallow whole with a few additional buffs creates monsters far beyond anything you can defeat in combat. And if you share it with your familiar, you have suddenly two such monsters. This is just too much and the reason why fighters always lose in melee vs wizards. All affected characters can make a petition in the Character Changes thread till April 19 but it must be closely related to this change. In case of unclarified expendables, just write the form into parenthesis behind the scroll or stone; no need for a post in the Changes thread.
barrel_master 04-11-06, 01:55 PM	I think we should solve one of our two issues so that we can concentrate on one thing. Polymorph seems to be more or less clear so here's how we're going to do it from Wednesday 19 on instead of banning it. You must have an (appropriate) Knowledge score equal to the HD of the monster you want to polymorph in. This also applies to Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape. Polymorph/Metamorphosis forms must be within one size category just like Alter Self. Polymorph, Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape that change your size count as a size change for purposes of stacking with other size-modifying spells and powers. If you change into a monster of your own type which is not on the list presented in the PHB then you need twice the knowledge value in the appropriate skill. Polymorph is not shared with your familiar. You can specifically cast polymorph on it though (instead of yourself). Just like resist energy and other spells, expendables with polymorph, alter self, or metamorphosis must be specified beforehand. Example: Scroll of Alter Self (Troglodyte). This only applies to expendables; not to memorized spells. This reduces the versitality of polymorph aswell as its power, and saves it from a ban. It is impossible to write tactics against with all monsters available. It is also too powerful by granting flight, natural armor and other benefits with just one spell. Huge size and impr.grab/swallow whole with a few additional buffs creates monsters far beyond anything you can defeat in combat. And if you share it with your familiar, you have suddenly two such monsters. This is just too much and the reason why fighters always lose in melee vs wizards. All affected characters can make a petition in the Character Changes thread till April 19 but it must be closely related to this change. In case of unclarified expendables, just write the form into parenthesis behind the scroll or stone; no need for a post in the Changes thread. We aren't going to vote on this or anything? What knowlage skills are considered 'appropriate'?
SauroGrenom 04-11-06, 01:57 PM	You must have an (appropriate) Knowledge score equal to the HD of the monster you want to polymorph in. This also applies to Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape. It may be worthwhile clarifying what the Knowlege "Score" is. Is the number of ranks in the skill or the skill check modifier?
MindWandererB 04-11-06, 02:08 PM	I think we should solve one of our two issues so that we can concentrate on one thing. Polymorph seems to be more or less clear so here's how we're going to do it from Wednesday 19 on instead of banning it. You must have an (appropriate) Knowledge score equal to the HD of the monster you want to polymorph in. This also applies to Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape. Polymorph/Metamorphosis forms must be within one size category just like Alter Self. Polymorph, Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape that change your size count as a size change for purposes of stacking with other size-modifying spells and powers. If you change into a monster of your own type which is not on the list presented in the PHB then you need twice the knowledge value in the appropriate skill. Polymorph is not shared with your familiar. You can specifically cast polymorph on it though (instead of yourself). Just like resist energy and other spells, expendables with polymorph, alter self, or metamorphosis must be specified beforehand. Example: Scroll of Alter Self (Troglodyte). This only applies to expendables; not to memorized spells. This reduces the versitality of polymorph aswell as its power, and saves it from a ban. It is impossible to write tactics against with all monsters available. It is also too powerful by granting flight, natural armor and other benefits with just one spell. Huge size and impr.grab/swallow whole with a few additional buffs creates monsters far beyond anything you can defeat in combat. And if you share it with your familiar, you have suddenly two such monsters. This is just too much and the reason why fighters always lose in melee vs wizards. All affected characters can make a petition in the Character Changes thread till April 19 but it must be closely related to this change. In case of unclarified expendables, just write the form into parenthesis behind the scroll or stone; no need for a post in the Changes thread.I would like to point out a few things. First, these are a lot of changes, many of which have not been discussed at all--in fact, we have discussed point 1 only, and points 2-6 just came out of nowhere. I'm not saying these are bad decisons, necessarily, but those are some pretty sweeping changes. Fortunately, Polymorph is a 4th level spell, so beginning players have time to discover these house rules before they get there, but still, that's a lot of house-ruling. Making those kinds of changes all at once without discussion kind of circumvents the point of a Council thread, doesn't it? Second: Wild shape? Has Wild shape really been a problem so much that it has to be nerfed? I haven't seen a single wildshaping druid that uses it to unbalanced effect. Please reconsider this one. However, Shapechange should probably be on that list--not that it's liable to be an issue for a looong time, but still. Finally, if expendables are limited to a single form, it would make sense to me that the creator of that item, not the user, needs to have the Knowledge ranks. After all, the user doesn't need to "imagine" the proper form; it's already been done. So purchased scrolls (but not self-scribed ones) would circumvent the Knowledge requirement. <Sigh... there go my plans of having a Psychic Warrior with Metamorphosis. It's useless now. Dang it, it would have been cool, when I was high enough level to actually pull it off. I would have loved to see the look on an opponent's face when they suddenly faced an AC 30-something Gargantuan Stone Giant.> On an unrelated note, I'm also going to cast Raise Dead on the guild issue I mentioned before. PSI is apparently about to build an Espionage Headquarters, which means that this issue will be relevant very soon. Especially Cat, please take it into consideration, because a mistake here could mean the total demise of two of the guilds. The problem I see is with the Covert Operation "Plant Corrupt Official." If successful, the only way to remedy it is with another Covert Operation. This could be a severe problem. If a guild with poor stealth skills is affected by this, they are basically stuck losing 25% of their total income every week. This problem is not fixed with countermeasures. You can make it as hard as you like for a guild to plant a corrupt official, but once it happens, you might as well close up shop for the whole guild permanently. Even if you build an Espionage Headquarters, you still have to have a character capable of getting past the other guild's defenses, which will always at least require Hide and Move Silently, and possibly involve other skills (Search and Disable Device for traps), combat ability (for a dungeon), and/or high Int (for a labyrinth). If your guild isn't built for those abilities and has no member that can perform the operation, it is severely crippled until such time as it does have such a member. As it stands, Plant Corrupt Official is the only bad thing that can happen to a guild that cannot be solved with strategic use of guild funds. Without a change, every guild would have to have at least one Covert Operation-focused character in order to survive--otherwise, all it takes is two or three--or worse, four--other guilds to plant officials in it, and it will stop being a competitive guild permanently. PSI is already planning on doing this, and I imagine EYE and EHTC will follow when they can, as covert operations are right up their respective alleys. TAO has, at the moment, exactly one character that might be able to perform covert ops with a reasonable chance of success, and WAR has two. That means that CEF and TLT will eventually, given enough time, get completely shut down, with 4 (or more) guilds fighting over every coin that crosses their doorstep unless they, too, acquire such a member, and build the Espionage Headquarters. Building HQ defenses will only delay the inevitable, because one successful attempt cannot be undone. If no rule is changed, I know what I have to do as Guildmaster of TLT. I have to create a new character who is specifically geared toward the required skills, and have him sit idle in a guild room and haul him out only to perform counterespionage. This is not the way the guild system is supposed to work, but it is the only viable option under the current rules. I am already trying to design a character with exactly this in mind, and I've already come up with a few ideas to get Hide and Move Silently through the roof while still (hopefully) being able to fight a random Dungeon monster. I don't want to have to use this solution, since it is basically metagaming my dual roles as player and guildmaster, but right now it's the only choice if I want TLT to survive. Thanks for your time. Again.
SoulLord 04-11-06, 02:09 PM	Well since polymorph has been fixed I'll like to draw forth a couple more of offenders to the list of things to nerf; psionic stuff for a change. 1.-Vigor 2.-Dissolving weapon
MindWandererB 04-11-06, 02:19 PM	Well since polymorph has been fixed I'll like to draw forth a couple more of offenders to the list of things to nerf; psionic stuff for a change. 1.-Vigor 2.-Dissolving weapon<Groan> I wish you hadn't done that. There are a lot of issues still on the table without bringing up another one. I only mentioned the guild thing because it is pretty urgent. However, I made a proposal once about dissolving weapon that should help: Prebuffs that are discharged should count against your 1/3 spells or PP for the fight. My reasoning: The 1/3 rule is meant to simulate the fact that most characters will be in multiple fights during the day. Prebuffs like Dissolving Weapon (and Goodberry, and, for that matter, Spellstaff; I can't think of any other valid prebuffs that are like this) that are discharged during the fight effectively allow one to use 2/3 of their PP/spells on one fight. That circumvents the spirit of the 1/3 rule. As for Vigor... can we wait on that one? It's not an "I win" spell like Polymorph often is, so it's not as urgent as the issues that we're already discussing. I agree that it's pretty potent, but it's not all that bad. I've won against it many times, and lost while using it.
Caterane 04-11-06, 02:33 PM	@Mindwanderer: These are not really house rules. Few DMs would allow you to polymorph into something you havent seen. Wildshape only uses Know nature. The within one size rule is what the RAW says. I just clarified it. Same for the polymorph scrolls. As for not requiring knowledge for scrolls, we just say that you have to imagine the beast aswell when using a scroll. And yes, Shapechange and Poly and obj is also in there but sicne they refer to polymorph they are automatically affected. The only house-rule I made was the sharing with the familiar. And keep in mind: polymorph is even officially deemed broken so a change is necessary. Better make one big one instead of forcing the community to continuously adept to six different steps over some months. @Sauro: I thought total Skill Value but we can also go with ranks because most wizards have such a high Int that one-two ranks are enough, and there are always +5 items that help further. Ranks would reflect a real investment. Thoughts? @Mindwanderer again: And the Plant Official issue is on my to-do list. I just haven't found the time. Do you have any idea about a good fix?
Sunwolf 04-11-06, 02:45 PM	I take it the list that is refered to in #4 is this one from polymorph: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. Is that correct? I'll vote for value == total skill which is ranks+mods. Edit: with a minimum of 1 rank in the skill.
SoulLord 04-11-06, 02:48 PM	Topics still unconcluded * Belt Slots * Allies (tons of allies make prebuffing with ally to bring to next fight) * Ban the Magic Domain * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Reliance on expendables * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Equipment at home (free swaping or pre-buff)
Dracazar 04-11-06, 02:58 PM	1. You must have an (appropriate) Knowledge score equal to the HD of the monster you want to polymorph in. This also applies to Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape. I strongly think that Wildshape should not be included in this home-rule. This ability is well defined in the druid class rules. And it is clearly written that you can Wildshape in several sizes: The Druid gains the ability to take the shape of a Large animal at 8th level, a Tiny animal at 11th level, and a Huge animal at 15th level. The new form’s Hit Dice can’t exceed the character’s druid level. So I'll not go against RAW. 2. Polymorph/Metamorphosis forms must be within one size category just like Alter Self. I proposed this home-rule in this week FotW thread so it is obvious that I strongly agree. 3.Polymorph, Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape that change your size count as a size change for purposes of stacking with other size-modifying spells and powers. I think that perhaps we could skip this home-rule, allowing stacking. I repeat that Wildshape should be excluded. 4.If you change into a monster of your own type which is not on the list presented in the PHB then you need twice the knowledge value in the appropriate skill. May you give an example of If you change into a monster of your own type which is not on the list presented in the PHB? 5.Polymorph is not shared with your familiar. You can specifically cast polymorph on it though (instead of yourself). I think that this is ruled in this way even without this home-rule. I'll never allow 2 monsters with 1 spell. 6.Just like resist energy and other spells, expendables with polymorph, alter self, or metamorphosis must be specified beforehand. Example: Scroll of Alter Self (Troglodyte). This only applies to expendables; not to memorized spells. I'll not comment this rule for now, I'll think at it.
lonewolf 04-11-06, 03:09 PM	May you give an example of If you change into a monster of your own type which is not on the list presented in the PHB? An Aasimar Sorcerer using alter self to turn into an Ice Mephit.
DSugui 04-11-06, 03:22 PM	@Mindwanderer again: And the Plant Official issue is on my to-do list. I just haven't found the time. Do you have any idea about a good fix? I actually have an idea: The maximum percentage of the income a district can lose is 25%, regardless how many corrupt officials are operating there. Each corrupt official takes 5% of the income. So if a rival guild plants 5 corrupt officials in a district, it takes 25% of the income. If two different guilds have 2 corrupt officials in one district, each guild takes 10%. No more than 5 corrupt officials can be operating in a single district (if a sixth tried to infiltrate, the others would kill him...) That would be interesting, because if you want to plant one corrupt official in a district that already have 5, you could remove one of them with an operation and then plant your own official... What do you guys think?
Argaud 04-11-06, 03:26 PM	Topics still unconcluded * Belt Slots * Allies (tons of allies make prebuffing with ally to bring to next fight) * Ban the Magic Domain * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Reliance on expendables * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Equipment at home (free swaping or pre-buff) * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters.
lonewolf 04-11-06, 03:33 PM	About the corrupt Official thing: I actually dont think that it is that bad. Dont forget that those corrupts only take 25% from the district income, which doesnt include the gladiator taxes, unless I am wrong. Thus only guilds with structures can be affected and gladiator taxes should keep the affected guild always with a steady income.
MindWandererB 04-11-06, 03:36 PM	@Mindwanderer: These are not really house rules. Few DMs would allow you to polymorph into something you havent seen. Wildshape only uses Know nature. The within one size rule is what the RAW says. I just clarified it. Same for the polymorph scrolls. As for not requiring knowledge for scrolls, we just say that you have to imagine the beast aswell when using a scroll. And yes, Shapechange and Poly and obj is also in there but sicne they refer to polymorph they are automatically affected. The only house-rule I made was the sharing with the familiar. And keep in mind: polymorph is even officially deemed broken so a change is necessary. Better make one big one instead of forcing the community to continuously adept to six different steps over some months. I agree that drastic rules are needed. The "one size" rule is debatable; WotC disagrees with you, but I can see how that could go either way. The "size change" rule is certainly not RAW, although I agree that allowing a Huge Metamorphosis+Expansion would be unbalanced (but keep in mind that this is now pretty much impossible at any rate; a psion would need Expanded Knowledge to get Expansion, a psychic warrior will never have enough Knowledge ranks to pull this off and would also need Expanded Knowledge, and Enlarge Person doesn't work if you're not a person anymore). And scrolls do not normally work that way, only potions do. @Sauro: I thought total Skill Value but we can also go with ranks because most wizards have such a high Int that one-two ranks are enough, and there are always +5 items that help further. Ranks would reflect a real investment. Thoughts?Well, the +5 items do require credits, and not all of us have enough credits to spend 5 on such an item. Plus, each such item would only apply to one Knowledge. On the other hand, a level 7 wizard could easily have a 22 Int with race and items (not counting age), allowing a Remorhaz or Avoral with just one skill point. I usually hate going with ranks, as it makes skill bonuses useless, but there doesn't seem to be any other way to restrict wizards and psions appropriately while not restricting sorcerers and wilders too harshly. @Mindwanderer again: And the Plant Official issue is on my to-do list. I just haven't found the time. Do you have any idea about a good fix?Thank you! There just have to be some alternative methods for removing it, ones that rely on other strengths. Some ideas: ·Intrigue operation "Inspire Loyalty," based on Diplomacy, opposed with the Corrupt Official's guild's highest Diplomacy check, with either no Defense modifier, or one equal to your own district's modifier. ·Intrigue operation "Discover Operator," based on Gather Information, opposed with either Ganter Info, Disguise, or Bluff. ·Assault Operation "Besiege" or "Blockade." Cuts off a chapter house entirely until a demand is met, from a list of acceptable demands. One could be removing a corrupt official. Others could be the release of a prisoner or a flat GP amount. ·Political Development "Loyalty Campaign," requiring a Propaganda room and upkeep--either to give bonuses and rewards to inspire loyalty, or payoffs to informants to turn in "traitors". This has a 25% chance per week of removing any Corrupt Officials, including any that were planted that week. This development should probably have some other effect, too, or else there is no incentive to pay upkeep on it when there is no Corrupt Official present. ·Chapter House Upgrade "Loyalty Campaign," same as above, but per chapter house. Seems more thematically similar to existing upgrades, and less powerful than a global Development. ·Use of a GAP and an Office to conduct an Audit, with a 25%-50% chance of catching a Corrupt Official. This has the effect of costing money, since an Office GAP could otherwise be spent to earn the guild money, but if that cost isn't enough, it could be increased (audits can be quite expensive in real life). ·Use of one or more GAPs to fire the entire staff at the Chapter House and hire anew. This makes a certain amount of sense as far as effectiveness, but it presumes you know that there is a Corrupt Official present, if not who it is. Perhaps this could be combined with the Audit--the audit reveals corruption, while the staff replacement removes it. ·Use of a GAP and an Interrogation Chamber... for obvious purposes. 25% chance of uncovering any corruption, and you lose one staff member at that Chapter House in any event. Again, you have to know there's a problem first. In any case, I hesitate to make these things cost too much--later on in the game, when guilds are focused less on making money and more on conducting/defending against operations, upkeep will be pretty pricey, and one or two Corrupt Officials could easily make a guild's net income be negative every week, and a negative net income that can't be removed basically means that the guild is out of the picture permanently. Edit: I like DSugui's idea a lot--putting a cap helps with most of the problems. However, I still think there needs to be other ways to remove them, otherwise TLT and CEF will eventually have five corrupt officials in every single chapter house they control, with no way to get rid of them. There needs to be at least one way of solving the problem that you could accomplish without a guild member with specific skills. A guild with John Doe the Half-Orc Fighter (skill points in nothing but Jump) should have some way of dealing with this, given time.
SoulLord 04-11-06, 04:32 PM	Unconcluded Topics * Belt Slots * Allies (tons of allies make prebuffing with ally to bring to next fight) * Ban the Magic Domain * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Reliance on expendables * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Equipment at home (free swaping or pre-buff) * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters. * Polymorph Solved effective april 19th (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8908815&postcount=189)
Caterane 04-11-06, 04:41 PM	@MW: There should be two ways to remove one corrupt official: Covert Operation: as described but within ANY district the enemy guild controls. That means, you pick the weakest chapter house and face the least resistance. This option is for guilds with good covert operators. Peaceful Operation: Inspire Loyality. You use Prestige in the district with the corrupt official. The Formula is based on opponent operator's check in a skill and the type of prestige is that of the highest trait in the district. This is for less sneaky/agressive guilds. And finally: A Chapter House may never have more than one Corrupt Official. @Soullord: you can remove Ban the Magic Domain. That won't happen.
SoulLord 04-11-06, 04:57 PM	Unconcluded Topics * Belt Slots * Allies (tons of allies make prebuffing with ally to bring to next fight) * Ban the Magic Domain Solved Won't happen (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8910242&postcount=205) * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Reliance on expendables * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Equipment at home (free swaping or pre-buff) * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters. * Polymorph Solved effective april 19th (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8908815&postcount=189) * Guild: Covert Operations
SauroGrenom 04-11-06, 05:26 PM	@Sauro: I thought total Skill Value but we can also go with ranks because most wizards have such a high Int that one-two ranks are enough, and there are always +5 items that help further. Ranks would reflect a real investment. Thoughts? If you use Ranks in the skill, then polymorph is limited to basicially only those who have wizard as a class and invest skill points into it (sorcerers and wilders are kind of screwed). Also the wizards/psions will likely need to specialize into one or two knowlege skills. Probably arcane and nature will be most popular with outsiders taking planes. If you use the skill check modifier, then you allow those with high intelligenct to get a wide diversity of polymorph forms without needing nearly the degree of focus on skill points spent into particular knowlege types. There are also a few various places you can get knowlege bonuses without spending credits. For example the skill focus feats, sagely psicrystal and a crystal mask of knowlege. The net effect is that wizards/psions and others who desire it will be able to gain access to advanced forms even without focusing the use of skill points. The decision is a subtle choice about how much a character needs to work to get access to the various forms they want. If you want casters to work hard to get the best forms and if you want non-wizards/psions to have very limited options availabe, then require actuall ranks in the skill. If you want non-wizards/psions to be able to get the best forms with items and cc skill ranks, then allow the check modifier to be used. For example after my character Raskos finishes his crafting he will have atleast +10 modifier to all knowlege checks. He only has 1 rank in most of the knowlege skills. Should he be able to take forms that are 10HD? (he doesnt have 10hd, so it's realy not a limitation at all for the next 4 levels) A middle of the road path is to use the skill check modifier and require it to equal HDx2 of the desired form. That way the INT of the character, skill points and equipment/feats all can factor into allowing more forms, but no one of the factors is able to ensure unrestricted access to all forms. Later this week, I'll take another crack at the Radical Proposal and post a version 1.1 that incorporates solutions to a few of the concernes that were raised by the council participants. If you have anything specific, send me a PM and I'll try to work out a fix for any issues you may bring up.
Caterane 04-11-06, 05:38 PM	Ranks only is too restrictive to non-wizards and doesn't reward feats and items while Knowledge=HD doesn't restrict wizards at all. So we use the middle path and say Total Knowledge = 2*HD, and in return we throw out the extra rule for outsider forms. Alternatively, we can add a +5 to the DC for outsider forms.
SauroGrenom 04-11-06, 06:24 PM	I don't think the spell was intended to allow polymorphing into outsider forms. So I favor reading the rules a little stricter than they are written and not allowing any form except the types shown in the spell description. However there are several builds entirely focused on being able to polymorph into those forms. The players of these characters have optimized there characters to use this ability. I suspect that those players will hotly contest any such ruling. I agree with taking this course of action, but if you should decide not to there are several options. The only types not expressly allowed by the spell are Outsider, Undead, Constructs and Elementals. Since the spell requires the form be living, Undead are not an option. Since there is only one sentient construct in the MM with a LA (thus the only construct race to play) that type have never been an issue. Also since Elementals cannot be player characters, they are never an issue either. Realy only outsiders are of concern. With a requirement of 2xHD+5 for outsiders, you basicially require all outsider polymorph characters to have a crystal mask of knowlege planes in addition to the requirements on other casters. At low levels this is a serious requirement because the item costs 2500gp. After 5th level this would be meaningless. For example at ECL9 teifling wizard with 22 int and a crystal mask of knowlege and maxed Knowlege planes will have a knowlege check modifier of 19 (sufficient for a 8hd outsider) and the +5 requirement is not and never will be a limit. However this is a character who is equiped and built around having this ability, so mabey it is reasonable to have it. Perhaps for an outsider form you need to have a knowlege check modifier equal to HDx3? With that the 15hd outsider forms would be entirely out of reach untill above ECL20 for all but the most highly specialized outsider caster. Also the low HD forms such as an ice mephet would require a knowlege of +9 to access. This is barely available to an ECL3 outsider. The lower HD outsider forms will be far easier to access than those with above 10HD. To get a knowlege modifier of +30 at ECL11, would be very hard for even the most optimized character. It would require our teifling wizard to have a headband of intillect+6 and take skill focus as a feat. Thus still possible, but very hard. To continue to have access to the highest HD forms as level increased further would require custom items. Considering the raw power of the outsider forms I think the knowledge check equal to HDx3 would be a reasonable compromise when the players of these characters protest.
Ravashack 04-11-06, 06:44 PM	Bleh. Don't be on for a few days and watch the topics steamroll past you. * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon Vigor is only a subissue at best. It's just a symptom of only restricting expendables to ECL--restricting it to to ML/CL would make it a lot less of a headache, and only allowing scrolls/powerstones to be at the minimum ML if you don't make it yourself really would make it a non-issue (and may give an incentive for pure manifesters to get Imprint Stone). Dissolving Weapon is only an issue because people argue it as a valid prebuff because the text in it says "until discharged". IMO if we stuck by the 16 hour rule explicitly and didn't allow "until discharged" stuff into the mix just because someone MIGHT be able to avoid touching anything for a long time, the problem would solve itself.
Caterane 04-11-06, 08:04 PM	Wildshape knowledge seems to be a problem. At lower levels, our formula works well but from level 8 on, a druid can use large forms and many large animals have many HD but a low CR. There's basically no way a druid can ever wildshape in huge monsters due to the knowledge requirements. So what about saying Knowledge = HD for Wildshape? This requires an investment, limits the choices somewhat, and is in line with our formula.
MindWandererB 04-11-06, 08:16 PM	Wildshape knowledge seems to be a problem. At lower levels, our formula works well but from level 8 on, a druid can use large forms and many large animals have many HD but a low CR. There's basically no way a druid can ever wildshape in huge monsters due to the knowledge requirements. So what about saying Knowledge = HD for Wildshape? This requires an investment, limits the choices somewhat, and is in line with our formula.Druids can't wildshape into huge animals anyway, because they can take a form with hit dice no higher than their druid level. I'm of the opinon that druids don't need this anyway--then can only become animals, plants, and elementals anyway, none of which are particularly potent. Requiring Knowledge--especially for elementals, which are based on Knowledge (the planes), which is not a class skill for druids--nerfs not just a spell, but a class feature. One which sees little use in the arena anyway. Since you can't wildshape off a scroll, I think levels of druid are an investment. But if you insist, I think Total Knowledge=HD isn't so bad. I can pretty much guarantee that Wild Shape (elemental) just became a non-option, though.
lonewolf 04-12-06, 04:27 AM	I agree that Wildshape doesnt need another nerf after the last errata. No knowledge should be required for it.
Usurpator 04-12-06, 05:14 AM	I wanted to address this point... It has been consistantly ruled that all wands of the same type (i.e. all CLW wands, all MM 1 wands) have the same command word, and therefore you can pick up and use someone else's wand, provided you meet the requirements to use a wand normally (i.e. you must have the spell on your spell list). I strongly disagree with this ruling, but that is the way it has been ruled by LLMC in the AaE thread and in several arena battles (see most recently the FFA run by Usurpator on March 29th pairings that saw Tan, son of Sty using Death's own CLW wand against him with no check of any kind). I don't agree that all wands have the same command word, but I do think that people for whom fighting in the arena is their business would know all the command words of opponents wands once they are used in the arena. Its not like you are whispering the command word, or the public is unable to hear anything. Once its heard once, its out there for everyone. Besides the RP justification, the general idea is that all information about your opponent (expect for tactics) is public knowledge in the CoCo,
Vathelokai 04-12-06, 05:26 AM	I'm voting against limiting wildshape. Firstly, it's a class feature; getting the good forms takes dedication (staying pure druid). Secondly, the polymorph spell is the real issue. I'd rather see the spell nerfed then see all shapeshifting nerfed. It's just more honest.
KerlanRayne 04-12-06, 05:56 AM	@Mindwanderer: These are not really house rules. The within one size rule is what the RAW says. I just clarified it. The only house-rule I made was the sharing with the familiar.Maybe for Polymorph, but for Metamorphosis it would be a complete House Rule. It's not based on Alter Self and has no such restriction on size, neither implicit nor implied. As to the Familiar rule, I don't see the problem. If you shared it between the two of you, you couldn't move without losing the familiar's shape because he's more than 5' away. The only way it would work is if the familiar polymorphed into a mount for you. KerlanRayne PS - Wildshape has completely altered now that it is no longer based on Polymorph. It needs no more nerfing.
waywreth 04-12-06, 08:37 AM	I would agree with the other comments around wildshape - leave it as is. The ruling that all worn gear is absorbed by the animal form weakens wildshape enough.
Caterane 04-12-06, 09:34 AM	I still think we should make it uniform. Polymorph knowledges reflect that you know enough about the creature so that you can poly into it. It would not be consistent if we exclude wildshape from that. Since animals are more widely known and not as exotic as most polymorph monsters, the skill investment is much less (ie = HD). I see the problem with the cross-class skill in Knowledge Planes though. What about using Skill = CR in case of elemental wildshape? That's even less than HD and requires you to have not even have ranks in know planes if you buy a mask. Well, we have still a full week to discuss wildshape.
Sunwolf 04-12-06, 10:26 AM	Question about alterself: The alterself spell seems to been written with humaniods in mind. The wording has allowed casters of non-humaniod races access to forms that are argueably superior to the forms available to humanoid races but not to the forms that humaniod casters would use. With the knowledge requirements, this spell becomes much more difficult to use for non-humaniod casters (especially so for non-wizards like the sorcerer and bard). Will humaniod forms be available for alterself for non-humaniod casters (outsiders,aberations, half-giants)-- assuming that the knowledge requirement is met?
barrel_master 04-12-06, 10:54 AM	Agreed, most of these are just house rule kind of things... they may make things better but they're still house rules. Maybe for Polymorph, but for Metamorphosis it would be a complete House Rule. It's not based on Alter Self and has no such restriction on size, neither implicit nor implied. As to the Familiar rule, I don't see the problem. If you shared it between the two of you, you couldn't move without losing the familiar's shape because he's more than 5' away. The only way it would work is if the familiar polymorphed into a mount for you. KerlanRayne PS - Wildshape has completely altered now that it is no longer based on Polymorph. It needs no more nerfing.
barrel_master 04-12-06, 10:56 AM	I also agree with this. I would agree with the other comments around wildshape - leave it as is. The ruling that all worn gear is absorbed by the animal form weakens wildshape enough.
MindWandererB 04-12-06, 11:51 AM	Lost my reply for some reason. Here's the quick version: It is uniform w/o Wildshape. Remember, Wildshape is no longer part of the Alter Self/Polymorph "tree." it's based on Alternate Form. Does a succubus need knowledge (local) to become a humanoid? I don't think so. At CR 7 for a huge elemental, all the CR rule would do is force all druids to buy a Mask for a measly 2500 bucks (if their Int is 14 or higher), or buy Shards (for as little as 640 gp for an Int of 8). At that level, this is pretty unnecessary. Finally, scrolls of Shapechange don't work under the new rules. I'm sure you can see why.
SoulLord 04-12-06, 12:20 PM	Unconcluded Topics * Belt Slots * Allies (tons of allies make prebuffing with ally to bring to next fight) * Ban the Magic Domain Solved Won't happen (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8910242&postcount=205) * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Reliance on expendables * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Equipment at home (free swaping or pre-buff) * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters. * Polymorph Solved effective april 19th (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8908815&postcount=189) * Wild Shape * Guild: Covert Operations
Pittbull 04-12-06, 12:23 PM	I like the new rules for polymorph, but wildshape shouldn't be restricted. As Kerlan said, it doesn't base on polymorph and it has been changed in the last errata. This should be enough. With the new rules, a character like Barhtleby isn't able to change in an avoral at level 8 or 9 anymore, just the mephit-from is possible, that is OK. Alter self should be kept as it is, you must stay in your racial class. Just a question to polymorph any object, is there the knowledge-skill also necessary? Same goes for shapechange? Expecially for PaO a ruling is necessary, because Barth wants to use it when he's able to cast the spell. This will be in ECL16, so there is still time. But don't forget casterservices, with Gladius' unlimited resources, someone might use this too.
Usurpator 04-12-06, 02:02 PM	There is no problem with wildshape, to restrict it for the sake of 'uniformity' is weird. Part of the mistakes WOTC made was that they linked all kinds of shapechange ability, and part of their change was to sever that link. I see no reason to introduce that link again. WOTC admitted that uniformity here was bad, and brought them heaps of trouble. While I do think that Polymorph (and Alter Self with Outsiders) is too powerful, I'm not sure about how to solve the issue. Restrictions don't make the spell less powerful, they just place more hurdles to gain it. LA+1 wasn't a hurdle, some skill restrictions shouldn't be a hurdle as well. I don't think it solves the fundamental problem with the spells.
Book5 04-16-06, 04:01 AM	You must have an (appropriate) total Knowledge score equal to twice the HD of the monster you want to polymorph in. This also applies to Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape. :D and the bard suddenly gets a little more use out of the alter self spell than the wizard! YEah! :thumbsup: hmm, I should finish what I started with the belt slots. here we go! Error: Different Outfits shouldnt be different. Wrong. Different monies, different descriptions, different. Error: There should be a volume limit on what fits in your outfit. Encoumbrance. Every outfit can carry your heavy load. Error: Belt slots will solve expendables usage issues. Might Help a little.. but I like sauro's idea Error: Belts amd scabbards can be bought... Heh. Well you can buy "magic belts" and "magic scabards" so there! Ok, can anyone tell that book5 just figured out how to use those {spoiler} things? ... oh and where my cookies g? Ok, that asided. Moving to "statement mode" :behold: "Book5 Tells it like it is" Clarification of Terms Items in your possession can be "stored" in four effective places: Carried - In your hands or what qualifies as your hands. Ready - In a pocket or belt in your outfit. Hidden - Out of reach or inside another item. Worn - An item designed to be worn and is neither being held or carried. Caried, worn, and ready items can be targeted for disarm and sunder attacks. Hidden items cannot be target for disarm or sunder attacks. To retrieve or replace an item from a ready or hidden location requires a move action. Putting an item away always provokes an AoO. Drawing and Sheathing Weapons Weapons, and weaponlike items, have some special exceptions for any character with a BAB +1 or better. You may retrieve (or draw) any ready weapon as a free action component of a regular move. You may also draw a weapon that has been readied without provoking an AoO. You may not replace (or sheath) a weapon as a free action, and sheathing a weapon does provoke an AoO. Weapon-Like Objects: Sticks, Stones, Wands/Dorjes, Powerstones, Rods, and Staves. Not Weapon-Like Objects: Potions, Scrolls, or anything else that has to be "opened." Note: Potions come in vials, and scrolls come in cases. Wands and stones do not. Using Ammunition You may "draw" ammo for your ranged weapons as a free action. This action must be a component of an attack action with the weapon. Drawing the ammo does not provoke an AoO, however the action firing the ranged weapon does. --- here I start making things up Getting Dressed Casual items of apparel such as hats, gloves, backpacks, and shields can be "donned" (equipped as worn) as a move action. Clothing and light armor requires 1 full minute to don, while heavier armors take even longer. Outfits and Light Armor : Don - 1 minute, Don Hastily - 5 rounds, Remove - 1 minute1 Medium Armor : Don - 4 minutes1, Don Hastily - 1 minute, Remove - 1 minute1 Heavy Armor : Don - 4 minutes2, Don Hastily - 4 minutes1, Remove - 1d4+1 minutes1 1 If the character has some help, cut this time in half. A single character doing nothing else can help one or two adjacent characters. Two characters can’t help each other don armor at the same time. 2 The wearer must have help to don this armor. Without help, it can be donned only hastily. Worn Expendable Items Tatoos, crowns, many rings, and other miscellaneous items are expendables that are worn. You do not need to retrieve (and cannot draw) these items. If they are worn they can be used as described in the item description. Changing Clothes in the Arena Unless you have a minute or more prior to your fight to disrobe and redon your clothes, even donning hastily, cannot be accomplished between pairings and your fight. Changing hats, shields, or jewerly however only requires a move action and therefore can be done between pairings and a fight. --- and now for something compleatly different! This based on the idea of "rationalizing" the number of items you could theoretically have at your disposal. The ability to focus -aka- Ovepacking. The number of items that you can list as ready cannot exceed your intelligence modifier (min1) multiplied by your ECL. Listing more items as ready than your maximume (or failing to list storage location at all) will result in all of your items being treated as hidden instead of ready. Why? You have more items than you can think of at once, this becomes confusing. Note: Hidden/Stored weapons (and weapon like objects) cannot be drawn as a free action. Indicating Locations You must always indicate how an item is stored in your inventory - {worn}, {ready}, {hidden}, or {carried}. These are the actual suggestions, The ability to focus -aka- Ovepacking. The number of items that you can list as ready cannot exceed your intelligence modifier (min1) multiplied by your ECL. Listing more items as ready than your maximume (or failing to list storage location at all) will result in all of your items being treated as hidden instead of ready. Why? You have more items than you can think of at once, this becomes confusing. Note: Hidden/Stored weapons (and weapon like objects) cannot be drawn as a free action. Indicating Locations You must always indicate how an item is stored in your inventory - {worn}, {ready}, {hidden}, or {carried}. The rest is just re-explaining the SRD. (that and assuming hats take a round to put on). woooaaaah! And I thought I was the radical element Sauro! I like the sentiment, and I will give a whole night rests worth of thinking about that there suggestion of yours. My initial reaction? I like forcing team battles better... Your proposal would pull coco closer to emulating the "natural environment" but I think that defaulting to 2v2 fights may be closer and would be easier. I am not so sure ARP would take a restart, but dang near. Changing the pairing machine to default to 2v2 battles would mean you were usually using team tactics (as the rules intended). You would still see allot of expendable item usage, but perhaps in a less unbalancing way. Perhaps.
NiQil 04-16-06, 04:31 AM	Weapons, and weaponlike items, have some special exceptions for any character with a BAB +1 or better. You may retrieve (or draw) any ready weapon as a free action component of a regular move. You may also draw a weapon that has been readied without provoking an AoO. You may not replace (or sheath) a weapon as a free action, and sheathing a weapon provokes an AoO. Weapon-Like Objects: Sticks, Stones, Wands/Dorjes, Powerstones, Rods, and Staves. Not Weapon-Like Objects: Potions, Scrolls, or anything else that has to be "opened." Note: Potions come in vials, and scrolls come in cases. Wands and stones do not. You always seem to get these lists wrong.... Weapon-like objects that do not provoke AoO when drawn include wands/dorjes, rods and staffs. That's it. No sticks, no stones, and no powerstones. Non-weapon-like objects that do provoke AoO's include potions/oils, scrolls, tattoos and powerstones. Drawing ammunition is always a free action, irregardless of the type of ammunition you are drawing...bolt, arrow, or bullet...and does not provoke AoO's As an aside...while I applaud Sauro's attempt at creativity....I could never support his "3 fights then refresh" format for this forum. I don't see it really solving any problems...it just trades existing problems for new ones, in my opinion. For me personally, I like the way things are now. I think maybe a few tweaks here and there are needed, but overall I think we have a good thing going here. I don't see the need to make that drastic a change. Nor would I be inclined to continue participation here under that type of setup. I *like being able to adjust my character every week and watch it progress. I *like seeing a tactic that I never thought of before and going out and buying something to try the same thing the following week. I shudder to think how a Hunter fight would work with one full strength fighter, one week 2 caster and one week 3 manifester...or a team fight with two week 3 characters vs two week 1 characters....I'd be pretty ticked if I got that kind of matchup for one of my characters. Do I think we have some issues that need addressed? Sure. But I think we are all smart enough people to address them with small changes rather than something this drastic. We seem to have come up with a fairly simple and effective solution to the polymorph issue (as long as we can get Wildshape take out of there....I agree with everyone else who thinks that it should not be there). I don't see why some of the other issues can't be solved in the same fashion...with a little brainstorming to come up with a simple solution. Several other ideas have been put forth....but none have really been focused upon because we have so many topics that everyone wants to talk about. Lets pick one and resolve it, and then move on to the next one. Keep in mind that, as much as we would like to turn this forum into normal D&D....it will *never be normal D&D. It's an arena, first and foremost. Trying to turn arena matches into the same type of encounters and the same experience you would run into in a tabletop game is just not something that I ever see working very well...there are just too many differences.
Book5 04-16-06, 06:39 PM	You always seem to get these lists wrong.... Weapon-like objects that do not provoke AoO when drawn include wands/dorjes, rods and staffs. That's it. No sticks, no stones, and no powerstones. Non-weapon-like objects that do provoke AoO's include potions/oils, scrolls, tattoos and powerstones. Drawing ammunition is always a free action, irregardless of the type of ammunition you are drawing...bolt, arrow, or bullet...and does not provoke AoO's Big Q, I gotta ask you. Where does tatoo even come into this? Tatoos are not weaponlike, or even very object like if I do say so myself. And I might. You don't have to be carrying them to use them. You just have to use them. Completely different from all the other "items" were talking about. Regarding ammunition, I take the words "for use" to mean "for the express purpose of firing in the weapon" not to be mistaken for including simply retrieving an arrow to look at. Further, you missed the one actual mistake I think I made... (will edit now) You don't need a +1 bab to draw ammo as a free action as part of using a weapon. I for one would say "you should" have to be profecient in a weapon to "draw" an ammo/weapon at all, but it doesnt suggest that anywhere... nor does it suggest you need a +1 BAB to access that option. Nor did I say that the ranged weapon in question was important....or did I? Hmmmm, No. I will however add more clarification regarding the AoO situation. I think I see where I confused ya Q. Lastly - hmm, so no throwing rocks then? "Throw rock" is not expressly listed. @Cat - Can we throw rocks in the arena? I mean I have considered it an impromptu sling, -4? @Q - If we can throw rocks.. we can draw rocks.. whats a stone but a rock? Really powerstones are about the same size as bullet... by your logic (so far) thats always a free action to draw. Finally It's an arena, first and foremost. Trying to turn arena matches into the same type of encounters and the same experience you would run into in a tabletop game is just not something that I ever see working very well...there are just too many differences. I thought it was the fine art of character optimization. "See how your character really stands up." Something like that. The arena is one very good way of doing that. One. I don't think that the campaigns are, and I really don't think the monster fights are. Futher mages overkill in the arena. Because they are never cought unprepared. Thats why. Me? I have a hard time seeing NiQiL's horesmen suffering for Sauro's suggestion, nor do I consider it a really valid argument. If you have the baddest build this side of Ebberon.. he can take a 1st week on his 3rd week. AND How about the rewards get slid a bit to compensate? Put an "Rewards x Wins" multiplier on it. Pushing the expectation of you failing in the first round. This is not "watch your character grow" land its "test your build land." I have watched Tan "grow" just fine, loosing and all. That said. I don't think we should do 3 battles in a row. OR you should make that an entire tournament concept that is sideline from the arena. A second arena. This second arena could be half-campaign. See. You have to sign up with a partner. (group tactics only) You have to sign up for 3 weeks. (Counting against active characters) Your fight is run like a pit fight. (Paired randomly) It shares the same "pairing post" (unified location) but is run in the "tournaments thread" ... an "experiment" ? Anybody wanna bet 10° fighters and thieves show up signifigantly better in that kinda "testing environment?" Seperate thread Groups only 1 credit to participate? - to be certain your serious (like a campaign) Counts as active character Has no 1/3rd rule one annoying problem Random Pairings - I think you should pair an entire pyramid all at once, not spreadng it into the rest of the pairings. That way you will not be getting first weekers into the same fight as the second or third week. Then! To bring it all together again with the timing of the rest of the world - Due to the extreem nature of the tournament in comparison to the arena, the participants are barred from competing in the regular arena fights for two weeks prior to their tournament appearence. While waiting for the tournament to be prepared the contestants are encouraged to enjoy fine dining at any of the guild halls, free of charge. Basically to keep timing in sequence you have the tournament results hit the guilds only on the third and final week. By willingly participating - you prevent the problem of catching level at a bad time. By forcing players into 2s you come closer to the way the rules were designed. Pair the entire pyramid so you have the option of foresight. Run it dragon ball style (start with 4 teams, then 2, then 1) and your paying with 7 pitlordings. Activating 16 characters for 3 weeks. Leaving 8 in a jam after the first week (bonus free activities!!) 4 in a rut (more bonus free activites!!), and 2 big winners. Not that bad as an experiment. I would say..
Caterane 04-16-06, 07:39 PM	I like Sauro's proposal but unless all points are clear and all problems have been solved, we have to wait with implementing it, if at all. The good thing is that it solves several things at once. In order to have the same diversity for your matches, you'd have to buy thrice as many expendables as now. Sure, that alone fixes little but combined with the proposed cap of 50*ECL² value of expendables, you just cannot possess that many expendables to have the diversity for three matches. This is the best solution so far to the expendables problem, to the magic domain problem, and other minor problems with just one natural change. It even removes a house rule: The 1/3 rule is perhaps the most artificial house rule of the coco to govern multiple fights per day and many complaints came up because of it. Sauro's proposal let's each player decide how many spells you want to use in a given fight. We could get rid of this big house rule completely. Another artificially created problem are the 1/d ablities which are now available in every fight. 2/d and 3/d is completely useless in the arena. That's the reason why many dip into so many classes, to gain a lot of 'always-available' abilities. That's why we see no barbarians past level 2, and many other class abilities become uninteresting beyond the 1st usage. Sauro's proposal solves this in an elegant non-artificial way. There are other benefits of this way to handle arena fights. Most important though is that it could be implemented easily without any change. You'd just have to drop the 1/3 rule and add the expendable cap. Usurpator has addressed some issues but I think they can be solved. The thing that bothers me the most with this is the difference between a fresh character and one that is in week 3. The fresh character has no reason not to use all of his power before he loses, because if he loses he is refreshed again anyway. That means, fresh characters - although trying to household - will not stop at 1/3 of their spells when the tide turns against them. Effectively, we would pair a fresh character against someone with 2 fights on his back and a long 3rd one currently running. It is not possible to divide characters not only by ECL but also be week they're in without me losing my real life job. If that issue is cleared, I hold no more major reservations against Sauro's idea. We should also see it as a first draft, not the final version. And also: nothing is set in stone yet.
MindWandererB 04-16-06, 08:13 PM	I like Sauro's proposal.... Usurpator has addressed some issues but I think they can be solved. The thing that bothers me the most with this is the difference between a fresh character and one that is in week 3. The fresh character has no reason not to use all of his power before he loses, because if he loses he is refreshed again anyway. That means, fresh characters - although trying to household - will not stop at 1/3 of their spells when the tide turns against them. Effectively, we would pair a fresh character against someone with 2 fights on his back and a long 3rd one currently running. It is not possible to divide characters not only by ECL but also be week they're in without me losing my real life job. If that issue is cleared, I hold no more major reservations against Sauro's idea. We should also see it as a first draft, not the final version. And also: nothing is set in stone yet.I agree that this is the biggest problem. I don't think that it would be as difficult as you think to divide characters by week (worst case, you divide up the responsibility; one person sets up the groupings by week and ECL, and one to three more people do the pairings, with one person doing each week), although the big problem there would be having enough gladiators (ECL 8 would be impossible, and even ECL's 5-7 would have only six gladiators per week), especially if half the gladiators are eliminated every week. Take ECL 4, with 26 gladiators. Week 1: Half win, half lose. Week 2: The losers, 13 of them, are "fresh" and in week 1 of their new series, the other half are in the second week. Again, half win and half lose, so in week 3 we have about 13 "fresh" gladiators, 13 in their second week, and about 6 in their third week. And that's ECL 4, which is a big league. So I don't think that would work. That leaves us with the necessity of pairing fresh gladiators with "tired" ones. Now, the good thing would be that this ultimately balances out in the long run--"tired" gladiators will be at a disadvantage, but if they lose, then their opponent will be "tired" next week. It will be harder to achieve Great Reknown (sorry, Cat!), and easier to avoid being a Failure. And, of course, you would have to ration your expendables like mad. The worst case will be a wilder "nuker" or the like, going nova to take out the first gladiator, who has no chance against this kind of onslaught, leaving the next week's challenger with a free win. That's no fun for anyone. One possible solution is to allow healing (of HP, status effects, etc.) between fights, but nothing else, not even if you die. That would cut down on "nova" strategies, although it has the possibility of making a character be screwed for two weeks if they overextended themselves in one. The big question I would have is, should this be a reset? Most characters are optimized to take advantage of the 1/3 rule in some form or another, whether it's a duergar with no ranks in Hide because he gets to go invisible every fight, or a Magic domain cleric with one scroll of everything, or a psion with Body Fuel, or even just a barbarian with one potion each of Prot. Evil and Prot. Good. Most characters would have to be redesigned somewhat with this in mind, and many will need some extreme changes to stay viable. It would be kind of strange to allow characters to make fundamental changes to their levels, feats, skills, and maybe even ability points, and let them go right on fighting. I do want to reiterate that I think between-fight healing should be available to all. Every D&D party has a cleric, usually with a CLW wand bought from communal funds, and the arena should simulate that. I think 10 gp/6 hp should be the going price (10 gp for a level 1 CLW, for an average of 5.5 hp, or 6.5 hp cast by a cleric with the Healing domain), although 10 gp/5 hp (or 2 gp/hp) would make for easier math. It should be no more than 15 gp/5 hp (which is what a CLW wand costs per charge). I'd also like to reiterate that arena battles are considerably more lethal than typical D&D battles (you win nearly all D&D fights, and without perfectly optimized characters).
Caterane 04-16-06, 08:47 PM	We will definately not reset. It's completely unnecessary. Sure, some minor things will change but there's the Character Changes thread and if the duergar now really needs ranks in hide, why not. I don't think many will request Character Changes. I'm not sure if they should be allowed at all because we basically don't change the philosophy behind it (3 fights a day).
SauroGrenom 04-17-06, 12:14 AM	I'm working on a revised proposal. I appreciate your encouragement and comments from Usurpator, Mindwanderer and Cat. My central idea is still using 3 combats in a day at the arena. However I don't want to alienate NiQil. He is a valuable member and represents an important attitude and perspective needed to keep dreamers and inventors such as myself from messing up a good thing when it's not needed. However I think that if we want to balance the CoCo with regard to allies, expendibles and class features a fundamental change is warranted. NiQil is absolutly correct that it is probably possible to address individual imbalances with a house rule for each. Such changes would be incrimental, and may be sufficient to restore balance. However, this approach creates new house rules for each issue as it is identified. My proposal simultaniously addresses many of the balance issues we are discussing, and actually removes a few house rules. To my mind the final proposal will make pitlording and playing easier (especially for new members) as well as restore balance to the combat environment. I hope to convince even NiQil with my next version of the proposal. Give me a few more days as I work on it and incorporate the comments and concerns of our other members. I understand that the number of fights a character has endured will become a major issue in every battle. I'm not sure right now how to address this valid concern, but give me a few days maybe a week to work on it. I need to give a presentation at work next Thursday and after that I'll have more mental horsepower available to spend on this.
NiQil 04-17-06, 01:18 AM	I'm working on a revised proposal. I appreciate your encouragement and comments from Usurpator, Mindwanderer and Cat. My central idea is still using 3 combats in a day at the arena. However I don't want to alienate NiQil. He is a valuable member and represents an important attitude and perspective needed to keep dreamers and inventors such as myself from messing up a good thing when it's not needed. However I think that if we want to balance the CoCo with regard to allies, expendibles and class features a fundamental change is warranted. NiQil is absolutly correct that it is probably possible to address individual imbalances with a house rule for each. Such changes would be incrimental, and may be sufficient to restore balance. However, this approach creates new house rules for each issue as it is identified. My proposal simultaniously addresses many of the balance issues we are discussing, and actually removes a few house rules. To my mind the final proposal will make pitlording and playing easier (especially for new members) as well as restore balance to the combat environment. I hope to convince even NiQil with my next version of the proposal. Give me a few more days as I work on it and incorporate the comments and concerns of our other members. I understand that the number of fights a character has endured will become a major issue in every battle. I'm not sure right now how to address this valid concern, but give me a few days maybe a week to work on it. I need to give a presentation at work next Thursday and after that I'll have more mental horsepower available to spend on this. I do want to add that when this idea first came to be, my initial reaction is that what it sounds like we are trying to do is turn the arena battles into the same thing we have now with quests, with really the only difference being that you know ahead of time who you are fighting in the arena, and the Nimbus. There aren't many other major differences. So while you construct your proposal for the arena, bear in mind what affect it will have on everything else. Quests would simply be a vehicle for gaining items you can't afford, gaining allies, or pure roleplaying. The wouldn't be special or different anymore, in my opinion. Which would then necessitate us looking at whether they should still costs credits. That, in turn, would make miniquests even more useless....do you see where I am headed? There is a pyramid effect here. So please bear all of this in mind. And also consider other things, like how to balance the matches other than a 1-on-1 match in your system. Hunter, Last Man Standing, and Team fights all take on a different dynamic in your idea, which would then cause us to revisit their viability as well. In short....fundamentally altering the arena in this way is going to have ramifications throughout our forum. Some we may see now, some we may not. If we don't see them now, then we are forced to create houserules or alter things further to fix them as they crop up, just as we do now. Which puts us right back here where we started. So what this kinda comes down to is...do we want the devil we know, or the devil we don't? I will withhold further comment until I see this new proposal and see what comes of it...
MindWandererB 04-17-06, 02:53 AM	Quests would simply be a vehicle for gaining items you can't afford, gaining allies, or pure roleplaying.Actually, only the second and third reasons apply now. You no longer earn items at 75% value, but you can sell back any found items (including ones found on campaign) for full value. In essence, you now gain only cash from quests (and quest goal allies, etc.). As far as I can see, miniquests are only run to gain allies and guild membership, and quests only for RP purposes. And also consider other things, like how to balance the matches other than a 1-on-1 match in your system. Hunter, Last Man Standing, and Team fights all take on a different dynamic in your idea, which would then cause us to revisit their viability as well.A good point. FFA and Hunter matches are already deadly, but even more so like this. Most likely, all participants will pull out all the stops, because they have only a 1/3 or 1/4 chance of winning (although my suggestion that you don't recover spells, etc. when you die would help here). And anyone who has previously survived a fight won't have much of a chance in a subsequent FFA if everyone else goes to town on them. I think that once we have worked all the obvious kinks out, we should do a small run on a volunteer basis. If you are allowed to rest when you lose, we'll need a minimum of 8 participants, so that four will be unrested in the second week, so that hopefully two will be unrested in the third week. If you are not allowed to rest when you lose, fewer volunteers would be needed (although 8 is still a good round number). And of course they'd all have to be in the same league, although it would be nice to test it at two different levels (say, ECL 3 or 4 and ECL 7 or 9). Alternatively, we can wait until the Iron Man Tournament, which should be coming up soon (when Kekatrin the Weightless is activated, there will be 16 ECL 10 characters, which was, I believe, the threshhold). The tournament will reveal a lot of the issues involved with successive fights, I think.
Vathelokai 04-17-06, 05:07 AM	Looking forward to Sauro's second draft, though I agree with mindwanderer; the iron man tournament would be a fine testing ground for such an idea. Sorry to interupt. You must have an (appropriate) total Knowledge score equal to twice the HD of the monster you want to polymorph in. This also applies to Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape. Polymorph/Metamorphosis forms must be within one size category just like Alter Self. Polymorph, Alter Self, Metamorphosis, and Wildshape that change your size count as a size change for purposes of stacking with other size-modifying spells and powers. Polymorph is not shared with your familiar. You can specifically cast polymorph on it though (instead of yourself). Just like resist energy and other spells, expendables with polymorph, alter self, or metamorphosis must be specified beforehand. Example: Scroll of Alter Self (Troglodyte). This only applies to expendables; not to memorized spells. So the current status of this is what exactly, since the deadline is approaching? Not to be pushy, but the support for removing wildshape seems quite firm. Dosn't really need discussion, but could be interesting. Challenge matches; change the rule to allow combatants in a challenge match to use whatever rules they agree to. Effectively, this allows the combatants to ignore house rules or make up their own house rules. Examples -two wizards dueling; agree to use all spell levels in the fight. -wizard vs warrior; agree to totaly ban polymorph (just did this actually) -two rogues; agree to no invisibility -two archers; start at a range of 150 ft with no cover and just shoot it out As far as I've seen, this has been done to some extent already. I just think it would be neat to make it an official rule. Might also cause more people to make challenges.
Pittbull 04-17-06, 05:38 AM	I sympathize with Sauros proposal too, but, yes, we need some work on it. The problems of hunter and FFA-fights are immenent. It's a good idea to test it out in ECL-10. For opening the the league: When the "weightless" is there, then we have sixteen characters, but four of Cats and at least three of mine, I don't want to activate all of them and pay the credits. Do we need really sixteen for this tournament, has anybody an idea of it's rules?
Caterane 04-17-06, 07:47 AM	Re Iron Man: Since there seems to be some confusion as to the Iron Man Tournament (also got some PMs) I want to clarify some things here. The Iron Man Tournament is planned to start with 32 characters. Of these 32 characters, not all come from the ECL 10 league, although it should be the majority. The rest can start as teams from lower leagues but in order to find an appropriate EL for teams we need to flesh out our inter-league fights first. What I mean is: which combination of characters is the equivalent of ECL 10? Or generally, how many of which lower level leagues are the equivalent of a higher league. Once solved, we can introduce Inter-League Fights as a regular part of the system which gives me more leeway with pairings. Especially the higher leagues see many rematches. Secondly, Iron Man or not, the higher leagues cannot be opened unless we get more members. The coco can currently not support all leagues. The ranks already spread thin in the upper regions, moreso if we go till ECL 15, or 20 even. I hope that some of the planned add-on's (summer/autumn this year) will help to attract more members and keep those who already joined. Re Wildshape: We will leave it out of the new rules for now but I'd like to talk about it again. @NiQil: There is a huge difference between Arena Fights and Quests. Just to name a few: you can run your character yourself, you can roleplay and enhance his storyline, you have non-combatal problems to solve, there's no Nimbus, there are different battle maps each time, and fewer arena rules apply. Saying Quests become useless is a completely inappropriate assessment, especially since the '3 fights in a row' are not the incentive to go on a quest at all. In short....fundamentally altering the arena in this way is going to have ramifications throughout our forum. Some we may see now, some we may not. If we don't see them now, then we are forced to create houserules or alter things further to fix them as they crop up, just as we do now. Which puts us right back here where we started. So what this kinda comes down to is...do we want the devil we know, or the devil we don't? With this attitude, we would still be a single thread on the character optimization board.
SoulLord 04-17-06, 10:33 AM	Unconcluded Topics * Belt Slots * Allies Solved allies must be pre-buffed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8956880&postcount=239) affective april 19 * Ban the Magic Domain Solved Won't happen (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8910242&postcount=205) * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Reliance on expendables * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Equipment at home (free swaping or pre-buff) * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters. * Polymorph Solved effective april 19th (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8908815&postcount=189) * Wild Shape * Guild: Covert Operations * Challenge matches (agree on rules before the fight) * Iron man Tournament
Caterane 04-17-06, 10:46 AM	I think we can also add the requirement to prebuff allies. There was an unanimous agreement to that. Effective from wednesday on. Another topic is a good excuse on why I cannot come to my girlfriend's grandma's birthday LOL
MindWandererB 04-17-06, 01:27 PM	I think we can also add the requirement to prebuff allies. There was an unanimous agreement to that. Effective from wednesday on.Can you be a bit more explicit? The most popular answer seemed to be to require allies to be prebuffed (up to the character's maximum), but to allow those allies to be left out of the fight if desired. Is that what we're going with, or are you stuck with whatever you take? The Iron Man Tournament is planned to start with 32 characters. Of these 32 characters, not all come from the ECL 10 league, although it should be the majority. The rest can start as teams from lower leagues but in order to find an appropriate EL for teams we need to flesh out our inter-league fights first. What I mean is: which combination of characters is the equivalent of ECL 10? Or generally, how many of which lower level leagues are the equivalent of a higher league. Once solved, we can introduce Inter-League Fights as a regular part of the system which gives me more leeway with pairings. Especially the higher leagues see many rematches. Then we need to start experimenting with inter-league battles fairly soon, because the ECL 10 league is getting pretty big (it's bigger than ECLs 8 and 9, and about the same size as ECLs 5, 6, and 7). I think we should make inter-league challenge matches free for a while (although all involved players need to agree), so as to get volunteers to work out the kinks in the system. Otherwise you'll have to start drafting people, and no one wants that. In addition, this could be a good way to get guild relations jumpstarted without anyone needing any of the Operations rooms.
Caterane 04-17-06, 02:15 PM	From April 19 on, you have to prebuff your allies. You are not allowed to bring in allies not listed under prebuffs, and you are not allowed to leave allies at home if they're prebuffed with. This is to lower the diversity granted by ally swapping as well as making it easier to write tactics.
SoulLord 04-17-06, 02:22 PM	Solved Topics * Allies Solved allies must be pre-buffed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8958435&postcount=241) affective april 19 * Ban the Magic Domain Solved Won't happen (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8910242&postcount=205) * Polymorph Solved effective april 19th (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8908815&postcount=189) * Metamorphosis Solved uses same ruling as polymorph (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8964735&postcount=246) effective april 19th Unconcluded Topics * Belt Slots * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Reliance on expendables * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Equipment at home (free swaping or pre-buff) * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters. * Wild Shape * Guild: Covert Operations * Challenge matches (break the rules when part's agree to it) * Iron man Tournament * Frozen league (when will the 10th league be active?)
lonewolf 04-17-06, 05:39 PM	* Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon I must say that I am clearly against nerfing these two powers. Especially Vigor. Yes Vigor is a strong power, but it is not gamebreaking and Vigor alone wont win you any battle. If we starting to nerf every good spell/power/feat/... there wont be a point in optimizing anymore. Dissolving Weapon is a bit trickier. The problem that some people have with this power is that it can be used as prebuff. Yes that is also powerful, but it is also the only! Psychic Warrior power that can effectively prebuffed at all. (inertial Armor doesnt count because nearly all wear armor) So you want to take this very last option for Psychic Warriors to use their prebuff pp away? I dont think thats necessary. Prebuffing with Dissolving weapon costs either money(manifester Service) every fight, wether you can actually use it or not, or one of the few powers known for the psychic warrior(and at least 4 actual levels in Psywar). I think this is enough investment to gain this strong ability.
barrel_master 04-17-06, 06:18 PM	From April 19 on, you have to prebuff your allies. You are not allowed to bring in allies not listed under prebuffs, and you are not allowed to leave allies at home if they're prebuffed with. This is to lower the diversity granted by ally swapping as well as making it easier to write tactics. Although It doens't really affect me, could we possibly have more time on this issue as the 19th isn't far away at all.
KerlanRayne 04-18-06, 05:32 AM	Maybe for Polymorph, but for Metamorphosis it would be a complete House Rule. It's not based on Alter Self and has no such restriction on size, neither implicit nor implied. As to the Familiar rule, I don't see the problem. If you shared it between the two of you, you couldn't move without losing the familiar's shape because he's more than 5' away. The only way it would work is if the familiar polymorphed into a mount for you. Any comments on these? Also, what about sharing with your Psicrystal? KerlanRayne
Caterane 04-18-06, 06:04 AM	Kerlan, it's the same problem as with polymorph so we have to share the solutions too.
MindWandererB 04-18-06, 04:48 PM	I see that PSI is building the Espionage Headquarters this week. That means we have one week to resolve the Plant Corrupt Official issue (unless PSI will generously give us more time to work on it, but that would unfairly penalize them because they have three juicy and undefended targets to perform this on, and the earlier they do it, the better).
Caterane 04-18-06, 08:20 PM	I have a super-important day coming monday so there's little I can think about before the 24th. Here's what I proposed earlier: Covert Operation: as described but within ANY district the enemy guild controls. That means, you pick the weakest chapter house and face the least resistance. This option is for guilds with good covert operators. Peaceful Operation: Inspire Loyality. You use Prestige in the district with the corrupt official. The Formula is based on opponent operator's check in a skill and the type of prestige is that of the highest trait in the district. This is for less sneaky/agressive guilds. From the top of my head: Highest District Trait*100 in Prestige? And finally: A Chapter House may never have more than one Corrupt Official.
MindWandererB 04-18-06, 08:33 PM	I have a super-important day coming monday so there's little I can think about before the 24th. Here's what I proposed earlier: Covert Operation: as described but within ANY district the enemy guild controls. That means, you pick the weakest chapter house and face the least resistance. This option is for guilds with good covert operators. Peaceful Operation: Inspire Loyality. You use Prestige in the district with the corrupt official. The Formula is based on opponent operator's check in a skill and the type of prestige is that of the highest trait in the district. This is for less sneaky/agressive guilds. From the top of my head: Highest District Trait*100 in Prestige? And finally: A Chapter House may never have more than one Corrupt Official.Right now, no guild owns more than one district, so the first option doesn't help much yet. And the second costs a lot of Prestige. For TLT, that would be 600 NAT-PP. We can't afford that, especially since the opposing guild can just turn right around and do it again. Without an alternative option, we still need at least one sneaky guildmember.
Guildlords 04-18-06, 09:13 PM	Right. As I said, I have no time till next tuesday. We need to find a solution though. I cannot stay as it is now. Btw, the corrupt official is really the least thing I am worried about. Samuel can auto-succeed on any covert operation and his powerrating makes any room worth up to 2000 inactive. By targeting the living quarters, the PSI can now kick out any guild. Only the CEF can build a large labyrinth and a concealed chapter house on time to be save. All other guilds would be out of the game.
MindWandererB 04-18-06, 11:30 PM	Right. As I said, I have no time till next tuesday. We need to find a solution though. I cannot stay as it is now. Btw, the corrupt official is really the least thing I am worried about. Samuel can auto-succeed on any covert operation and his powerrating makes any room worth up to 2000 inactive. By targeting the living quarters, the PSI can now kick out any guild. Only the CEF can build a large labyrinth and a concealed chapter house on time to be save. All other guilds would be out of the game.That's a very, very good point--and even without disabling a room, he can do over 1000 gp worth of damage, or even steal that same amount from a treasury. And even the CEF would still have a good chance of being affected (about 25% with both a labyrinth and concealment--and those upgrades apply only to chapter houses, not the HQ). So we now have two problems--removing corrupt officials and nerfing Covert Ops in general. Another issue is that chapter houses always start off totally undefended. An alert opponent could always perform Arson on a newly-constructed Chapter House and destroy it by sending several operators. Here are some partial suggestions. None of them fix the problem, but they help to varying degrees. 1) When performing Covert Ops against a Guild HQ, the guild operator must use Hide and Move Silently to beat the highest Spot and Listen of any guild member. (Optionally: the operator may choose one guild member to be excluded from this by raiding the HQ during that person's arena fight, but only if that character is in a fight.) (Optionally: The defending guild gets a district defense bonus.) 2) The damage dealt by a successful operation is decreased to about the same amount that the character would earn in taxes. That makes it so that burglary is about as lucrative as the "Raid Enemy Character" operation. (I think this works out to about 2% of a character's power rating--but check my math.) 3) If a basic room (living quarters, kitchen, bathroom) or Chapter House is attacked, it does not affect the current week, and those rooms do not require a GAP to repair (although they do require a GAP to rebuild). 4) Alternatively, repairs never cost a GAP, only rebuilding does. 5) Alternatively, repairs under a certain amount (say, 1000 gp if suggestion 2 is taken, or... something bigger otherwise... I just realized that if the guild system stays unchanged, a level 20 character could do 36,000 gp worth of damage--and only if he had an average power rating!) don't cost a GAP. 6) A chapter house starts off with 10 guards (effectively, the 10 staff that are already there get to make Spot/Listen checks). I'll add more as I think of them.
Guildlords 04-19-06, 04:50 AM	Thanks Mindwanderer; there are some good suggestions in there but as you said, none of them fixes the problem because they all focus on the defender. No matter how many guards you give out for free, there will always be a character who can beat them. I could just use my credits to create such a character on the fly. To address the problem, we have to make it harder to launch operations just like that. With a prestige cost, you cannot launch an operation every week. I just don't know a good formula because anything that makes it averagely difficult to launch an operation now, will be easily possible later when prestige is flowing in due to the many structures. Here are some additions I have added to the rules: - Any Chapter House upgrade affects the whole district. - You add the district defense value to the guard rolls. - Repairs do not cost a GAP but must be announced. - As with all GAPs, they do not take effect till the next wednesday. You addressed another problem, Mindwanderer. The Harvester II could deal over 70,000 damage per operation. It becomes clear that the absolute powerrating is not the way to go. Either we use the base powerrating (which is always around 1000; ~2000 at best) or taxes (which is around 500; ~2000 at best). Finally, I think we should make the base of operations immune to any operation for now. Any stab against the heart of a guild (for example by destroying their living quarters) kills it. Perhaps we can later allow it again.
SauroGrenom 04-19-06, 09:47 AM	First I must get this off my chest... I'm getting a bit frustrated with the guild rules changing so much. I'm always trying at each week to perform the option that is best for the guild at that week. Since the rules keep changing this is like hitting a moving target. Last week I thought we would be gaining a valuable advantage over our rivals with our Bankhouse that we spend ~6000gp and 7 weeks building. And the very same week a subsidiation gave the same structure to our allies EHTC in 1 weeks time. That is a very potent subsidiation and gives them as a guild nearly the same income as PSI. I'm OK with this because I know it is necessary to boost the weaker guilds a bit. IMO a free top structure is a bit much if all you want to do is save a floundering guild, but that's Cat's call and so be it. Giving this away doesn't directly limit PSI or what we can do. However this week we are for the first time in guild history talking about limiting the usefullness of an already existing guild structure before it can ever be used. I choose the Covert Opperations Room because we have characters who would be good at covert opps, and none of the other guilds are prepared to counter these covert opps. It would be a potent advantage for us. It's an obvious choice. I understand that right now there is no defense vs a covert action. There are several factors that cause that. First is that we do not have many guilds with enough money to build defenses. Second even those guilds with lots of money do not have the spare GAP to build the defenses. Third it is possible to entirely cripple a guild with the rules as we have them now. I'd like to point out that covert opperations are the same as assault actions in this regard. This week CEF or TLT could build a warroom, and in a few weeks WAR or EHTC could do the same. In 2-3 weeks we could begin to have assault actions on guildhalls. Again those stronger guilds could plunder the weaker guilds in a few weeks and the smaller guilds will all be out of the game. So the bottom line is that we are just not yet ready for any kind of guild actions. All the guilds need more time to build and more money to build with. I suggest that we do the following: Declare a start date for guild actions (covert, assault or intriuge) at some time in the future a couple months away. This will give us the time needed to discuss the changes to the rules one at a time. If we try to slap a patch on this issue now we may later discover we have introduced a whole mess of new unexpected problems. By setting a start date as 2 months from now, we give ourselves plenty of time to make all the decisions, and allow all the guilds to get into a position to be ready for that dimension of the game. Give a subsidiation or inheritance or benefactor to every guild one time only. The idea here is to give every guild a push toward being finantially viable so they can use the above time to best defend themselves. Right now the 3 most wealthy guilds are CEF, TLT and PSI. These are the guilds with structures (EHTC just got one last week), and the potency of structures has increased from what they were earlier. An A level structure will make net income of 900gp/week or more. That is equivalent to about 4 characters fighting and winning in the Arena. One A structure will increase the net gp/week of a weak guild by 20 or 30 times. For guilds that have few members and no structures this is a life saving boost that gets them into the game all at the same time (instead of randomly). For guilds that are already doing well the boost is also important, but will not increase there income with so large a multiplier. CEF will only see ~30% increase in net income with a new A structure, while EYE will see a ~1000% increase. This is also fare because the stronger guilds are not penalized by there success. The stronger guilds still recieve the same bonus, but that size of bonus is just not as meaningfull to them. With the time given by the above suggestion and the money from a city wide subsidiation, all the guilds including the weaker ones will move toward being able to handle the day that guild actions become available. All guilds will have the time to hire a few guards and recruite a couple regiments. The council will have time to think about the guild actions and how they are going to be used. Every guildmaster will have the chance to get started on guild actions at the same time with a set system of rules in place. If there is an imbalance, there are three ways to level the playing field. You can selectively knock down those who have an advantage, or selectively boost those who are at a disadvantage, or boost everyone so that the differences between the "advantaged" and "disadvantaged" are the same in absolute numbers, but less signifigant because they represent a smaller proportion of total wealth/income. I favor the last because it is the most indescriminate.
Malither76 04-20-06, 09:57 AM	I have a major problem I just noticed, every guild but the EHTC has a level A structure that increased there primary trait by 1 and also uses there secondary trait in combination to generate gold, while the EHTC gets shafted with both crime structures that increas crime using its worse trait in combination, the TLT has a big advantage were both of there buildings that increase nature use there secondary best trait in combination, they would be dumb not to build both of these. why is the EHTC shafted in this manner. I would be happy and problem would be solved easily if the Robbery Baron Keep, was switched to Crime/Economy while increasing crime +1, I think this is only fair
SauroGrenom 04-20-06, 10:57 AM	I have a major problem I just noticed, every guild but the EHTC has a level A structure that increased there primary trait by 1 and also uses there secondary trait in combination to generate gold, while the EHTC gets shafted with both crime structures that increas crime using its worse trait in combination, the TLT has a big advantage were both of there buildings that increase nature use there secondary best trait in combination, they would be dumb not to build both of these. why is the EHTC shafted in this manner. I would be happy and problem would be solved easily if the Robbery Baron Keep, was switched to Crime/Economy while increasing crime +1, I think this is only fair PSI gets nearly the same deal. Our A structure that grants +1 econ is the Shipyards, but it is a Econ-Nature structure and the guild is -1nature in a district with no nature traits. We have a B structure with +1 econ as well, but it is again econ-politics. Our guild is neutral on politics, so this isn't great either. Anyway, I worked with Cat trying to setup that whole structures thing. It was supprisingly hard to do. We wanted the secondary effects to make sense with regard to the names. We increased the number of structures and eliminated the idea of upgrading a structure. Every pair of traits faith-econ for example appears on the list twice. Lots of things changed for the better. If that very small imbalance is the biggest complaint we get, I'll consider our labor a smashing success.
Malither76 04-23-06, 11:03 PM	I really don't see anything wrong with the plant corrupt official, it will steal 25% of income, most places are not making 2800gp a week, but lets use that as an example, if you were that is 700gp loss, Baelin can steal 768 or so by burglary, and his power rating is very bad due to poor performance in the arena. so I say let it be or let it be used a little then judge it, no one knows the impact until it actually happens.
Macbrea 04-23-06, 11:17 PM	The problem comes in when a guild is hit by multiple corupt officials. What do you do if your guild is had 4 of them placed on it?
Vathelokai 04-23-06, 11:26 PM	The problem comes in when a guild is hit by multiple corupt officials. What do you do if your guild is had 4 of them placed on it? Cat stated that there can only be 1 corrupt official in effect at a time, but it hasn't made it into the rules thread yet.
Zevox 04-23-06, 11:32 PM	And finally: A Chapter House may never have more than one Corrupt Official. Nope, that won't be the problem anymore once Cat gets around to adding that to the rules Macbrea. The biggest part of it was that its hard to remove - any guild without a good sneak will have a hard time getting rid of it if hit by one with a decent defense rating and a fair number of guards in thier district(s), not to mention other possible anti-covert-op defenses like Labyrinths, Dungeons, etc. Not to mention the need to build an Espionage HQ to even try that, which some Guilds simply won't want to do (the CEF and TLT, for instance, have no good sneaks and aren't particularly attractive to sneaky sorts of characters, so an Espionage HQ would largely be a waste for them with the sole exception of removing a corrupt official). This means there needs to be an easier (or at least more accessible to non-sneaky Guilds) way to remove them. Cat suggested some fixes, but as MindWandererB pointed out they're not perfect for the task by any means (probably because he was a bit rushed for them due to whatever it is hes got taking up his time this weekend). Zevox
Malither76 04-24-06, 12:58 AM	I say let it be, there is nothing wrong with it how is the corrupt official is nothing compared to being able to empty a tressuray completely. we as guilds are going to have to be prepared to defend against stuff like this, a few guards in place makes the covert opps hard or near imposible. it is unfair to punish the first ones to start the assaulting b/c it seems unfair, everyone could have built resistances up to this point but chose not too. but now looks like they will have to start.
Stormwind 04-24-06, 09:27 AM	It seems that there is a lot of discussion regarding covert operations. I would like to suggest something that would require no changes to the existing system, just a simple addition. Any guild member may, as a full activity, be a guard for their guild in one district. For example, consider Barthleby of the CEF. Suppose he decides to guard the CEF's district of Arkhein, taking a full activity to do so. Furthermore, suppose Samuel of the PSI decides to perform a covert action in Arkhein that same week. Then Barthleby and Samuel make an opposed Spot/Hide check (since Samuel autosucceeds at move silently). This means that Barthleby rolls 1d20+10 vs Samuels 1d20+18. Thus Samuel needs to roll a 13 or higher to guarantee success. This means that Samuel has a good chance of succeeding in spite of Barthleby being on guard, however, he can still fail. This also increases the importance of the spot and listen skills, and of items that give a skill bonus to these skills. I would also suggest that only items or effects that can be prebuffed should be able to affect these rolls. --- Furthermore, on a slightly different tack, some people have suggested that building a covert operations room to remove corrupt officials is not appropriate for certain guilds. Why not? As far as I am concerned it would make just as much sense for the CEF as for the EHTC, however for those who consider it a problem, here is a possible solution: Allow guilds to remove corrupt officials from other guilds. This could be done for money (one guild paying another to take care of a problem), or simply because another guild wishes to install their own man in that district (see below). If a corrupt official is present in a district then another official cannot be installed in the same district without removing the first.
Caterane 04-24-06, 10:06 AM	Ok, real life has settled down so I'm back again. My CoCo to-do list is 2 pages long by now. Malither, it's not about the PSI having a little advantage for being the first to build a Covert Room. It's about the game being over if I allow this at this point in time. There's a huge difference between that. Just so that you know: 8 weeks ago, the CEF had the chance to end the game right after building the Nunnery but I didn't do it because the CEF Guildmaster is coincidently also Guildlords who has to make sure that the game goes on. To bring it to one point: Covert Operations are too strong. By targeting rooms, you can quickly kick out any guild. It doesn't matter how often you fail; once you succeed, you can deal damage that brings a guild in a very bad position. Being able to stab at the heart of a guild is probably the main problem. But the damage done is also too much. Compare it with an assault. If you defeat an enemy PC of equal level, you gain his tax income (around 200 gp). Burglaring the treasury brings you thousands. Sending troops to siege the chapter house deals ~100 damage per regiment (which you need to hire with GAPs first) while Arson deals more than 1000 damage without any extra GAP. Additionally, Assaults are mostly much more difficult. You have to defeat an equal level PC. Multiplayer assaults have to face an even stronger resistance because the defenders add their district defense value to their ECL. Here's a natural defense any guild possesses without paying for anything. Covert Operations need expensive counter-measures and even then, a good operator has a good chance to succeed. That means we have to power Covert Operations down a notch. Finally, and this addresses all operations, I don't like the fact that a guild only needs one specialist be good at XXX Operations. I could now use my credits to build a LG superstealth rogue for the CEF, and this one character is all that guild needs. One character boosts the CEF from the least effective covert guild to the best one. I would like to see a rule that prevents this. If your guild wants to be called good at stealth, it needs more than one such guy. An idea would be to say that any Operation needs to be executed by three characters, and no character can be sent on an operation twice in a row. As for Corrupt Officials, there'll be the option to use a Peaceful Operation to remove him. I also like Stormwinds proposal to hire another allied guild to remove him.
SauroGrenom 04-24-06, 11:22 AM	As I mentioned before, I think that the problems Cat points out with covert opperations are very simular to the problems with assault opperations. Both of these kinds of opperations are able to more easily hurt the weakest guilds. For example say PSI want's to perform an assault action and eleminate the pesky EYE from Gladius. We can send members to "Raid Enemy Character" and one at a time imprison each of the EYE members. Once the guild is weak enough we "Raid Home Base" and "Attack Enemy Structure". Realy all it will take is to imprison 2 of there best characters and then they won't have enough characters to equal 33ECL and resist a "Raid Home Base" action by our best characters. Perhaps covert opperations are harder to defend against, and perhaps they cause more damage. But I think that part of the issue for both covert and assault actions is that preparing to defend against them is much harder that using them against your rivals. It's like the nuclear arms race. Building the bomb and blowing up your enemies political and industrial base is much easier than stopping someone else's bomb from hitting your major cities. I think we are looking at a much more complicated issue than just nerf covert actions. Covert actions should be a powerfull tactic, so should intrigue and so should assault. Right now it looks like covert actions are ICBM's, assault actions are cruise missiles and intrigue actions are road side IED's. We need to consider this carefully and slowly before we change all the rules. We still have complaints about the structures beign unbalanced. Though I think they are far more balanced than before. We need to find a balance for guild actions as well. It may take time to do that. Thus my suggestion a few posts back.
Zevox 04-24-06, 11:19 PM	It's about the game being over if I allow this at this point in time. Just a quick note to interject here, does this statement means that we're going to go with Sauro's suggestion to dissallow Guild Operations for a time whilst they're tweaked? Not that I have a problem with that (in fact I quite agree with him that this would be a good way to procede considering the problems that have been brought to light with both covert and assault ops), but thats a rather important note for me since the EHTC just built an Espionage HQ last week and was planning on putting it to use in the near future (we're not in the position PSI would have been had they gone through with building one since our sneaks don't have the power rating Sammuel does, but still...). Just looking for confirmation on that one. Zevox
TheMagister 04-25-06, 12:33 AM	{raises hand in the back of the room} Ooh! I have an idea (non sarcastic)! What if we made Covert Ops require 4 characters. Then, set medium-high DCs for the operations (I'll let you pick, but I'm thinking 25-30). THEN, require all 4 characters to roll against the DC. If one fails, the Covert Op fails. Also, any character that FAILS the check has to pay a FINE (!!) equal to his tax intake for the ILLEGAL operation. Arson, theft, and murder are still ILLEGAL in Gladius, aren't they? So, you might try and fail 5-6 times, costing your guild money each time. But when you finally succeed! Whoa, brother, watch the cash roll IN! As an alternative to the fine, the failing characters could spend a week in prison, or something. That'd be fun. My two cents. =) TM
Guildlords 04-25-06, 11:36 AM	Here are the changes: Limitations of Operations: Unless otherwise noted, Operations require the combined effort of three characters. Additionally, a guild cannot send a character on the same type of Operation twice in a row. Example: Character A, B, and C are sent on a Covert Operation. These three characters may not go on another Covert Operation before a new Covert Operation has been executed by the guild. However, during that time, they may go on a different type of operation though, an Assault or Intrigue for example. This is to prevent that guilds use only one specialized master for a certain type of Operation all the time. This is an elegant solution for the problem of a guild having one single operations specialist. All four operation rooms require staff to operate. This is so that a guild cannot blitzkrieg with a new room. Covert Operations cannot target rooms anymore. This prevents that guilds can be kicked out of the game easily. Raid Home Base has been fixed: you cannot send more ECL in than the defender has ECL to defend. This prevents that a guild with only a few members is overrun by 30 ECLs. Also, you don't empty the treasury but only steal your base powerrating in gold. Attack District Gang has been added to Assault Operations. To prevent confusion with the random event, the structure "District Gang" has been renamed to "Street Gang" The Corrupt Official affects only one structure but is more difficult to remove. Inspire Loyality is a new Peaceful Operation to remove a corrupt official, albeit at a high price. Random Event: Breakthrough must meet the requirements. That means the CEF gains no development for the last week's Random Event. A new basic room has been added: Unique Leader Quarter. This is for Unique Leaders. Finally, we have to set a date for when we allow operations. I suggest four weeks from now on so that all guilds can prepare themselves properly. Comments?
SoulLord 04-25-06, 11:56 AM	Solved Topics * Allies Solved allies must be pre-buffed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8958435&postcount=241) affective april 19 * Ban the Magic Domain Solved Won't happen (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8910242&postcount=205) * Polymorph Solved effective april 19th (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8908815&postcount=189) * Metamorphosis Solved uses same ruling as polymorph (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8964735&postcount=246) effective april 19th * Guild: Covert Operations Solved Changed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9025958&postcount=266) Unconcluded Topics * Belt Slots * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Reliance on expendables * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Equipment at home (free swaping or pre-buff) * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters. * Wild Shape * Challenge matches (break the rules when part's agree to it) * Iron man Tournament * Frozen league (when will the 10th league be active?)
Zevox 04-25-06, 07:51 PM	Here are the changes: Limitations of Operations: Unless otherwise noted, Operations require the combined effort of three characters. Additionally, a guild cannot send a character on the same type of Operation twice in a row. Example: Character A, B, and C are sent on a Covert Operation. These three characters may not go on another Covert Operation before a new Covert Operation has been executed by the guild. However, during that time, they may go on a different type of operation though, an Assault or Intrigue for example. This is to prevent that guilds use only one specialized master for a certain type of Operation all the time. This is an elegant solution for the problem of a guild having one single operations specialist. Hm... I'm not entirely sure about this. The only operations that actually note how many characters are allowed are Assault Operations (and one Peaceful Operation, the tournament), which means unless some clarifications are made on specific Covert, Intrigue, and Peaceful operations the Assault ones just became a lot more accessible than the others. It would also mean that for Covert ops a Guild now needs fully 6 operators good at sneaking in order to actually do more than a single covert op (Intrigue ops, since they each use different skills, are less affected by this since the Guild can swap which one they do each time). I think thats a bit much. Perhaps remove the restriction about not being able to go twice in a row, or drop it to two so that the Guild only needs 4 good operatives? Beyond that I like the changes though. Finally, we have to set a date for when we allow operations. I suggest four weeks from now on so that all guilds can prepare themselves properly. Comments? I'd go with Sauro's 2 months (8 weeks) suggestion. Several of the preparations Guilds can do are either expensive or require 2 weeks to get up without a Main Hall (example: hiring guards needs 2 weeks since you need to build thier barracks then hire them), so 4 weeks would only get about two good countermeasures per Guild to get in place (three or four with cheap ones, but they'd be the less effective ones as well), if everybody scrambled to do such in the next four weeks. Theres also the little matter that most Guilds are in the midst of some other set of plans at the moment as well, which means they'd have to choose between dropping everything to get those countermeasures up and continuing at the risk of being un[der]prepared for the operations. Only the CEF and TLT could probably both complete thier current projects and get some defenses up in time, since both have large stores of gold in thier coffers and will soon have fully-functional Main Halls. Granted with the new need for staff for the operation structures it'd also take nearly this long for most Guilds to be ready to go out on operations as well (need to get kitchen and bathroom space for the staff), but then things just favor the CEF and TLT even more so with thier soon-to-be 2 GAP/week allowing them to pounce on such an early deadline (or quickly thereafter at least) while getting a defense or two up. So I think Sauro's 2 months suggestion would work best for allowing everyone ample time to prepare. Zevox
MindWandererB 04-25-06, 08:25 PM	I agree with 8 weeks, as CEF is the only guild able to work faster than that (after building the main hall, TLT is broke). I'm a bit unclear on covert ops. The DC is 10+District Defense+what? The number of guards, or the guards' Spot/Listen checks? If it's the number of guards, all a guild has to do is hire a ton of guards in the chapter house (since the chapter house does not use kitchens and bathrooms, just a guard post), and the threat is over. As written, guards in the Chapter House also defend the Base of Operations (it's a structure, after all). And what are the wages of Chapter House guards? They're not listed anywhere--are they just like Base of Operations guards, or are they like Structure Staff, or do they come with the guard post?
Zevox 04-25-06, 08:54 PM	I think I can clear up those questions. DC for Covert Ops is 10+defense+# of guards. Guards are listed under the "Guild Staff" post: Guard [War1], Wage: 10 Gold/week needs Guard Post Zevox
lonewolf 04-25-06, 10:29 PM	Hm... I'm not entirely sure about this. The only operations that actually note how many characters are allowed are Assault Operations (and one Peaceful Operation, the tournament), which means unless some clarifications are made on specific Covert, Intrigue, and Peaceful operations the Assault ones just became a lot more accessible than the others. It would also mean that for Covert ops a Guild now needs fully 6 operators good at sneaking in order to actually do more than a single covert op (Intrigue ops, since they each use different skills, are less affected by this since the Guild can swap which one they do each time). I think thats a bit much. Perhaps remove the restriction about not being able to go twice in a row, or drop it to two so that the Guild only needs 4 good operatives? Beyond that I like the changes though. I agree with Zevox. Youre shooting a bit over the top here. With 2 characters per operation, a guild still needs 4 good characters to regulary do such an operation, which is enough to secure that there are no overspecialized characters doing these operations only.
MindWandererB 04-25-06, 11:16 PM	Guards are listed under the "Guild Staff" post:But that list is for Base of Operations staff. Structure staff is not included, and neither are regiments (the only other "staff" that resides in the Chapter House). I suppose they are meant to be the same thing, though. However, now that Chapterhouse defenses cover the Base of Operations, what's the point of having a Guard Post in the Base?
Zevox 04-25-06, 11:21 PM	However, now that Chapterhouse defenses cover the Base of Operations, what's the point of having a Guard Post in the Base? None, it would seem. I'm guessing Cat'll just remove the room now that its been pointed out. Zevox
Pitlords 04-26-06, 05:13 AM	Ok, here are the next things. Since I've been gone the last week, I'll try to catch up with the topics. The following changes will be effective from Wednesday the 3rd May. Monster Knowledge is now based on CR, not HD. Many creatures, especially animals and dragons, have high HD while they're easy to identify. Wizards would have little problem to identify the high monsters based on HD anyway but this makes monsters more accessible for non-wizards. See Rules of Gladius: Knowledges I have written a clarification on how to set up the title line. Some of you guys write confusing things in there. The most important thing is that if you sit out, you should leave the title line blank! That helps me a lot when I read down Usurpators web crawler. The clarification can be found here in Arena Combat I. Due to the pitlord lack, I had to make a new rule: Every character can only quest or miniquest once per level. Since most quests let you level up anyway, 3-week quests are not really affected. The problem is miniquests because they use up Pitlords, and one Pitlord for one player at that. Rules can be found in Rules of Gladius: Quests. Likewise, you cannot do Free Activities on Quests and Miniquests. It's already impossible to update your sheet on a 3 week quest to change the title line. Since now, it was also up to the questlord to decide. This arbitrariness is not a good thing. If you have a questgoal other than 'Roleplay' the EL of the Quest must match the goal. If you have to fulfill a requirement (blackguard, guild entry, etc), then the EL must be your ECL. If you quest for an ally, the EL must be at least as high as the ally's CR. Challenge Matches have been added to the Rules. You can set special circumstances or rules if both parties agree. The credit cost is payed by the challenger by default although sharing is possible. Arena Combat I. The Polymorph rules have been added to the rules as discussed. Wildshape is excluded from all rules affecting polymorph except for size stacking (which was ruled out by the Elders long ago). See Rules of Gladius: Miscellaneous. @Soullord: Wildshape has been solved along with it. The Iron Man Tournament can be found in the Miscellaneous rules, and it starts at 32 PCs plus when we have rules for inter-league matches. The higher leagues won't open till we can support more leagues else the ranks would spread too thin.
Guildlords 04-26-06, 05:52 AM	Seems like most agree that 8 weeks is a good time. So Operations begin on June 14. I agree that two Operators are enough. Changed that. I also added a new Peaceful Operation: Launch Peace Campaign! I have created some maps for regiment battles. They can be found here. They may be upgraded later but for now, they're sufficient. Since we have no experience with troop battles yet, I can only guess what should be on such a map, and how a fortress etc should look like. Since guilds must be able to scale the walls, and Siege Towers are too expensive in the beginning, I came up with a cheap siege tool: Siege Ladders. They can be researched in the Forge and build easily. We still need two more Peaceful Operations. If you have any idea, let me know. @Mindwanderer: Guards are listed under Staff. They are very expensive. 10 guards and their post cost 125 gold a week for a +10 bonus in one district. That can become very expensive the more you expand. Of course, it might still be too much. Since we have not playtested Covert Operations, that might need some refinement later.
SoulLord 04-26-06, 10:31 AM	Solved Topics * Allies Solved allies must be pre-buffed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8958435&postcount=241) affective april 19 * Ban the Magic Domain Solved Won't happen (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8910242&postcount=205) * Polymorph Solved effective april 19th (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8908815&postcount=189) * Metamorphosis Solved uses same ruling as polymorph (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8964735&postcount=246) effective april 19th * Guild: Covert Operations Solved Changed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9025958&postcount=266) * Challenge matches Solved you can set special circumstances if both parties agree (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9029941&postcount=274) effective may 3rd * Wild Shape SolvedWildshape (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9029941&postcount=274) is excluded from all rules affecting polymorph except for size stacking effective may 3rd Unconcluded Topics * Belt Slots * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Reliance on expendables * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Equipment at home (free swaping or pre-buff) * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters. * rules for inter-league matches * Frozen leagues The higher leagues won't open till we can support more leagues else the ranks would spread too thin.
MindWandererB 04-26-06, 04:20 PM	@Mindwanderer: Guards are listed under Staff. They are very expensive. 10 guards and their post cost 125 gold a week for a +10 bonus in one district. That can become very expensive the more you expand. Of course, it might still be too much. Since we have not playtested Covert Operations, that might need some refinement later.Compare the guards to other defensive upgrades: ·Guards: 1000 gp + 125 gp/week for a +10 bonus raising the Hide/MS DC to 20+Defense. Cumulative with itself for a DC of 30, 40, or more. Buying this twice will give even the best infiltrators about a 75% chance of failure (50% chance for each check), except for Samuel with his auto-success on MS, who has less than a 50% chance of success. And both operators have to pass both checks, lowering the chance of success to about 1/16, or 1/8 if one of them is a ghost with a good Hide check. ·Conceal Chapter House: 5000 gp + 200 gp/week for a 50/50 chance of beating any action. Quite a bit pricier, and is unsuitable as a stand-alone defense, because it only works half the time. But it does work on Assault operations, too. ·Dunegon: For 3000 gp and 200 gp/week, you make them fight a random monster. Unless they're woefully unsuited for combat in general, or get really unlucky and land a swarm or something, this isn't much defense. In fact, it's probably more of a draw than anything else, since it allows the operators to gain extra rewards, ·Traps: At a cost of 500 gp and 25 gp/week per CR, this is insanely expensive for a very small effect. Only if it kills the operator outright is it any defense at all, and no trap is likely to do that until you get into the huge CRs. (Suggestion: put this step before the Dungeon, so that being damaged by the trap is a handicap for the fight.) ·Labyrinth: 5000 gp and 200 gp/week for the best, a DC 15 Int check. That's a little better than a 50% chance of failure against most characters, but the problem is that only one operator has to make the check (I assume--if one person solves the labyrinth, they can guide the group out). So that's a bit more than a 25% chance of failure, assuming average intelligence. Compared to the Concealment, this one is a real stinker. That's why the Guards are the best way to go by far. 2000 gp and 250 gp/week for about a 94% chance of stopping almost any Covert Op at current ECLs is pretty good, and it can be upgraded for a reasonable price into impossible-to-reach values. Concealment is a distant second best choice, but it has a hefty start-up cost. The other defenses are pointless. Challenge Matches have been added to the Rules. You can set special circumstances or rules if both parties agree. The credit cost is payed by the challenger by default although sharing is possible.I still think you should consider allowing "test" challenges for free, without credit cost. Experimental situations, like new maps or inter-league matches, need guinea pigs, and the boon to our collective knowledge of how these things balance out is worth the credit cost, IMO.
Pitlords 04-26-06, 04:30 PM	And what do you suggest? Maybe the Guard Post itself grants a +5 bonus. It must be manned with 10 guards.
Guildmaster (TLT) 04-26-06, 05:10 PM	Let's see... since the good sneakers have about a +20 to their checks, it will take at least a +15 bonus to give them any noticable chance of failure. But given that 4 checks are necessary, even a 25% chance of failing any one check makes for only about a 30% chance of making all 4. For 3000 gp and 375 gp/week, that's a bit cheap on the startup cost but a bit pricey for the upkeep. It will also be negligible in the long run, as an ECL 20 character could have a +40 skill check, requiring 7 guard posts (875 gp upkeep) to achieve the same effect. The problem is the fact that 4 checks are required. One +5 bonus does nothing, but two +5 bonuses give a moderate chance of failure in the home district (+20 bonus vs. DC 23, 10% chance for each roll, 35% chance of failing at least one) and none in other districts (DC 20). I think a +5 bonus is about right, but the prices should be more in line with the other defenses, so that upkeep doesn't go through the roof. Perhaps 2000-3000 gp and 100 gp/week per post (i.e. the upkeep is free except for the salaries)? I still worry that there will be no viable defenses (except the Concealment) at high levels--you'd still need a 700 gp/week upkeep to protect against epic sneaks. Another possibility might be a +10 bonus for the initial guard post (3000 gp, 150/week) and a +5 bonus for each one thereafter (2000 gp, 50/week), or something like that, so that the basic protection is reasonable, while maximum protection is pricey but possible.
MindWandererB 04-26-06, 07:55 PM	Another way to keep the exponential increase in difficulty down is to make it so that one operator tries first, and either succeeds or is caught. If they succeed, the other one doesn't need to try (unless the first one fails at a later step, such as cracking the vault, in which case the second needs to pass the checks to get there, too). If they fail, then the second operator has the option of trying. That will quadruple the chance of success and make small chances of failure stay small (a +20 check vs. DC 26 would have a 44% chance of getting caught on at least one roll).
Book5 04-27-06, 10:50 PM	Regarding the Free Actions: Drawing, Sheathing, Palming, Lifting, and Loading, The rules are somewhat stringy in this regard, so here is a coco clarification. If you have a +1 BAB or better you can ready items to be drawn or sheathed. Drawing is free action that must be part of a regular move. Drawing or sheathing a weapon, or weapon-like item, can only be performed as part of a regular move action. Sheathing an item that has been readied, and later drawn, is normally a move action. However, you may also sheath a previously readied weapon (or weapon-like item) as a free action in conjunction with a regular move the same as drawing. If you have a +1 BAB or better you can ready an ammo pouch to be loaded. Loading ammo is a free action that must be part of the normal use of the ammo. Arrows for bows, bullets for slings, bolts for crossbows; all these ammunitions are drawn as a free action in part of their normal use with their respective ranged weapon. Any ready ammunition is (also/not) considered a ready improvised weapon to be drawn or sheathed. Readying a weapon or ammo container to be drawn, or loaded, is a standard action that does not provoke AoO. You can ready any item to be drawn as an improvised weapon, but all ready marked equipment is also available for sundering, theft (lifting), and must save vs. environmental damage and area spells/effects. To be considered ready an item must simply be declared as ready on your character sheet, or your tactics. Drawing a ready weapon does not provoke an AoO; sheathing one does. Loading ammo doesn’t, but firing the ranged weapon will. The most important thing to remember is the declaration of equipment that is ready vs. that which is stored (aka hidden), and the fact that these actions are only available as part of other actions, not as independent actions. Similar to the draw, sheath, and loading special activities of the “Manipulate Object Action” there is the palm and lift actions of the Slight of Hand skill. Palming allows you to hide small items in your storage, lifting takes items from others’ storage and puts them in your hand. Truly successful Slight of Hand checks are never perceived by the observers, and therefore cannot generally provoke an AoO. Failing a Slight of Hand check can often provoke an AoO, but not always. *** Palming does not provoke an AoO, and it is a check with two DCs. The base DC to perform the act of palming is DC 10. Succeeding at both the base DC and opposed checks allows the small item to open or close (scroll case), activate or expire (tinder twig), and be hidden or unhidden (anything small enough to fit in a pocket) without observers becoming the wiser. Failure to meet the base DC results in a waste of a standard action, and generally makes a fool out of you because more than likely everyone saw you fail. Defeating the base DC, but not the opposed checks results in the item being stored and hidden from other combatants. A stored item is hidden from other combatants, and you will need to be grappled, pinned, and searched (DC = to your Slight of Hand or Simple Dexterity Check result) for another combatant to disarm (or lift) any stored item from your character, even when they know its there. As an untrained palming action you may store (hide), or retrieve (palm), any small item. This requires a standard action, does not provoke an AoO, and does not have a base DC. You cannot perform more complicated manipulations (opening closing, igniting), and you may not attempt to palm as a free action untrained. Your basic dexterity modifier is used to palm untrained. Lifting is the act of removing a small item from a mark’s inventory and placing it in your hands: all without being noticed. Similar to palming, lifting has a base DC (20) and an opposed DC (observer spot checks). Success on the base DC results in the small item relocating to the lifter’s hand. Failure on the opposed check provokes an AoO and, presumably, further retaliation. Even if the item is in the mark’s hand, if the slight of hand check meets the DC 20 the item is lifted. Failing the opposed check simply provokes an AoO – if the AoO is successful the lifter must make a concentration check or fail to complete the Slight of Hand action. *** I presume that you will have until the next round to attempt to palm the lifted item before the observers get another chance to spot it, and that you should take both actions (DC 40 then DC 30) for free at the same time. This has been an free action item manipulation review. Remember; if you are trained in Slight of Hand any palming and lifting skill checks can be free actions (at a –20 check penalty) at any time, otherwise you are restricted to the basic draw, sheath, and load free action options. What is and is not small for purposes of lifting should be the same as what is and is not considered small for palming/hiding. Catarane, LL, NiQiL – we have discussed this before. Comments on the most recent reversions? I really want to get this really clear in my mind, ya know. The jumps in the logic disturb me. I am actually really glad that faq came out with the line about sheathing being the same as drawing. I have highlighted some questionable points in red, and I put some astericks there where I go into Slight of Hand, but I want to make sure those are the rules. Assuming those are the rules - the following "house rule" is nearly derivative.. well - the pockets are outa nowhere but my head. I'm not certain there will be much "accomplished," but I think that having this stuff sorted out gives the player more rigorous options. In addition to the raw discussed therein, I suggest this house rule variant. Pockets and Belts In your outfit you can ready items for draw in a pocket or in a belt. Each outfit has a different number of pockets, and may or may not have a belt. We have given each example outfit a number of pockets, based on their descriptions. The description of an outfit indicated if the outfit comes with a belt or boots. Boots act as pair of pockets, while shoes and foot rags do not. You can ready one small item in your outfit per pocket. To ready additional items you refer to your dexterity or intelligence modifier – whichever is greater. You may ready an additional number of items per pocket in your outfit equal to 1+ your dex or int modifier, not both. Meaning having a dex of 16 and an int of 12 will allow you to ready 4 small items per pocket in your outfit. Any number of items (of any cartable size) can be readied onto your belt (within limits of your normal encumbrance), but an opponent may target a belt and disarm it as a standard action (or even a AoO). If your belt is disarmed then all the items readied onto the belt are automatically dropped. Disarming a belt is neither easy nor impossible, and will provoke an AoO. or..... so to speak Make a simple pockets list for the outfits (noting belts and boots), allow one ready item per pocket in a given outfit + (dex/int mod), and support the belt rule. These will curtail abuses of the draw, sheath, and load actions... while perhaps allowing some palm and lift actions? Really just declaring this belt slot rule would probably cover the entire basic idea - Items that are "ready" to be drawn must be listed as on your belt. Your belt is an item that can be disarmed normally. If your belt is disarmed - all ready items are automatically dropped on the ground. I could see somebody saying "but thats not fair" "all my items can get taken at once!" I would retort with: If you don't like the outfits given make a special outfit and buy it at the black market.. and .. No, all your items get dropped not taken. Big difference.
Pitlords 04-28-06, 01:38 PM	This section has been added to the Rules: Allies and Equipment: If you want to bring in allies who assist you in your fight, you have to mention each ally in the Pre-Fight Actions section along with its ECL or CR (whatever is relevant for the ally). Failure to do so means the ally is not available in the fight. Equipment need not be prebuffed with but anything not listed in a special "At Home" section will be brought into the fight. That means, if you have listed 20 weapons and a full plate on your sheet (outside the home section) you might have trouble with encumbrance. At least, you cannot leave the armor at home if you suddenly face a spellcaster. The same is btw true for allies: any ally that is mentioned in the prebuff section cannot be left out of the fight. This also settles the discussion about swapping equipment.
Sindorin 04-28-06, 03:06 PM	I am guessing that this applies to even such things as the wizard's familiar that is adding alertness/familiar bonus to the wizard as well as shared spells? Cool beans.
Pitlords 04-28-06, 05:00 PM	I've fixed another hole in the system: Experience Loss: Any loss in experience points other than crafting also results in the loss of 5 gold pieces per 1 xp. Examples would be spells with XP costs or the death of a familiar on a quest or campaign. This prevents the trick where you cast wish all over to keep your level without losing gold. In the end, you would end up with ten times more than a regular gladiator of your level plus a lot of wishes. On a smaller scale, the trick also works for any xp spell. Kamikazee familiars should be avoided from now on.
SauroGrenom 04-28-06, 05:31 PM	I've fixed another hole in the system: This prevents the trick where you cast wish all over to keep your level without losing gold. In the end, you would end up with ten times more than a regular gladiator of your level plus a lot of wishes. On a smaller scale, the trick also works for any xp spell. Kamikazee familiars should be avoided from now on. This seriously nerf's any spell with an xp component. Suddenly it costs gp to cast these spells even on yourself. There goes Awaken, Planar Ally, Simulacrum, Vision, Atonement, Greater Restoration, Wish, Limited Wish, Permanency, Commune, Miracle, Apopsi, Bend Reality, Contingency (Psionic), Fusion, Genesis, Matter Manipulation, MetaFaculty, Greater Metamorphysis, Mind Seed, Mind Switch, Reality Revision, Remote Viewing, Sequencer (Psionic), Time Regression, True Creation... I may have missed some, but the list of spells that have an xp component is rather long. Anyway my point is that all these spells are not in play right now. They are high level spells and there are no casters of ECL3-9 who can cast these spells. We will not be opening ECL10 and above for a long time. We simply don't have enough characters at those levels and not enough members of the CoCo to keep ECL3-15 going with active characters and pitlords. Also Kamikazee familiars are not a problem. You must wait a year to get a replacement. Loosing a few hundered xp from this at most once a year is nothing. Raskos is the only wizard I know of who has lost a familiar on a quest and it realy sucks. Crafting is way more effective than anything else to loose xp. Raskos can "burn" 280 xp each week by crafting 7000gp worth of stuff and selling it at no gp loss. Why exempt the spell xp cost if not crafting?
SoulLord 04-28-06, 05:48 PM	I've fixed another hole in the system: This prevents the trick where you cast wish all over to keep your level without losing gold. In the end, you would end up with ten times more than a regular gladiator of your level plus a lot of wishes. On a smaller scale, the trick also works for any xp spell. Kamikazee familiars should be avoided from now on. Wow ..... lets see on familiar death lvl xp loss gp loss 3rd 300-600 1500-3000 4th 400-800 2000-4000 5th 500-1000 2500-5000 6th 600-1200 3000-6000 7th 700-1400 3500-7000 8th 800-1600 4000-8000 9th 900-1800 4500-9000 It seems to me to be very very expensive for a problem I didn't know we had.
SauroGrenom 04-28-06, 05:58 PM	I think a more elegant and complete solution to this (as of yet non existant) problem is to require players to keep a running total of "Virtual XP" at the top of there sheets. This Virtual XP can be used to determine at what ECL the character battles in the Arena. That way if you craft, cast Wish, or loose a familiar it will not effect who you battle. Instead you will be battling the same foes, just with less XP and mabey even a lower ECL. The XP system is self correcting, and it will eventually balance things out. So if you are fighting ECL9 opponents when you are actually ECL8, then you earn extra xp compared to an ECL9 character in the same encounter, and this will help you get into ECL9 faster. Make Virtual XP equal to the XP earned by a normal participant for each battle if the character were the appropreat ECL. That mimics how casters who craft in a party fall behind in XP for a while, but catch up after a bit. This also allows spells with xp costs to have the kind of cost they were intend to have. A wizard who casts 5 wish spells to increase his INT discovers that he is now 25000xp behind his party and probably 1 level behind. Since he is already 17th level it probably isn't important, but it's the cost intended by game designers to balance the use of the spell. If we want to incorporate the importance of xp cost into CoCo then OK. But I don't think we should translate xp cost into gp cost like this.
TheMagister 04-28-06, 06:09 PM	It's excessive. TM
Book5 04-29-06, 10:53 PM	Was I supposed to deduct XP from arena gladiators when their familiars died? Because I sure didnt... has there been any players that attempted to use this abuse? "Kamakazi Familiars.." used to slide the GP / XP ratio in their favor.. basically. Can't we just say that you won't loose the xp because of the nimbus? The spirit never reaches the point B so the xp never really leaves... as if you had to sleep on it before the trauma sinks in. Other than kamakazi familiars how does this get used? Wish.. can anyone cast wish? I guess it comes into play with any xp costing spell... huh. ok That is so wierd, I see the abuse now that I reallyn think about it.. but what is funny is that the xp loss is supposed to be a penalty! Its only due to the unusual nature of the pairings that it can be leveraged for an advantage. In a TT game there is no major benefit to min/maxing your xp per gp ratio.. the story makes these things inconsequential. Perhaps... in this instance.. because of how balance is maintained here.. we could just negate XP cost to casting spells? :gah: No really, its supposed to be a penalty, but the nature of the pairing by ECL makes it an advantage. Removing the xp loss removes the possible abuse while having very little effect on the coco encounter scenario... and its easy, but don't let simplicity alone sell ya! I think it makes sense too - the nimbus "a little divine relm" area - granting auto-res and an exp-buffer. That way the xp loss can be included in quests/champaigns where it could actually rear its head as a penalty should.
Pitlords 04-30-06, 05:49 AM	I think a more elegant and complete solution to this (as of yet non existant) problem is to require players to keep a running total of "Virtual XP" at the top of there sheets. This Virtual XP can be used to determine at what ECL the character battles in the Arena. That way if you craft, cast Wish, or loose a familiar it will not effect who you battle. Instead you will be battling the same foes, just with less XP and mabey even a lower ECL. The XP system is self correcting, and it will eventually balance things out. So if you are fighting ECL9 opponents when you are actually ECL8, then you earn extra xp compared to an ECL9 character in the same encounter, and this will help you get into ECL9 faster. Make Virtual XP equal to the XP earned by a normal participant for each battle if the character were the appropreat ECL. That mimics how casters who craft in a party fall behind in XP for a while, but catch up after a bit. This also allows spells with xp costs to have the kind of cost they were intend to have. A wizard who casts 5 wish spells to increase his INT discovers that he is now 25000xp behind his party and probably 1 level behind. Since he is already 17th level it probably isn't important, but it's the cost intended by game designers to balance the use of the spell. If we want to incorporate the importance of xp cost into CoCo then OK. But I don't think we should translate xp cost into gp cost like this. :love: :cloud9: Sauro, once again, you surprise me with a natural 20 on an "Awesome Idea" roll. This is a supergreat solution to the problem of saving xp by crafting or casting xp spells. Just great. Now we have to think about a way on how to implement it retroactively. Anyone who has crafted something or used up xp has to write down his virtual xp value on the sheet. Shouldn't be that hard to do because he just has to add all his fight xp together. Ok, let's put the 5gp/xp rule on hold. This was btw how we handled it from the beginning of coco on; it just didn't make it into Living Gladius yet. I really wonder why we didn't come up with such an elegant solution back then. But then, we didn't have a SauroGrenom ;)
SauroGrenom 04-30-06, 04:39 PM	A Radical Proposal v1.1 After my last version of this, there were a few comments and criticisms. In this version, I hope to alter my proposal and explanations/analysis to address some of these and hopefully make a much better version this time. Premise: It is my opinion that several of the issues being discussed in the council are all actually multiple symptoms of a single larger issue. That larger issue is the fact that CoCo and the entire world of Gladius conducts itself in a way that is very artificial and quite distant from the environment of a normal dnd game. The core rules are balanced in a particular framework that surrounds the characters and all the actions they do. The way that the CoCo environment is constructed creates many subtle and a few obvious imbalances in the way that our core rules are used in our setting. I propose to significantly alter the CoCo combat environment, so that it is as close to the typical table top dnd environment as is reasonably possible. It is meaningless to have a character of fantastic potency in the CoCo if our rules and combat environment favors one type of build over another. Then the character is successful not because of the player’s building or tactical skills alone, but rather partly because of the ability to take advantage of a particular static environment that favors some types of builds. If the CoCo is to ever serve as an accurate crucible to test the power and versatility of various builds, then we must reshape the combat environment to more closely resemble that where the rule system was designed to be used. CoCo Imbalances: We are currently discussing a few of the more obvious imbalances caused by the CoCo environment. Those imbalances include the availability of any desired item, service or ally that characters wish to acquire. Also included is the artificially enhanced diversity of spell casting effects introduced by the nature of a 1/day combat. As well as the enhanced potency of single use items and 1/day items or abilities. Additionally the importance of healing effects is diminished, and spells with a duration of discharge are enhanced in potency. Many of these imbalances are caused by the prebuffing rules and the 1/3 rule that allows abilities usable 1/day to be used in the Arena every battle. Table Top Conditions: Since it is my goal to more closely emulate the TableTop gaming conditions in the CoCo, it’s necessary to describe the salient conditions of the tabletop game. After that is done we can then see if we want to emulate those conditions and finally if we can do so. The adventure format is the expected environment of all the classes, and is the format where they are balanced. In an adventure format, the players enter the adventure fully supplied and rested then meet and hopefully defeat a series of challenges. Game balance assumes 3 combats per day of in game time. The characters face the 2nd challenge with the resources available after the 1st challenge, and so on for the 3rd challenge. There are both combat and non-combat challenges. Each combat has unique circumstances that surround the combat and allow for surprise rounds, or pre and post combat preparations or healing. A party of 4 should be able to defeat an opponent of there CR basically every time through use of teamwork and complementary abilities. The equipment that characters possess is either crafted by characters or given by the GM as rewards. Rewards are given at the GM’s discretion and some is awarded after each encounter while most if offered at the end of the adventure. Also complete resupply and rest are only available at the beginning and end of an adventure not between each encounter. The Scope of this Proposal: When I began to write this up, I thought I would include mechanisms for introducing all of these table top game elements into the CoCo. However I noticed that some of them are already in the CoCo. And I don’t want to rebuild the entire rules thread from the bottom up while introducing several new dimensions of the game all at once. So I will focus on only two characteristics that I think we should bring to the Arena. The first and most important will be Continuity of Resources and the second will be Conditions Surrounding a Battle. Continuity of Resources: This is the idea that the resources of the characters carries from the completion of one challenge to the beginning of the next for a total of 3 consecutive fights before the chance to rest or resupply. Why is this important: Our current system allows all characters to enter the Arena as if they had not fought that day yet. Many classes have abilities that are used x/day times. The 1/3rd rule of the arena attempts to limit these abilities, but because we round up any fractions, we end with many abilities used in every combat even if the game designers intended for them to be used in 1/3 of the combats. This causes classes, templates and races with these abilities to receive a potent boost in power relative to those who do not have these abilities. Also the price of many magical items is based on the number of uses/day that the item is able to generate an effect. Our current 1/3 rule allows these items to be far more useful that there price actually allows. What Balance issues are addressed by this: The proper use of resources is a critical challenge associated with playing several classes (especially prepared spell casters). Classes with abilities always available are not limited in the number of combats/day they can use those abilities. The fighter only needs to have his weapons and his full hp to be prepared for the 9th combat of the day. This is a major advantage of that class, and it is never utilized in the Arena. Instead the greatest strengths of prepared caster classes are accentuated because each caster has there entire list of memorized spells available each battle. A wizard who is engaged in an adventure and has fly memorized once cannot cast fly in every combat. He will use that one fly spell of the day on the encounter where he really needs to have it, because he cannot use that spell in every encounter. There are many templates, races and classes that are very popular in CoCo because they have spell like abilities and are overpowered due to the 1/3 rule and how we manage combat. Take the Phrenic Template as an example. I know it well because one of my characters has it. The phrenic template has a +2 LA, a total of +8 on various stats, +1pp, Spell resistance, and psi-like abilities. A phrenic character with 19HD would have access to 16 total psi-like abilities. These would be manifest at ML19. Of the 16 psi-like abilities, 11 are 1/day abilities. In current CoCo a 19hp phrenic character has more powers that a Wilder at class level 19. Every ability could be used in every battle. All the abilities on the list are good ones, and for the meager cost of +2LA any character will bring tremendous manifesting power to each battle in addition to whatever they can do with there class levels. Keep in mind that psi-like abilities are augmented to the max allowed by the ML. This character can mindthrust 3/day for 19d10 damage with a save dc of 20+cha mod and he gets a force screen 1/day that grants a shield bonus of +8. He will certainly be using both of those abilities in every battle. How do we bring this to the CoCo combat: Making a combat environment that actually has 3 battles/day will not be very hard in practice once we get it started. To accomplish this we need to make a few rules about how to track the activities of a character. Fortunately we already have a similar system in place, and all we need to do it to make arena combat just like a quest. The way we do this is that when a character sets themselves to enter the arena, they are committing to day of fighting that will continue for at the most a 3 week activity that actually has 1 day of combat including 3 battles. All used abilities, spells, items, HP and so forth are tracked from battle to battle in the same way they are now used in a quest. Then the cumulative summary is posted at the end of any battle by the Pitlord and copied to the character sheet in an sblock. Most gp rewards and all xp and free activity rewards are given at the end of a day in the arena. Should a character die in a battle, then their day at the Arena ends and they are allowed to rest and return another day starting fresh. What problems does that create: The single most important implication of this kind of battle format is that the strength of a character in a particular battle will depend greatly on the number of battles they have survived so far in the day and what type of character they are. As a character fights and survives more battles, then it is at a disadvantage to opponents who have not battled all day in the arena. Also with the removal of the 1/3 rule, spell casters may be able to throw every spell on the spell list in an attempt to win the 1st battle of the day. My attempt to balance this is to create a special boost given to characters that have already won a battle. Hopefully this will provide these characters with an edge that is sufficient to counter the disadvantage they begin with. I propose to mimic the “Treasure Drop” that DM’s often give to a party as it is involved in a long adventure. We should allow characters to receive a single item that is listed in tactics and not necessarily on the sheet. This unexpected item of limited value should be chosen to counter the specific opponent the character faces and should not be known by the opponent. These items are called WishList items and the guidelines are as follows: 1: Any WishList item must have a max value equal to 20% of the 1st battle gp rewards or 40% of the 2nd battle gp rewards. 2: Any WishList scroll or powerstone must contain a single spell/power. 3: Any WishList item must conform to all other rules that govern expendables and must not cost credits to acquire. When a character posts tactics they are aware of there opponent, and they use this information to choose the WishList item that they would like to have for this battle. This item is recorded in the fight summary and its value is deducted from the character rewards when they are posted. This small advantage should help to counter the disadvantage that characters face when they are pared with a fresh opponent and have already defeated several foes. It was mentioned that a character may “level” in the middle of a day of fighting in the arena. If this could happen it would be unbalancing, because melee classes would instantly gain all there new level powers while casters would not have access to there highest level spells or increased number of spells/day. However characters receive all their xp at the end of a day at the Arena, so it is impossible for a character to actually level in the middle of a day at the Arena. Also any character will fight the same number of fights at each level regardless. This is the same way it is done in adventures at any game table with a DM. It works there and will work for us in the same way. This format of fighting causes diversity of expendables to be more expensive. If your character’s build requires using scrolls of polymorph (or fly), then you will need to carry around 3 of them. Each scroll will cost you an additional 700gp/battle and will replace several lower level scrolls in your budget. Some may be satisfied with this limitation, however this is a rather thin limitation actually. As has been discussed previously the issues are that some character have access to scrolls well above there caster level and an unlimited diversity of scrolls as well. A GM in a typical game never grants access to this diversity of scrolls. Also writing tactics against every spell on the cleric and wizard spell lists is not fun. To stop this from continuing to be a problem we simply need two rules to govern the purchasing of expendables. Our goal is to make the number and diversity of expendables more typical as compared to a normal dnd game you would play in your basement with pizza and beer. 1: You cannot purchase any scrolls/stones with a Caster Level above your Caster Level +2 unless you use credits to purchase the items in the blackmarket. 2: The total cost of all scrolls/stones/potions/tattoo’s owned cannot be greater than 50gpxECL2. Self crafted items are tabulated using their cost to craft. Free actions are listed with final rewards for the character’s day in the arena. So if a character wins the 1st and 2nd battles then they are able to change their mind about what to craft or do as part of free activities. However the final choice must be made and listed on the character sheet before parings that produce the last battle of that character’s day in the arena. Summary of What to Do: We keep track of this by having players post in the title line the duration of the time they hope to be in the arena. So if I should choose to start this week I simply list: April26th-May10th ECL9 Arena. This is how a title line is made at the top of a sheet, and how Pitlords will know who to include in parings. When parings are announced, I look at my opponent’s sheet and make sure that if they have already had any battles in this “day” then they have not cheated and added in any new equipment or expendables. After that I send in my tactics. The fight is run normally. If my character looses the 1st battle of the day, then I will edit my sheet (rest the character) and start over next week. Also the Pitlord will list my free activities. If my character wins the 1st battle of the day, then the Pitlord will post his fight summary at the bottom of the fight. This summary will include a list of HP, items, abilities, powerpoints, and spells used just as is done for quests. I must copy this into an sblock at the bottom of my character sheet and I cannot edit anything else. Also I will list on my sheet a sblock containing a “Wish List” of items that I can purchase with my 20% reward. As I begin my 2nd battle I look at my opponent’s sheet and see if they have cheated with purchasing new expendables. Then I choose a WishList item to put in my tactics. The fight is run normally by the Pitlord, and the fight summary includes a cumulative list of all HP, items, abilities, spells and powerpoints used in the two battles. It also includes the free activities of the looser and the WishList items acquired by any participants and the total gp and xp rewards so far for both participants. If I lost the 2nd battle, then I rest my character, go shopping and get ready for the next week’s parings as normal. If I won the 2nd battle then I put the new summary from the 2nd fight at the end of my sheet and post a new WishList on the sheet using 40% rewards. After that parings are performed normally. When I know my opponent, I examine their sheet for cheating, and choose my WishList item and submit tactics. Again the fight is run normally and this time the Pitlord will list 3 weeks of free activities and total rewards for my character win or loose. Also WishList items are shown in the summary and the value of these is deducted from the final gp rewards. Also I get to rest my character and resupply with items after the battle. Also my character receives a +20%gp (not xp) reward for completing the very difficult task of winning 3 arena battles in a row. Conditions Surrounding a Battle: In a typical game each battle begins in different ways. The ability to know that a battle is eminent can be a fantastic advantage if used properly. Also there are many class features that are tailored be important in this part of the game. Why is this important: A party may hear that orcs are on the other side of a door, and the party may burst through to surprise the orcs. Perhaps the party barbarian will fly into a rage before smashing down the door, or the party rogue will quaff a potion of invisibility or the party spellcaster may cast a silent spell. These kinds of conditions allow the party to set the conditions of the battle. If the party knows that the orcs they are about to charge are too dangerous, then the character with a cohort and followers can tell his allies to hold back in this battle or to take up a particular position where they may be safer. The same skills are also sometimes used by the foes to surprise the party or make preparations of there own. The CoCo lacks this dimension of a typical game environment. What Balance issues are addressed by this: Since all combats start in precisely the same way those classes that are inherently stronger in diversified combat situations are never granted the opportunity to use their versatility. A wizard with the chance to cast a spell before combat is at a fantastic advantage, while a barbarian is always ready for combat at a moment’s notice. This readiness is an inherent part of the barbarian class’s strength. In fact this readiness is an inherent strength of all pure melee classes to some degree. Also classes who have access to listen and spot are balanced to provide the party with an ability to notice enemies coming before the party is surprised. Bringing this aspect of table top game play into CoCo allows these class features to be useful in the ways that they are intended to be used. How do we bring this to the CoCo combat: Rather simple rules can be created to decide how much time a character has to prepare themselves before combat begins. A single precombat round, or a surprise round can be reasonable advantages offered to characters that use the necessary skill points to receive these bonuses. A simple Gather Information check seams reasonable to me as a way to know approximately the time that you are to begin combat. If players succeed on a DC ECL+10 Check then they are able to be aware of eminent combat, and can use a single round of actions to prepare before combat begins. Such preparations will probably include using potions or spells to activate desired effects. This should be a Free Action and characters must list it as a Free Action in the Title Line of the character post and the type of action should be listed as well. Something like Free Action: Pre-Buff Potion of Invisibility. Players are unaware of the success or failure of their attempt to guess the beginning of combat. If the character fails the check, then they will use the item and it will have expired in duration before the combat begins. Effectively the item is wasted. A Listen check should be sufficient to allow a surprise round. I suggest that each player makes a listen check vs DC ECL+10 and if one should succeed that character begins combat with a surprise round. If both should succeed, then the higher check begins combat with a surprise round. If both succeed with identical checks then the character with the higher modifier will receive a surprise round. Also if both characters succeed with identical checks and identical listen check modifier, then a reroll is necessary and the surprise round is awarded to the player who succeeds with the highest check on the second roll. What problems does that create: Implementing this idea will obviously change the way that some combats are begun. Also limitations must be placed on pre-combat preparations such that you cannot affect your opponent or the arena with a spell or other effect. With those limitations this idea should be a decent way to introduce the Gather Information skill to CoCo in a meaningful way. The benefits granted are not unbalancing, and using the skill carries an associated risk.
MindWandererB 04-30-06, 05:20 PM	I don't see what problems the "Treasure Drop" system solves. In P&P D&D, you do not get to choose an item before each fight specifically to use against your upcoming opponent--how is this more similar to P&P games? In fact, you usually do not get treasure at all in between encounters, because it takes time to cast Identify, except for potions and scrolls, which require a Spellcraft check (with no retry that day in either case). This is an extremely complicated system that, as far as I can tell, solves nothing. I still think that healing should be available in between fights. In a P&P game, every party has a healer of some sorts. If healing between fights must be accomplished through items and spells, you are unfairly penalizing characters without levels in cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, or bard. Per the NPC spellcasting prices, 2 gp/hp is about right, or perhaps 3 gp/hp to simulate the use of a CLW wand. I also think edits should be prohibited entirely. There is no way to check what was edited except to compare the "snapshot" with the current sheet, a time-consuming process. The weekly pairings can contain a link to previous fights in a series. Surprise: When does Gather Information help you in this way in P&P? Listen/Spot should be the determining factors in surprise. That use of Gather Information is again, IMO, unnecessarily complicated, and few people will take major advantage of it because of the difficulty and the potential cost (few characters, if any, will have more than a 50/50 chance of making the check, and the accidental loss of an item or spell is a steep price). Also note that the characters who would benefit most from a prebuff round (casters) do not have Gather Information as a class skill (except bards), so this option will be useless to them.
TheMagister 04-30-06, 05:31 PM	Hey, I like the direction this is going. Sdentch would be twice as successful in such an environment. I'm currently satisfied with her record (she's 9 wins and 10 losses, currently) as a relatively simple barbarian/fighter matched up against the toughest min/maxed hombres I've ever had the dubious pleasure of squaring off against. Still, returning to her build the inherent strength of ever-combat-readyness possessed by all straight melee builds would more truly reflect her strength relative to "normal" DnD operations. Also, The White Hand (making a poor showing in the arena at 3-7, I think) would benefit from the "surprise round" proposition, as would any character who benefits from sneak attack and high skills ranks in listen/spot. A rogue is MUCH harder to deal with when he catches you flat-footed and is all up in your face before you can buff your AC past the point where he can connect...in the current environment, this NEVER happens. However, a simple prebuff of expeditious retreat or haste or even a light warhorse with horseshoes of speed would get a rogue into your starting box and within 30' to set up sneak attacks. All of a sudden, we'd see many more rogue builds in the making, I'd think. ... I just had a nasty idea about a rogue/wilder with expanded knowledge and access to the "hustle" power. Prebuff expeditious retreat (so move 60' as a move action), win initiative and a surprise round, run 300', manifest hustle, move 60' and base your opponent first round. Win initiative, full TWF sneak attack. How'd you like to see that setup actually happen in an arena match? Boy, I would. That'd be refreshing. Good ideas, Sauro. TM
NiQil 04-30-06, 06:08 PM	In addition to MindWanderer's comments, most of my original protests still stand. This system does not in any way solve the expendable issue that many feel is a problem. There are very few builds that have such a diverse cache of expendables that carrying 3 of something instead of 1 of something is going to matter. All it really does is force people to plan ahead a little. Your stated goal is to bring CoCo as close to a tabletop game as you can....but you want to introduce more houserules to do this to replace the houserules we already have. Personally, I *like the fact that this forum is different than a tabletop game. If I wanted to play an online version of a tabletop game, I would go track one down and do so. This forum appeals to me for the very things that you are trying to change. It still feels like the intent is to basically make the entire arena into one big quest, without the roleplaying. That's basically the format we are talking about. Are there differences? Yes. But the overall idea is the same. Three fights in a day...just like a quest. No rewards until the end...just like a quest. No leveling until the end of the third fight...just like a quest. Another issue that still comes to mind is that a good chunk of your proposal seems to be centered around the honesty and thoroughness of our players. I know that we are all honest, but we are all also human. One mistake in editing a character when it shouldn't be or editing something you shouldn't throws a wrench into this whole system. Also, relying on everyone to check their opponents sheets for editing every week is a bad idea, IMO. If we could really rely on that, then there would be no need for a Prison thread. We are all busy people who have lives outside of CoCo, and this just seems like something else that would cause problems. For instance, supposed player A is in a fight his first week under your system, and decides that he wants to take advantage of the system and edits something he shouldn't before his second match. Now, his opponent in week 2 comes along and doesn't look for changes, and loses because of the change that was made. Now the third week rolls around and his 3rd opponent notices the change, and notices that it was done before week 2. How would something like this be handled? We currently have a system in place for things like this....your proposal would require a new system to deal with issues of this type. The existing Prison model would not support your proposal. Bottom line for me....if I wanted to play tabletop D&D, I would do so. This forum appeals to me because it is *not tabletop D&D. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way...I dunno. But while I applaud your creativity....I can't get behind this proposal in its entirety. There are some good things about your proposal. I think instituting a surprise round to open combat would be very easy and beneficial. I think that your proposed limit on expendables up to CL/ML +2 is reasonable, and would even go so far as to suggest that it be limited strictly to CL/ML. I think that rather than try to come up with a way to artifically remove the 1/3rd rule and replace it with something that simulates it, we would be better off just lifting the 1/3rd rule altogether. That would solve many of the same problems you are trying to solve. Casters and manifesters would no longer need to invest as heavily in expendables. They would have their full character compliment of class tools, just like a fighter would. Your second expendable rule would be obselete, as the need to regulate expendables in this fashion would most likely no longer be necessary. All in all...I'm still very much against this proposal. Call me negative all you want, but I still don't see the need to make a change this drastic.
SauroGrenom 04-30-06, 09:35 PM	I don't see what problems the "Treasure Drop" system solves. In P&P D&D, you do not get to choose an item before each fight specifically to use against your upcoming opponent--how is this more similar to P&P games? In fact, you usually do not get treasure at all in between encounters, because it takes time to cast Identify, except for potions and scrolls, which require a Spellcraft check (with no retry that day in either case). This is an extremely complicated system that, as far as I can tell, solves nothing.The idea is to grant some kind of bonus to characters that are worn down by previous fights and may be facing a fresh opponent. It would be very easy for a fresh wizard to blast all the spells at a 3rd battle ranger and win every time. This treasure drop idea is to try and give the tired player an unexpected boost to counter there disadvantaged position. I still think that healing should be available in between fights. In a P&P game, every party has a healer of some sorts. If healing between fights must be accomplished through items and spells, you are unfairly penalizing characters without levels in cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, or bard. Per the NPC spellcasting prices, 2 gp/hp is about right, or perhaps 3 gp/hp to simulate the use of a CLW wand. This has been mentioned before and I totally dissagree. There are only 5 classes with no access to healing wands or dorje's or class features. The SoulKnive, Fighter, Barbarian, Sorcerer and Wizard. All other classes have access to healing of some kind. Healing for psionics is expensive compared to divine magic. But that's not a problem for me. Rogue's can use UMD, and monks have a class ability that specificially grants healing ability. Conserving HP is an issue in a TT game and should also be an issue in the Arena. Every healing spell taken from the cleric is one more spell not used to blast your opponents with a flame strike or to cast bless or some other usefull spell. Free access to healing granted to all classes negates the potency of spontanious healing casting and the ability of some classes to use wands of CLW. It is reasonable that people be allowed to heal between battles using there items, allies and class abilities and that the HP restored need not be rolled because you can just use the average HP healed. However giving free healing away effectively gives everyone ring of regeneration for free. Such items are expensive because they are potent in a game, and they should be in the Arena as well. I also think edits should be prohibited entirely. There is no way to check what was edited except to compare the "snapshot" with the current sheet, a time-consuming process. The weekly pairings can contain a link to previous fights in a series.We don't want to make the job of Pitlords account any harder by requiring him to include links from all previous fights. The previous sheet is always included in the last week's battle, so I'll audit my opponents. It is well worth it for me to do so. If I get a free win due to catching my opponent breaking the rules, then I'm in a better situation to win all of my remaining fights untill my next rest. I won't use expendibles or use spells or abilities or loose HP. Yes it may be easy for a cheater to cheat, but it has always been the case for that. How many times have you tabulated the total gp earned and spent by your opponent to ensure that they don't have twice the number of scrolls? Surprise: When does Gather Information help you in this way in P&P? Listen/Spot should be the determining factors in surprise. That use of Gather Information is again, IMO, unnecessarily complicated, and few people will take major advantage of it because of the difficulty and the potential cost (few characters, if any, will have more than a 50/50 chance of making the check, and the accidental loss of an item or spell is a steep price). Also note that the characters who would benefit most from a prebuff round (casters) do not have Gather Information as a class skill (except bards), so this option will be useless to them.Listen is improtant for supprise as desribed above. I chose Gather Information to grant a prebuff round because it is an underused skill that is not a class skill for many casters. Also it is not even an intelligence or wisdom skill. So only the bard is in a great position to use this. And the sorcerer is in a reasonable position to use this. These two classes are not very popular in the Arena. This is my attempt to introduce a way to use an undersuded skill and allow combats in the Arena to have a more diverse format. I can see you don't like the idea, but I haven't heard a better one from you yet. If you have a better idea I'd love to hear it and I'll totally support it if it is indeed better. Also we should decide on a way to imagine the arena and the events that surround fighting. I've an image of a group of gladiators sitting in a room together. They all sit and wait there turn with there allies and equipment ready. Periodicially gladiators are teleported into the arena. Perhaps from this room they can barely hear the chears of the crowds in the arena, and if you have good hearing you can hear your name being called and get ready at the right moment and earn yourself a suprise round. Perhaps if you are good at talking to the others in the room, you can figure out the order of the battles, and you can predict when your turn is up next. This is why I focused in on the gather information and listen skills. I don't know how your envision the arena, but this is the picture that brings me to my suggesitons.
MindWandererB 04-30-06, 09:36 PM	Just another tiny thing I thought of: it would be absurd to use Listen/Spot for a surprise round when characters start off so far away from each other that they should autofail both checks. But yeah, I agree with NiQil. Making the CoCo "more like P&P" is going to hit a wall at some point, because D&D is not designed for PvP or solo play. If you want that, stick to campaigns.
SauroGrenom 04-30-06, 09:59 PM	This system does not in any way solve the expendable issue that many feel is a problem. There are very few builds that have such a diverse cache of expendables that carrying 3 of something instead of 1 of something is going to matter. All it really does is force people to plan ahead a little. Your stated goal is to bring CoCo as close to a tabletop game as you can....but you want to introduce more houserules to do this to replace the houserules we already have. 2: The total cost of all scrolls/stones/potions/tattoo’s owned cannot be greater than 50gpxECL2. Self crafted items are tabulated using their cost to craft. This coupled with a CL limit will limit expendibles sevearly. Yes it does make a new house rule. However it looses a house rule. It also changes a house rule. We loose the 1/3 rule and gain an expendibles limit as above. Our current house rule that limits scrolls/stones to ECL is changed to caster level+2. A minor change, but one that prevents character that dip from having full access to all items on the class spell list. Personally, I *like the fact that this forum is different than a tabletop game. If I wanted to play an online version of a tabletop game, I would go track one down and do so. I contend that the differneces in the CoCo enviroment from a TT game environment introduce imbalances that favor spell casters and disasvantage melee classes. We all know this is the case. What other explination is there for the observation that there is a Great Renown gladiator who is pure class in every caster class, but none of the melee classes. Our environment allows the greatest strengths of caster classes (particularly prepared casters) to shine, while never allowing melee classes to fight in the conditions where they are most effective. It still feels like the intent is to basically make the entire arena into one big quest...Not realy. The format is you fight till you drop with a max of 3 fights. I think that's different from a quest. Very few quests fail to complete. In any case all the character classes were balanced to fight in quest like environemnts. I think this is the natural domail for all the classes and it is the environemnt where they are most balanced compared to eachother. Another issue that still comes to mind is that a good chunk of your proposal seems to be centered around the honesty and thoroughness of our players. I know that we are all honest, but we are all also human. One mistake in editing a character when it shouldn't be or editing something you shouldn't throws a wrench into this whole system. We all rely heavily even now on honesty and thoroughness of our players. We do not currently audit our characters after every fight. Mistakes are now made and they will continue to be made. This kind of system will actually decrease mistakes if anything. Since most of the character sheet is only edited once every three weeks, the chances to introduce an error is actually decreased. It is very easy to not buy new equipment for your character. It is very easy to not add new spells to the memorized spell list. This is a worthwhile concern to think about, but in this case I think my proposal is actually even less likely than our current system to suffer from thiese kinds of errors. Also, relying on everyone to check their opponents sheets for editing every week is a bad idea, IMO. If we could really rely on that, then there would be no need for a Prison thread. We are all busy people who have lives outside of CoCo, and this just seems like something else that would cause problems. For instance, supposed player A is in a fight his first week under your system, and decides that he wants to take advantage of the system and edits something he shouldn't before his second match. Now, his opponent in week 2 comes along and doesn't look for changes, and loses because of the change that was made. Now the third week rolls around and his 3rd opponent notices the change, and notices that it was done before week 2. How would something like this be handled?THis kind of criticism is very constructive. I'll have to think about how to deal with this kind of problem. However I do not think that these kinds of problems are going to be terribly difficult to deal with. I think that rather than try to come up with a way to artifically remove the 1/3rd rule and replace it with something that simulates it, we would be better off just lifting the 1/3rd rule altogether. That would solve many of the same problems you are trying to solve. Casters and manifesters would no longer need to invest as heavily in expendables. They would have their full character compliment of class tools, just like a fighter would. Your second expendable rule would be obselete, as the need to regulate expendables in this fashion would most likely no longer be necessary.This will just exascerbate the problem of caster dominance more than now. Casters who can use all there spells and have there entire repitwar of spells in every battle are not the kind of casters that the CR for monsters was designed to challange. These casters are at the peak of there power for every battle. Sorry, but this is not a good idea.
Caterane 05-01-06, 06:25 PM	First of all, I have to reply to something I read once in a while and now again: I think that rather than try to come up with a way to artifically remove the 1/3rd rule and replace it with something that simulates it, we would be better off just lifting the 1/3rd rule altogether. That would solve many of the same problems you are trying to solve. Allowing wizards to cast all of their spells in every battle is so absolutely unbalanced that I lack the words to describe it. Proposing such a thing is the same for warriors like saying the arena is 10x10ft large and no prebuffs are allowed is for wizards. This is not just my impression! I have experienced that over 2 years from the beginning of the coco until we finally got away with this crap with the introduction of Living Gladius. Living Gladius solved a lot of problems we had in the classic coco but it wasn't perfect as we had about 3-4 weeks to flesh it out. The 1/3 rule was the best idea we had back then and it helped a lot to balance caster vs warrior fights more, but I am not saying that this rule is something we broke our heads about or the non-plus-ultra in solving the problems. It worked fine so far, especially compared to how classic coco worked, but I always knew that there are better ways out there. And a better way has just been proposed by SauroGrenom. His proposal is not an artificial construct (like the 1/3 rule is) but a smooth and elegant solution that can easily be implemented and is a huge step towards a more balanced enviroment. We're not talking about house rules here. A house rule is that we disallow the 5ft step with a ready action. A house rule is the ban on Gate and Reincarnate. A house rule is the 1/3 rule. But Sauro's proposal - just like the recently introduced new maps - is the enviroment of the coco. The campaign setting, if you like. It's as much a house rule as the Forgotten Realms setting is a house rule. You have 3 fights a day and you can household with your spells as you see fit. Isn't that what all casters wanted to do all along? In addition to that, it removes house rules and solves many other issues; for example the expendable ressources problem we're discussing. Sauro provided us with an awesome concept. It is a step into the right direction. Still, it needs some refinement here and there. I will now address my points of concern and propose an alternative. Problem: If you lose, you can rest. A wizard will always use up all his spells before he loses. Why should he household with his spells if he can rest in case of a loss anyway? The effect will be that warriors will always face the full allotment of spells their spellcasting opponents have. We would be back at Classic CoCo and this must not happen. The treasure drop does absolutely nothing here to prevent that because if you lose, you gain no treasure drop anyway. Solution: You have to fight 3 fights, no matter what. Additionally, you gain a bonus or treasure drop if you win fight #2 and a bigger one for #3. This means that a wizard will hesitate to spend all his spells in the first fight that looks bad for him because he must face two other encounters. The treasure drop for the second and third fight increases the attractivity to win the 2nd and 3rd fight instead of the first one. An alternative to the treasure drop (or combined with the drop) could be one prebuff round just before fight 2, and two free prebuff rounds before fight 3 to counter the handicap. Problem: The treasure drop is deducted from the rewards afterwards. Since the treasure drop should be an incentive to win Fight 2 and even moreso Fight 3, it loses its function if a character has no need to resupply as well as to those who don't use ressources. Additionally, a treasure (ie an incentive) is a free item, not something you have to pay for. Solution: The treasure drop is not deducted from your rewards. Problem: Your hitpoints carry over from fight to fight For those who cannot heal, this rule creates a gargantuan gap between a fresh character and one in week 3. There is already a gap between someone in fight 1 and someone in fight 3. With this rule, the fight will be a farce. The latter might enter with 5 hp and be dropped with no effort or ressources, allowing the Fight 1 guy to enter his next fight without spending anything. To those with class abilities to heal (monk, paladin, etc) these abilities are mostly used up in the fight itself and in no way enough to heal the character to an acceptable health. Bottom line: we have to allow the NPC Service, and this is so cheap that the cost for healing is neglectable and surely not worth the trouble (10 gp per CLW). Solution: Characters always enter with their full hitpoints. Problem: You have to fight on three consecutive weeks From the given example (Ready for Apr26-May10) I read that characters have to be set ready on three consecutive weeks. From my personal experience, I can say that this is asking to much. I haven't played the Harvester in some weeks and if so, I can only set him ready for one week at a time. This rule will result in default tactics and for some, the coco might just seem too time consuming. Solution: You can set your character active whenever you want. Problem: You cannot edit your sheet until you have fought three times. That's also not going to fly. It is not very motivating when you cannot touch your character for three weeks; more if you have late fights. Perhaps a prison issue arises during that time. And you have to set your character active (see above). Solution: You can edit your sheet normally after the fight is done. Problem: Players have to check their opponent's sheet for cheats or mistakes. It has been addressed that it might be too much work to check a sheet. Solution: The penalty of auto-losing a battle should be enough for most people to not cheat. Those who made a mistake, will learn the hard way to better read the rules next time, and will only violate against this rule once. Asides from that, there are easy methords: By using tap switches, you should be able to compare the old and new sheet quickly; just like with a template. Even easier is to check the gold balance. If it is not the same, the character has apparently bought something. If he bought something and didn't deduct it, then that's a problem we have now too and is being handled by the prison. Conditions surrounding a battle This is a good approach to better mimic the randomness with which battles begin in D&D. However, I think there are more sophisticated ways of doing this as was proposed by me in the Random Arenas thread. We created a set of options and ability combinations that lead to different fight setups. Sauro's listen and gather information idea is one example for that. Another one would be a board regulated random fight setup. Just like the order of how characters are listed in the pairings post is important for Hunter Fights, we can use the same mechanism for ambushs, awareness of a threat, and other scenarios on how a fight could begin. It would be rolled along with the pairings. Example: Kracknol (SauroGrenom) vs Dar'ath Something (Waywreth) : Caterane [Forest] [Ambush] In this constellation, Kracknol ambushes one of the Dar'ath spawns on the forest map. The randomness makes it fair for everyone. We just have to come up with some scenarios on how a fight could begin, then enter it into the pairingsmaker. Ideas: Ambush: One party can prepare the battlefield. This includes spells that affect the battlefield or things like traps. You know where your opponent starts and you can pick your starting square. Awareness: Both parties are aware that combat is imminent and gain one free buff round before combat begins. Surprise: One party knows that an opponent is close and gains one surprise round before initiative is being rolled. Personally, I *like the fact that this forum is different than a tabletop game. If I wanted to play an online version of a tabletop game, I would go track one down and do so. We're merely fixing the imbalance between casters and warriors that arose due to the CoCo Setting. The CoCo will still be different from a TT game but not in the way of imbalance. Giving spellcasters an easy way to win is surely not the appealing factor of this board.
MindWandererB 05-01-06, 08:55 PM	Nice, Cat, very nice. This change may just happen yet--this is by far the best the idea has ever looked. I have to say that I like the idea of prebuff rounds much better than treasure drops. Simpler, easier, more like P&P (in a dungeon, a character who's been in one fight already will be more psychologically prepared for additional fights). Some more concerns: ·Healing other than hit points. If you get hit with Blindness/Deafness in fight 1, you're screwed if you can't heal it. In a P&P game without Remove Blindness somehow, this is when you quit and rest for the day, so that you can prepare it or get an NPC to cast it for you. And the costs are no longer negligible at this point--undoing a Flesh to Stone could be quite pricey. I still think free healing is the best way to go here, more for balance than for any type of logic or P&P-parallel. ·Non-consecutive fighting: it blows a hole in the verisimilitude of the CoCo if one character fights three fights without resting, and another character goes on a whole campaign in the meantime. Not that I see a better way of balancing this, but it might present some weirdness. ·Ambushes: it makes little sense to be able to run around the battlefield, dig pit traps everywhere, etc. then run all the way back to the far side of the arena for the fight to start. Especially silly in crowded maps like the city and forest. If you're going to allow ambushes, allow them all the way: permit any starting location outside the opponent's starting box. And even if you don't agree with that, ambushers should be able to choose both their own and their opponent's starting box (because except for the City, all the maps are symmetrical--it's useless to choose a square without knowing where your opponent will be).
Macbrea 05-02-06, 09:01 AM	Might I make the following suggestion: Fight 2 and 3 be considered 2 hours duration from fight 1. If a spell is cast that would take it into fights 2 and 3. And there character wins the match. That spell should be marked in the prebuff section of the character sheet. Example: During fight 1. Va'ria cast mage armor (10 hours) she then wins her fight 5 rounds later. Sindorin would then add to her prebuff section of her sheet. Prebuff Fight 1 - Mage armor (8 hours) If she wins her next fight her sheet may be edited to read. Prebuff Fight 2 - Mage armor (6 hours) This is because in truth, Va'ria the character in a dungeon would cast Mage armor pretty much one time per day. She would then go through the next few fights with the same mage armor spell. Her spells don't just suddenly drop between fights. Otherwise your going to have a day that looks like the following: 16 hour wait time 2 minute fight 16 hour wait time 2 minute fight 16 hour wait time ----------------- Total time per 24 hours = 48 hours
barrel_master 05-02-06, 11:09 AM	I think a more elegant and complete solution to this (as of yet non existant) problem is to require players to keep a running total of "Virtual XP" at the top of there sheets. This Virtual XP can be used to determine at what ECL the character battles in the Arena. That way if you craft, cast Wish, or loose a familiar it will not effect who you battle. Instead you will be battling the same foes, just with less XP and mabey even a lower ECL. The XP system is self correcting, and it will eventually balance things out. So if you are fighting ECL9 opponents when you are actually ECL8, then you earn extra xp compared to an ECL9 character in the same encounter, and this will help you get into ECL9 faster. Make Virtual XP equal to the XP earned by a normal participant for each battle if the character were the appropreat ECL. That mimics how casters who craft in a party fall behind in XP for a while, but catch up after a bit. This also allows spells with xp costs to have the kind of cost they were intend to have. A wizard who casts 5 wish spells to increase his INT discovers that he is now 25000xp behind his party and probably 1 level behind. Since he is already 17th level it probably isn't important, but it's the cost intended by game designers to balance the use of the spell. If we want to incorporate the importance of xp cost into CoCo then OK. But I don't think we should translate xp cost into gp cost like this. I agree that this is a neat idea... about as neat as the same idea I had like a month ago but was shot down over because it seemed stupid... ehhh... maybe only I'm the one that's stupid... :p
barrel_master 05-02-06, 11:21 AM	But yeah, I agree with NiQil. Making the CoCo "more like P&P" is going to hit a wall at some point, because D&D is not designed for PvP or solo play. If you want that, stick to campaigns. I concur that the games here need not be pure simulations of normal campains and that some differences are okay and even desireable.
Stormwind 05-02-06, 11:23 AM	Fight 2 and 3 be considered 2 hours duration from fight 1. If a spell is cast that would take it into fights 2 and 3. And there character wins the match. That spell should be marked in the prebuff section of the character sheet. I like this idea but I would suggest a slight modification as follows: Have an 8 hour duration between fights. Example (as Macbrea's example): During fight 1. Va'ria cast mage armor (10 hours) she then wins her fight 5 rounds later. Sindorin would then add to her prebuff section of her sheet. Prebuff Fight 1 - Mage armor (2 hours remaining) If she wins her next fight then by the time her third fight starts the duration will have expired. This means that the only effects that can be prebuffed for all three fights, are effects with at least a 16 hour duration (as can currently be prebuffed). Thus if you assume a normal day, with fights evenly spaced, you have: 2 minute fight #1 8 hour wait time 2 minute fight #2 8 hour wait time 2 minute fight #3 8 hours sleep ----------------- Total time per 24 hours = 24 hours
barrel_master 05-02-06, 11:31 AM	Allowing wizards to cast all of their spells in every battle is so absolutely unbalanced that I lack the words to describe it. Proposing such a thing is the same for warriors like saying the arena is 10x10ft large and no prebuffs are allowed is for wizards. This is not just my impression! I have experienced that over 2 years from the beginning of the coco until we finally got away with this crap with the introduction of Living Gladius. Living Gladius solved a lot of problems we had in the classic coco but it wasn't perfect as we had about 3-4 weeks to flesh it out. The 1/3 rule was the best idea we had back then and it helped a lot to balance caster vs warrior fights more, but I am not saying that this rule is something we broke our heads about or the non-plus-ultra in solving the problems. It worked fine so far, especially compared to how classic coco worked, but I always knew that there are better ways out there. I think you're exagurating a bit Cat... the old arena wasn't crap... it was only different... some of us liked it and if I recall correctly, at first, you supported the idea of casters being able to use all their spells every fight and was very much against the first limit where you had to pre-memorize 1/2 your spells. All I'm trying to say is that the difference isn't clear cut black and white, good or bad... some of us just prefer different stuff is all.
MindWandererB 05-02-06, 01:31 PM	The current logic is that 16-hour prebuffs last the whole day, so that no matter when your battle takes place during the day, the 16-hour duration covers it. The idea was to simulate a dungeon crawl--if you cast a spell at the beginning of the day that lasts less than 16 hours, you can't be guaranteed that it will still be running when you need it. The simplest rule would be to keep the existing rule: any spell that lasts 16 hours or more carries over from fight to fight; any spell that lasts a shorter duration does not. That way you don't have to figure out how long it is between fights. This does have one unfortunate side effect: if you cast a spell during fight 1 that lasts 15 hours, and it wears off between fights, and you do this again for fight 2, you have a 30-hour day. An 8-hour virtual duration, as Stormwind suggested, would cover this "virtual duration" without necessarily setting the duration in stone--you can abstract that there is less than 8 hours between fights, and the second fight happens some time during that 8-hour duration.
Caterane 05-02-06, 03:51 PM	Why not just make three different tiers of prebuffs: - 16 hours lasts throughout all fights - Between fight 1 and 2, there's a 3 hour gap. - Between fight 2 and 3, there's a 1 hour gap. That means, you can prebuff with more spells in fight 2 and 3, and your running spells carry over if they last long enough. This helps the handicapped characters against fresh characters. A more difficult way is have the pitlord roll the gap between the fights. This would rule out prebuffs over than the 16 hour ones but be slightly more realistic and less static. I like the first version better.
Stormwind 05-02-06, 04:22 PM	Why not just make three different tiers of prebuffs: - 16 hours lasts throughout all fights - Between fight 1 and 2, there's a 3 hour gap. - Between fight 2 and 3, there's a 1 hour gap. That means, you can prebuff with more spells in fight 2 and 3, and your running spells carry over if they last long enough. This helps the handicapped characters against fresh characters. A more difficult way is have the pitlord roll the gap between the fights. This would rule out prebuffs over than the 16 hour ones but be slightly more realistic and less static. I like the first version better. I have two comments in response to this. 1) Similar durations: I think that you should have the same duration gap between fights. Having two different durations is unnecessary in my opinion. I think that the simpler the better. 2) Length of duration: I think that the only spells that should carry over from fight to fight are those that have a duration of hours per level (or more), or those that have a duration of 10 minutes/level and are extended either with a rod of metamagic or with the metamagic feat extend spell. Thus the duration should be at least 3 hours/level between fights which allows a ECL3 pure caster to have a spell last for 2 fights. This would then give you - 16 hours lasts throughout all fights - Between fight 1 and 2, there's a 3 hour gap. - Between fight 2 and 3, there's a 3 hour gap. Just my 2 cents. :)
Caterane 05-02-06, 04:27 PM	The idea behind a 1 hour gap is that it makes 10min/lvl spells different from 1min/lvl. It sometimes happens that a spell that last 1 hour is still available in the next fight. The drawback of having static time gaps is that you can rely on it and plan ahead; something you normally cannot do in a TT game. Here, I could cast Freedom of Movement in fight 2, knowing that I will have it available the next fight too. In a real game, you don't cast FoM unless you need it now.
SauroGrenom 05-02-06, 06:10 PM	I forsee a problem with this part of Cat's proposal. Problem: The treasure drop is deducted from the rewards afterwards. Since the treasure drop should be an incentive to win Fight 2 and even moreso Fight 3, it loses its function if a character has no need to resupply as well as to those who don't use ressources. Additionally, a treasure (ie an incentive) is a free item, not something you have to pay for. Solution: The treasure drop is not deducted from your rewards. To give free items or other gp rewards to those who are winning the 1st and 2nd battles produces a wealth differential that may become a problem. For example if you give a 20% bost after the 1st fight and a 40% boost after the second fight and a 60% boost after the 3rd fight, then you are at a net 40% extra wealth compared to a person who lost these three fights. I chose the 20% after the 1st fight and 40% after the second fight, so that you can afford decent expendibles under that limit. You can afford a potion of fly after the 2nd fight at about ECL7. That is fare to me. Wizards get to fly around for 2 levels before they need to worry about fighters getting supprise fly potions. However if you just give these expendibles away for free it adds up fast and produces a fairly large wealth after winning a few fights in a row. If we make 3 battles required and we give free healing after each battle, then the treasure drop may not be necessary at all.
SauroGrenom 05-02-06, 06:29 PM	I agree that this is a neat idea... about as neat as the same idea I had like a month ago but was shot down over because it seemed stupid... ehhh... maybe only I'm the one that's stupid... :pI admit that my idea is an adaption of yours. However your proposal was different from mine in an important way. You suggested using just total xp earned as the way to decide what ECL you battle at. My suggestion uses a "Virtual XP" that is different from total XP in an important way. The Virtual XP is the total amount of xp a character would earn if they were at the correct ECL for each battle. So in your system an ECL8 character who is fighting at ECL9 will always be behind in xp and can never catch up in the way that the xp system allows. My system has the "Virtual XP" increase by the amount earned by an ECL9 combatant in that battle. So if an ECL8 character wins an ECL9 battle, the Virtual XP increases by 2700xp while the ECL8 character actually earns 3600xp for this battle. So the character 's disadvantaged status will gradually decrease. This is how it is intended to work in a normal game.
Caterane 05-02-06, 06:57 PM	Sauro, the big major problem of your proposal is that a wizard in Fight 1 will always use all his spells before he loses. That is already unbalancing in case of a spellcaster in fight 1 vs a warrior in fight 1. Now imagine what happens to a warrior in fight 3 against a fresh wizard. This must be anyhow countered. If you deduct the treasure drop from the rewards, it is no incentive to win Fight 2 and 3 anymore. You'd gain the money anyway. The treasure drop is one idea, good or bad. Allowing prebuff rounds in later fights (2 and 3) is another possible way, or maybe it isn't. Perhaps one is enough, perhaps both are necessary, and perhaps we need yet another way to balance Fight 1 vs 2 and 3 but whatever we do, we must make sure that everyone has the same chance of success if he sticks to roughly 1/3 of his spells and ressources, no matter which week he is in. This is the central issue with which this proposal will be either implemented or dropped.
MindWandererB 05-02-06, 07:19 PM	Sauro, the big major problem of your proposal is that a wizard in Fight 1 will always use all his spells before he loses. That is already unbalancing in case of a spellcaster in fight 1 vs a warrior in fight 1. Now imagine what happens to a warrior in fight 3 against a fresh wizard. This must be anyhow countered. A warrior in fight 3 with all his HP restored is basically fresh. He may be down a potion or two, but he'll buy 3 of any potions that are critical to his strategy anyway. If we force participants to fight in all 3 fights even if they lose, that's plenty incentive for casters to not blow all their spells. Imagine how it would feel if you were a caster starting week 2 with no spells left... and knowing that, survive or not, you get to do it again next week. That's gotta suck. Sure, you can go nova once every three weeks and blow your opponents out of the water, but then you lose 2/3 of the time. That's why I think prebuff rounds are plenty. They also have the nice benefit of helping casters more, and they're the ones in greatest need of help in rounds 2 and 3.
Caterane 05-02-06, 07:26 PM	Now imagine you are the one who is on the receiving end when the wizard goes nova. For some, a clear win and maybe a second win (50% spells per fight) followed by a loss in week 3 is an acceptable ratio.
barrel_master 05-02-06, 07:41 PM	I admit that my idea is an adaption of yours. However your proposal was different from mine in an important way. You suggested using just total xp earned as the way to decide what ECL you battle at. My suggestion uses a "Virtual XP" that is different from total XP in an important way. The Virtual XP is the total amount of xp a character would earn if they were at the correct ECL for each battle. So in your system an ECL8 character who is fighting at ECL9 will always be behind in xp and can never catch up in the way that the xp system allows. My system has the "Virtual XP" increase by the amount earned by an ECL9 combatant in that battle. So if an ECL8 character wins an ECL9 battle, the Virtual XP increases by 2700xp while the ECL8 character actually earns 3600xp for this battle. So the character 's disadvantaged status will gradually decrease. This is how it is intended to work in a normal game. Ha ha... arg... I wasn't looking for acknolagement but it certainly is nice. :P It was more ment to be a lighthearted ribbing is all :) If I came off otherwise it was a failure of my imagination... stupid imagination.
MindWandererB 05-02-06, 08:17 PM	Now imagine you are the one who is on the receiving end when the wizard goes nova. For some, a clear win and maybe a second win (50% spells per fight) followed by a loss in week 3 is an acceptable ratio.Nothing that has been proposed will prevent that. Treasure drops, prebuff rounds, none of those help counter the strategy you describe. It's still powerful.
SauroGrenom 05-02-06, 10:29 PM	Sauro, the big major problem of your proposal is that a wizard in Fight 1 will always use all his spells before he loses. That is already unbalancing in case of a spellcaster in fight 1 vs a warrior in fight 1. Now imagine what happens to a warrior in fight 3 against a fresh wizard. This must be anyhow countered.Well if we are refreshing hp, the warrior is always at the same level of readyness. Fight 3 or Fight 8 he is always ready as long as he has all his HP. Also if we force the wizard to fight 3 battles before a rest, win or loose, then he will not want to spend all his spells on the 1st battle. "Going Nova" and using all his spells to win his 1st fight guarantee's that he will loose the next two. If you deduct the treasure drop from the rewards, it is no incentive to win Fight 2 and 3 anymore. You'd gain the money anyway.The idea is not a money advantage. It is a tactical advantage to have an item that is chosen to be used against your opponent after parrings and that he isn't sure of what you have. The opponent must deal with a wildcard on your character sheet. I like most of your suggestions. I'll conceed that your suggestions for healing, 3 fights/day even if you loose, the consecutive fights issue, and the allowances on when to edit a sheet all improve the proposal. I ask that you reconsider the Treasure Drop part of my original proposal. I suggested then that Winning the 1st and 2nd battles each give a small tactical advantage with the single item chosen after parrings. This item's cost is deducted from winnings. Also winning 3 battles between rests gives an actual wealth advantage of +20% over all the fights. That should be a decent incentive for anyone to conserve power to last 3 battles. Many characters can win 2/3 battles by spending 50% of the spells in the 1st and 2nd battles. Those characters will never recieve the 20% wealth boost for winning 3 battles. This idea is a compromise between what you are suggesting and giving no wealth advantage at all. In this framework of rules I'd realy try to conserve my power to win the 3rd battle, while spending just enough to win the 1st and 2nd battles as well. If we allow shorter durration prebuffing and restoration of HP, then conserving spells is even more important. Since my HP are restored and I can prebuff with shorter durration spells between battles, it becomes even more important to conserve spells for latter battles. And if we put a limit on the value of scrolls I carry around, it is impossible for me to prebuff with scrolls the whole time.
Vathelokai 05-03-06, 05:33 AM	How about instead of a treasure drop, you get npc spell casting. Same effects (basicly), and it dosn't throw too much of a wrench into the gp ratios; it would be a technical wealth ratio issue, but it would also simulate party members casting prebuffs on your character.
Caterane 05-03-06, 06:50 AM	Good idea. Perhaps you can get one spell of a level up to your ECL in week 2, and two such spells in week 3 for free from the NPC Service. Obviously it must be a spell that can be cast on someone other than the caster. There should still be an incentive to win fight 2 and 3. Perhaps 20% and 40% is too much. 10 and 20 might be better. There could also be a reward for winning all 3 fights. This can be something other than wealth so that it won't become too unbalanced.
Stormwind 05-03-06, 09:28 AM	Good idea. Perhaps you can get one spell of a level up to your ECL in week 2, and two such spells in week 3 for free from the NPC Service. Obviously it must be a spell that can be cast on someone other than the caster. There should still be an incentive to win fight 2 and 3. Perhaps 20% and 40% is too much. 10 and 20 might be better. There could also be a reward for winning all 3 fights. This can be something other than wealth so that it won't become too unbalanced. I like this idea. Perhaps as a reward for winning all three fights, the character gains some sort of influence that persists until he/she loses a fight. For example, say that each time you win all three fights, you gain an amount of influence equal to 3xECL, however each time you lose a fight you lose 2xECL influence (minimum 0). This influence can be used in several ways: 1) it can be donated to your guild as a specific type of guild prestige (ECO, POL, .. etc), where the guild gains one point of a specific prestige for each point of influence. 2) it can be used in a single guild action to increase the damage done, or money stolen, etc by that character by a percentage equal to the influence used. Consider as an extreme example, a Harvester clone who wins 21 fights in a row with no losses. In this time he would be ECL9 and will have accumulated an Influence of 126. If he donated this to a guild that would be 126 Prestige over his entire career to that point. Considering that this is an extreme example, this is not overwhelming. Alternately he could have used all that influence on a single guild action giving a one time increase of 126% to the results of his participation in that guild action. That means that if he had been doing a Raid home base operation with two other characters, and if this action was successful then this influence would increase the money raided from the home base by 126% of the Harvester clone's base power rating. e.g. if the harvester clone had a base power rating of 2000 then the money raided by the Harvester would be 4520.
SauroGrenom 05-03-06, 10:03 PM	How about instead of a treasure drop, you get npc spell casting. Same effects (basicly), and it dosn't throw too much of a wrench into the gp ratios; it would be a technical wealth ratio issue, but it would also simulate party members casting prebuffs on your character. When I first read this, I thought WOW! When I read it a couple hours latter I realized that this kind of reward would be better in some ways and not as flexible in others. First of all what if my character build doesn't need any spell casting service? This kind of reward would be very cool if I wanted a Mage Armor spell. However it would be mostly useless if I'm a mounted ranged fighter like Lissa Longfellow. In her case I'd realy like to have a lesser globe of invulnerability against spell casters and a vial of silversheen vs lycanthropes. Haste may be nice as well vs any opponent. Anyway the point is that sometimes Lissa would like to have a spell cast on her, and other times she would prefer to have a particular item. No perfect solution jumps at me right now, so I'll keep thinking on it for a while.
TheMagister 05-03-06, 10:42 PM	When I first read this, I thought WOW! When I read it a couple hours latter I realized that this kind of reward would be better in some ways and not as flexible in others. First of all what if my character build doesn't need any spell casting service? This kind of reward would be very cool if I wanted a Mage Armor spell. However it would be mostly useless if I'm a mounted ranged fighter like Lissa Longfellow. In her case I'd realy like to have a lesser globe of invulnerability against spell casters and a vial of silversheen vs lycanthropes. Haste may be nice as well vs any opponent. Anyway the point is that sometimes Lissa would like to have a spell cast on her, and other times she would prefer to have a particular item. No perfect solution jumps at me right now, so I'll keep thinking on it for a while. So, what we're looking for now is an elegant way to provide winning gladiators with effects in between battles to even up the chances. That's pretty easy. Sword boy! The arena staff can help us here. In round 1, the arena staff can appear as temporary allies in the winning gladiator's starting box. The arena staff always acts before the gladiator, and the staff consists of these individuals, who provide these concrete/immutable/unchangeable services, which the winning gladiator can choose from: Cleric: heal spell cast on gladiator, magic vestment at gladiator's ECL Caster Level, shield of faith at gladiator's ECL Caster Level Wizard: haste spell at gladiator's ECL Caster Level, invisibility at gladiator's ECL Caster Level, magic weapon at gladiator's ECL Caster Level on one of gladiator's weapons Alchemist (can be holding one item of the gladiator's): apply silversheen to a gladiator's weapon, apply oil of slipperyness to gladiator's armor, hand gladiator a tanglefoot bag, feed gladiator dose of anti-venom These services are free to winning gladiators, and an opponent doesn't know which one the gladiator will take, as it is applied by the pitlord at the beginning of the fight (essentially added to the winning gladiator's prebuff list). These actions are all "free" actions to the gladiator receiving them, and cost the gladiator no time to take advantage of. These choices are not "my final word" or anything, I really just pulled them out of my ear as I wrote, without any thought for balance or anything. They strike me as pretty well done, though. What do you think? TM
Traevanon 05-03-06, 11:03 PM	From a new person's perspective, if I may offer it, the 3 battles per day idea seems complicated and adds to the learning curve which is already moderately steep. I've avoided quests for straight arena combat simply because I need to take in all the rules in stages. Is the 1/3 rule being abused below 10th level? 7th level? 4th level? If not then perhaps it would be best to keep the straight arena for 3rd through 4th, 7th, 10th or whenever the 1/3 rule begins to tire out. I feel it would be fair and simple enough to rule that 1/day abilities are somehow subject to the 1/3 rule as well (based on the level of the effect). --------------------------------------- My opinion: Ultimately I think the best way to test a character's mettle is through variety. So I am opposed to converting to an exclusive 3-battle series event. But, a 3-fight series of combats could be added as another type battle the arenamaster might choose for a gladiator in the same random fashion as straight combat, 2-2 team, PC vs monster combat, alternate map fight, 2 on 1 (higher ECL) fight. Additionally the 3 fight series could be made to be an iron-man competition for especially tough or experienced gladiators where the character is made to fight three successive opponents of lesser power immediately after each other (until he loses one or wins all three), or a rest-and-refresh battle where other combats occur in the interim as the gladiator heals up. When I enter myself in the arena for battle as a gladiator I understand that I may be forced to face just about anything that will please the crowd. Difficult (even unfair) fights are really just opportunities for greater glory.
lonewolf 05-04-06, 11:25 AM	I also think that changing the CoCo to three battles in a row will greatly discourage new players. It is not optional and no way how we do it, it will always end up much more complicated than the way it is now. I know that there would be a couple of nice shiny advantages, but I really doubt that it is worth the problems and the work that comes with it. The 1/3 rule isnt perfect, but I say its good enough as it is.
SoulLord 05-04-06, 11:45 AM	Things I have liked 1.-start the 3 consecutive fights at the later levels to give newbies a learning cushion there are plenty of rules to digest. (3rd league must remain with the normal coco perhaps even the 4th league) 2.-Full healing after battles (hp, permanent and debilitating effects sundered equipment) 3.-free prebuff for fights 2-3 4.-mandatory 3 fight run. Now i have some questions. since all this fights are supposed to take place in a week how will this affect the other activities around the coco? Crafting Creating magic items using gather information etc. will we be limited to one every 3 weeks?
Stormwind 05-04-06, 04:15 PM	...<snip> ...Now i have some questions. since all this fights are supposed to take place in a week how will this affect the other activities around the coco? Crafting Creating magic items using gather information etc. will we be limited to one every 3 weeks? @SoulLord: My understanding was that from a practical perspective there are no major changes. In particular we still have one fight per week, Free and Full activities and so forth. The difference is that once you start to fight, then you are occupied for three consective weeks fighting in the arena (a bit like quests). Thus when you set your character ready for the arena, then he/she must fight in the arena for the next three weeks and you may not make purchases etc during that time. Therefore if you wish to do crafting as a Full activity, start questing, etc, then you must have completed your 3-fight run in the arena. @All: I don't think that separate rules for low leagues and higher leagues is a good idea. I also do not think this change is particulary complex as it reduces the number of CoCo specific rules and the number of house rules. About the only things that newbies would be to become aware of is the fact that when they set their characters ready for the arena, they are committing their character to three weeks of fighting ... exactly as if they were going to go on a quest. Just my 2 cents.
SauroGrenom 05-04-06, 05:10 PM	@SoulLord: My understanding was that from a practical perspective there are no major changes. In particular we still have one fight per week, Free and Full activities and so forth. The difference is that once you start to fight, then you are occupied for three consective weeks fighting in the arena (a bit like quests). Thus when you set your character ready for the arena, then he/she must fight in the arena for the next three weeks and you may not make purchases etc during that time. Therefore if you wish to do crafting as a Full activity, start questing, etc, then you must have completed your 3-fight run in the arena.You are correct except the undelined part. A character isn't required to fight three weeks in a row. But they are required to fight three arena battles before they can do anything else. If you have too many character to activate them all for 3 weeks in a row, then that's not a problem. You can still rotate them through being active every other week, just you cannot rest or resupply a character untill it completes all three fights. You cannot start crafting or send a character on a quest untill the three battles are done. For the skeptical, It's not that complicated realy. Actually in some ways it's simpler than what we do now. No need to explain the 1/3 rule, nothing special about items or class abilities or spells being usable x/fight. Simply a character's day of fighting in the arena is 3 battles. What's so hard about that? You bring all your allies and equipment at the beginning of the day and enrole in a day of fighting at your ECL. You get healed between battles. You may get a small boon between battles to help you survive the next battle. You get all your rewards at the end of the day. There is some kind of nice reward for winning all three battles of the day. You get to rest at the end of the day (maybe gaining a level). You get to go shopping and spend your money before comming back next time. It's a very familiar format. We've all played this before in a night of gamming. Only now each battle takes a week real world time to run, but only part of a day in game time to actually happen.
MindWandererB 05-04-06, 05:59 PM	@SoulLord: My understanding was that from a practical perspective there are no major changes. In particular we still have one fight per week, Free and Full activities and so forth. The difference is that once you start to fight, then you are occupied for three consective weeks fighting in the arena (a bit like quests). The weird thing is, quests take place all in a single day. You're assumed to spend the other 20 days doing preparation, cleanup, whatever. So with the proposed format, say Bob and Fred have a duel. Bob then remains inactive for a month, while Fred has six fights, and loses them all (so he's still in the same ECL). Then Bob gets reactivated and he and Fred are in a team battle together. For Fred, several weeks have passed, but Bob hasn't slept since they last fought.
TheMagister 05-04-06, 06:41 PM	The weird thing is, quests take place all in a single day. You're assumed to spend the other 20 days doing preparation, cleanup, whatever. So with the proposed format, say Bob and Fred have a duel. Bob then remains inactive for a month, while Fred has six fights, and loses them all (so he's still in the same ECL). Then Bob gets reactivated and he and Fred are in a team battle together. For Fred, several weeks have passed, but Bob hasn't slept since they last fought. For the skeptical, It's not that complicated realy. Actually in some ways it's simpler than what we do now. No need to explain the 1/3 rule, nothing special about items or class abilities or spells being usable x/fight. Simply a character's day of fighting in the arena is 3 battles. What's so hard about that? You bring all your allies and equipment at the beginning of the day and enrole in a day of fighting at your ECL. You get healed between battles. You may get a small boon between battles to help you survive the next battle. You get all your rewards at the end of the day. There is some kind of nice reward for winning all three battles of the day. You get to rest at the end of the day (maybe gaining a level). You get to go shopping and spend your money before comming back next time. It's a very familiar format. We've all played this before in a night of gamming. Only now each battle takes a week real world time to run, but only part of a day in game time to actually happen. With respect, MWB, doesn't this statement of Sauro's deal with your concern? And really now, is what you say any different than what we currently have? Gladiators take breaks all the time, because their handler misses pairings or just doesn't choose to activate him/her or their fight gets held over for mistakes or just plain lateness. You're just assumed to be doing something else. The continuity is sketchy at best as it is now. I can't see it being more difficult with the new way. TM
MindWandererB 05-04-06, 07:44 PM	Not really. I mean, it's easy to run and all--my issue isn't with complexity, it's with realism. In my example, Fred has fought two days' worth of battles, rested at least twice, and performed six weeks of free activities, while Bob apparently hasn't slept in six weeks. For quests, this is fine--you're assumed to have three battles in one day, and be doing nothing important for the rest of the time. It's also fine for a solo character in the arena. But when people get out of sync, weirdness appears. One character can have experienced several weeks' fights and free activities while another hasn't rested. To put it another way, for Bob, these two fights are on the same day, but for Fred, they're on different days. Unless the arena exists somewhere outside of space and time, so that people from different times can fight each other, or else people get put into stasis chambers which exist for no other purpose than to prevent them from resting for the duration, we have a paradox going on.
TheMagister 05-04-06, 07:58 PM	Ah. I think I finally see what you're saying. Week 1: Bob vs. Joe => Bob wins. Joe goes home. Week 2: Bob vs. May => Bob wins. May goes Home. Joe sets his character to ready and gets paired. Week 3: Bob vs. Joe => Bob says, "Hey, I already fought this guy today!" Joe says, "Nuh-UH, it's been a week!" Well, how restrictive would it be to say that there must be a 2-week buffer between characters that have faced off once being paired against each other? Or, we could say that a winner gets 3 fights a day + exp/gold bonus and a loser just gets 3 fights a day? So the loser doesn't "go home" or "sit out", he just doesn't get the extra award. For some reason, I'm not seeing why that wouldn't fit in the framework Sauro has provided. There's something tickling the back of my mind... TM
Caterane 05-04-06, 08:16 PM	I really think this isn't our biggest problem. It is an imaginary problem, not a technical one and imaginary problems are no problems at all for me as the one who wants to see this thing running smoothly. You do not fight 3 times a day roleplay-wise. We keep the 1:1 conversion of Gladius time to real time. From a roleplay perspective, if a gladiator is in week 3, he has fought 2 battles that day which don't appear in the coco. Week 1: Arena Fight, Unknown fight 1, Unknown fight 2 Week 2: Unknown fight 1, Arena fight, Unknown fight 2 Week 3: Unknown fight 1, Unknown fight 2, Arena fight Please let us focus on the important things. If we find a good way to balance week 1 vs week 3 fights, we are almost done. Sauro proposes a one item purchase between fights, I propose a treasure drop plus prebuff rounds, and we heard the proposal of allowing the Spellcasting Serivce to buff you a bit. Comments? Other ideas? Imagine you face a fresh wizard. How can we make sure that the wizard doesn't use all his spells against you? How can we make such battles fair (provided the one on week 3 sticked to roughly spending 1/3 of his ressources in the previous battles) ?
lonewolf 05-04-06, 08:26 PM	One big Issue I do have is that this new system forces me to have my characters fight 3 times in a row in the arena. There is no option anymore to fight once, then go on a quest, return for another fight or two and then head out to do a guild operation. This also makes multiplayer quest next to impossible, because you have to be lucky to have two(or even more) characters that can "get out" of the arena at the same time.
TheMagister 05-04-06, 08:38 PM	One big Issue I do have is that this new system forces me to have my characters fight 3 times in a row in the arena. There is no option anymore to fight once, then go on a quest, return for another fight or two and then head out to do a guild operation. This also makes multiplayer quest next to impossible, because you have to be lucky to have two(or even more) characters that can "get out" of the arena at the same time. I think this might be a good thing. Most quests come together in, like, the last SIX HOURS before pairings. This causes confusion for Pitlords as to who's questing, for what, and who's questlording. You (and me...not accusing in tone) might actually have to plan a quest with people, instead of just picking one up on the fly in the last moments before pairings. Were *I Cat, I would like this new setup because I could copy PMs out of my PM box and save them on my HD for pairings under a certain date. It would be much more organized. Perhaps a 1-week cutoff date requirement for quest submissions (i.e. you have to submit a quest request the week before you actually embark on the quest). TM
NiQil 05-04-06, 09:20 PM	@ Cat: Allow me to be negative for a moment...since it seems that's what I am good at... The impression I get from your posts is that this new format is going through, whether we like it or not, and all you are looking for is the final touches to make it work. This may not be intended, but this is the impression I get. I think that myself and others have voiced enough in the way of concerns and dislikes of this idea that it would be fair to determine whether the community actually *want to adopt this system before we spend all of this time hammering out the minute details. I would very much encourage you to set up a community poll on this topic. Yes, I know that ultimately the decision is yours...but I think such a radical change should be something we all have a say in. I would be willing to guess that many of our members, new and old, have an opinion on this topic that has not been voiced. Not everyone keeps up with this thread. Please consider it.
TheMagister 05-04-06, 09:32 PM	A good idea.
MindWandererB 05-04-06, 11:40 PM	True. Perhaps a community vote poll? With an admonition in the first post to read the arguments before voting? Then everyone who wants to make an argument can do so in the poll thread. (@Cat: sorry, didn't mean to derail the argument. It was just an oddity I perceived. Your solution works well enough.) I will argue for NPC spellcasting services. NPC spellcasting makes for a nice compensation to opponent PC spellcasting--after all, most likely they'll be spending at least some of their spells on buffs, so you should get buffs of your own. The overpoweringly powerful spells (like Greater Invisibility) are counteracted by their short duration. Oh, and let me say, no Polymorphing. The NPC spellcaster has no Knowledge ranks. I think this represents a nice balance between free treasure drops and ones that count against your earnings. Free drops increase your total winnings, which I am somewhat against (although granting an extra gp/xp award for "Iron Men" isn't so bad), and you have incentive to pick the most valuable drops instead of the most useful ones--you'd never choose a Prot. Alignment potion when you could get a free Fly. Non-free drops aren't much incentive, plus you have to deduct them from your winnings. Drops in general are complicated--you need a wish list and the items have to meet several requirements (gp value, caster level). NPC services would be simple--you get, say, a total number of caster levels' worth of prebuffs per your ECL at the start of the second fight, and twice that number for your third fight (maximum CL for any one spell = your ECL) . No fuss, no muss. If you get multiple spells, they are cast in succession, so the duration of the earlier ones drops by a round per additional spell. And there isn't anyone who won't benefit from something. You may not make use of expendables (some people don't). You may not make use of prebuff rounds (again, some don't). But you can always use a free Invisibility, or an Enlarge Person, or a Barkskin, or a Bull's/Cat's/Bear's/Fox's/Owl's/Eagle's S/G/E/C/W/S, or something. The downside: it's extremely difficult to write tactics for this. Perhaps a wishlist would be in order--a list of three or four spells (or sets of spells, in the case of multiple low-level ones) on your character sheet to choose from, and you get to pick one. So for an ECL 5 character, you might have: 1) Fly [5] 2) Invisibility [3] & Enlarge Person [2] 3) Dissolving Weapon [3] & Mage Armor [1] & Reduce Person [1]. So the opponent wouldn't know your choices, but if you chose option 2, you'd get 29 rounds of Invis and 20 rounds of Enlarge. You couldn't mix and match the options (no Dissolving Weapon and Enlarge), unless it was your third fight, in which case you get two picks from the list. One final note on giving a bonus reward for winning two or all three fights in a row: this policy will cause casters who lose their first fight to go Nova on the second. No potential reward for conservation at that point.
SauroGrenom 05-05-06, 12:19 AM	...If we find a good way to balance week 1 vs week 3 fights, we are almost done. Sauro proposes a one item purchase between fights, I propose a treasure drop plus prebuff rounds, and we heard the proposal of allowing the Spellcasting Service to buff you a bit...The purchased item drawn from a "WishList" on the character sheet but chosen after parings allows some tactical flexibility tailored to the next opponent. A free item treasure drop has the potential to cause a wealth distortion with those who are winning earning extra money. If we grant prebuffing rounds, it again appears to benefit mostly the spellcasters who will have the greatest flexibility of things to prebuff with. Prebuffs could be very useful for hiding/sniping builds, and casters, but of limited use to melee types. At low-middle levels the fresh wizard will just cast see invisibility or dispel magic to negate any magical effects created in the prebuff rounds. The free spellcasting services have tremendous or negligible impact depending on how it is implemented. If you have a short list of services to buy, then it will be great at low ECL, and mostly useless at mid to high ECL when everyone has a counter to invisibility or most other low level spells. If we make a large long list of service or no limitations, then you need to write tactics vs the entire spell casting services list or the entire divine and arcane spell lists. I still favor the WishList idea, but we can expand it to include services on that list. The size of the list should be limited and I suggested that the number of things on the list be no greater than the character's ECL. So an advanced character will have more options, but it is not unlimited. Also acquiring something from the wishlist should cost money. Giving services or items away for free creates wealth problems. We can take another step in the right direction by offering some kind of carrot (reward) for winning the latter battles. This will have several useful effects. Say that we provide a reward for winning the 3rd battle, then a wizard won't go Nova for the 1st and 2nd battle unless they are willing to loose the nice reward at the end of the 3rd battle every time. Any smart player will conserve their spells and abilities so that they can win the last battle.
Erithmu 05-05-06, 12:54 AM	Something to put on the table: I recommend that the 'reward' (whatever it is) be based on the rewards gained from the prior fight. Maybe something with the same structure as the guild taxes system. I think that this would be an elegant solution as it would account for allies who require some usage of their abilities. This would also grant a bonus to the gladiator who fought multiple opponents and still won, but most likely in worse shape than someone who only fought one opponent. I am not sure what the base percentage would be, but It could probably be some form of sliding scale like guild taxes. Reasoning: Hunter, FFA, Team fights, Monster These fights normally require more of the gladiator's resources and should be rewarded accordingly. If the rewards were based upon a percentage of the rewards, then there wouldn't be a need for a listing of various things As for a final reward could an xp and gp reward be given, like some bonus % of the fights won. Similar to the old 'quest completion' bonus but not as extreme. This would not throw the xp/gp ratio out the window. Another option could be something along the idea that if a gladiator wins 3 battles he has won a following in the crowd and could pick his first opponent (Free of credit charge challenge) which is sort of a bonus as you know who you would be fighting. Similar to how they throw the fresh meat to the world champ sometimes just to see the champ in a fight. Sometimes the Champ will get a run for his/her money (Lortavos vs Harvey comes to mind for some reason) [/late night musings] PS: Bring on the 3 fight system. Bring on the day of Rogues and Fighters, and let them have their chance.
Pittbull 05-05-06, 03:46 PM	OK, here's my statement for three fights in a row: I'm certainly not against a change. Exspecially because it favors non-caster-builds in the long run. I would like to see a full healing after each fight for free and only short breaks between the fights (about one hour). We cannot balance out the fighter/caster difference completely, unless we deny buffing time. But inventing first round LoE as we had at the beginning of the CoCo, would be a step back in the evolution. I'm not sure about the wish-lists. I like the idea of being prepared for every eventuality in advance for three upcoming fights. The caster super-nova issue creates a new luck factor in the pairings, even a Harvester might fear a fresh mage from a newbie, even the best tactics might not be enough. All in all I'd like to see a poll too, it's important, what the majority wants, we should keep this democratically.
Caterane 05-05-06, 04:31 PM	One big Issue I do have is that this new system forces me to have my characters fight 3 times in a row in the arena. There is no option anymore to fight once, then go on a quest, return for another fight or two and then head out to do a guild operation. This also makes multiplayer quest next to impossible, because you have to be lucky to have two(or even more) characters that can "get out" of the arena at the same time. That is a valid concern and I'm glad you pointed that out but it can be solved pretty easily. A simple solution would be to use the sheet as it is. If you're in week 2 (ie 2 fights to go) and want to go questing, then you use your current spells for the first two quest weeks, and rememorize in week 3 which allows you to have all spells during that week. When the quest is done, you are back at week 2 in the arena. But anyway, even without this it is no problem. You can quest only once per level anyway. It is no real restriction if you have to plan a bit ahead. I don't see it as a big drawback to be allowed to full quest only once every 3 weeks. The downside: it's extremely difficult to write tactics for this. Perhaps a wishlist would be in order--a list of three or four spells (or sets of spells, in the case of multiple low-level ones) on your character sheet to choose from, and you get to pick one. It's no problem to write tactics against that because it will be listed under Prebuffs. You win a fight and write "Spellcasting Service: Invisibility" to your Prefight Action Section. No need for wishlists or something complicated. The purchased item drawn from a "WishList" on the character sheet but chosen after parings allows some tactical flexibility tailored to the next opponent. I don't like this idea. It would just increase the difficulty of writing tactics. We just made 2 rules to ease up tactics and now we go back to where we started? I know that if I would fight someone with a secret prebuff, I would note down all possible spells and write 20 contingencies before getting a bad surprise. In the end, the prebuffer go no advantage because I covered everything but I spent half of my day. In effect: secret prebuffs only bring advantages based on real life constraints, not tactical flexibility. Say that we provide a reward for winning the 3rd battle, then a wizard won't go Nova for the 1st and 2nd battle unless they are willing to loose the nice reward at the end of the 3rd battle every time. Any smart player will conserve their spells and abilities so that they can win the last battle. This addresses my major concern. The reward must be enough to make it worthwhile to safe your spells for week 3 so that you don't face wizards who cast 100% of their spells on week 1. What about a +25% bonus if you win? That's +225 gp at ECL 3. We also need a safety net for those who don't care about such a bonus reward and instead go nova from week 1 on if they lose. I just don't want to lose because I'm in week 3 and my opponent has 3x my spells. @ Cat: Allow me to be negative for a moment...since it seems that's what I am good at... The impression I get from your posts is that this new format is going through, whether we like it or not, and all you are looking for is the final touches to make it work. This may not be intended, but this is the impression I get. I think that myself and others have voiced enough in the way of concerns and dislikes of this idea that it would be fair to determine whether the community actually *want to adopt this system before we spend all of this time hammering out the minute details. I would very much encourage you to set up a community poll on this topic. Yes, I know that ultimately the decision is yours...but I think such a radical change should be something we all have a say in. I would be willing to guess that many of our members, new and old, have an opinion on this topic that has not been voiced. Not everyone keeps up with this thread. Please consider it. First of all, I have to say that there will be no community polls when it comes to new rules. We haven't voted on the guild system, nor undead, nor anything else. Asides from that being forbidden because of WotC Board Law (I've already been scolded for having a too democratic board) I am surely not basing such a decision on the opinions of new members who are around for 2 weeks and might leave next week. Still, I'm not oblivious to our member's opinion. I always open a new thread where we can discuss everything. If there's a strong opposition to the new proposal - like with the online roller - I will not decide over the heads of the majority. Here however, I see no real opposition to that proposal asides from your voice. And I can pay no heed to those who don't participate. You have voiced your concerns and they have been sufficiently answered by Sauro a page back, and no further critisism came from you after that. That said, you should know that I haven't decided anything. I would love to see our current system improved and Sauro has some very good ideas but unless all problems have been solved, we will not implement it. Remaining problems: Miniquests. Possible Solution: They can slip in between arena fights. We have to rule that the minimum EL is your ECL so that you can't go on a EL 1 miniquest to come out without spending ressources though. Multiplayer Quests. Possible Solution: You would have to wait indeed unless we do it as suggested above; that quests just proceed with your weekly schedule normally. This brings up another problem though: Multiplayer EL. It is hard to determine the appropriate EL if we go with the normal weekly fight routine through quests. Guild Operations. They oftentimes use different ELs because of District Defense Points which unbalances the Arena spell routine. If you have to fight someone 2 levels higher you end up with less ressources than someone in the arena at your level. If you do a covert ops and face a trap+monster you have faced more ELs than you would in the arena. Here, it doesn't even help to wait till you have fought 3 times in a row. Multiplayer Arena Fights (FFA, Hunter) On the one hand you fight more guys but on the other hand, you don't fight them alone. It is not easy to determine how much a FFA counts for. Spellcasting. This problem has been explained above and is imo the main problem. Bring on the 3 fight system. Bring on the day of Rogues and Fighters, and let them have their chance. I also hope that one day we will be afraid of a straight fighter as much as of a wizard. The caster super-nova issue creates a new luck factor in the pairings, even a Harvester might fear a fresh mage from a newbie, even the best tactics might not be enough. I couldn't have expressed it better.
barrel_master 05-05-06, 06:20 PM	Then if I may, I'd also like to add my voice to Nyquil's (for what that's worth) in opposition to some of these changes. The 3 fight system is, in my opinion, not neccessary and will take away some of the fun in the arena.
SauroGrenom 05-05-06, 06:50 PM	All the issues caused by quests are solved in one decision: A character cannot perform any other actions untill a day at the arena is over. Yea it may be limiting, but it's simple and avoids lots of complication and confusion. Make guild actions and miniquests an aside from the arena. Basicially treat them just as we do now only you are not eligable for these types of activity in the middle of a day at the arena. Hunter and FFA fights count for 1 fight/opponent defeated. So if you win the FFA, it counts for 3 fights won. If you loose 1st it counts for 1 fight lost. If you loose 2nd it counts for 2 fights lost... and so on. Cat, If you are looking for something that will always prevent a fresh wizard from using all their spells in the 1st battle, then there is no solution besides the 1/3 rule or selective pairrings to prevent this kind of matchup. It is impossible to make an undefeatable limit on a spell caster's power without using something like the 1/3 rule. If you cannot accept the possibility that one of your characters may loose because they are facing a fresh opponent who has 3x your spells and foolishly throws everything at you (and looses the next two battles), then this proposal will never be acceptable. We can provide all sorts of incentives to conserve spell power. Also we can do all sorts of things to bolster the "tired" character. We can provide spell casting services or treasure drop's or extra gold rewards or other tactical advantage to those players that have battled before the last rest. But none of those will prevent a wizard from saying, "I'll be the 1st to defeat the Harvester and I'll throw every spell on my spell list at him no matter what the loss to my rewards in the future." A central idea of this proposal is that a aplayer gets to decide how to spend their entire spell list and all their abilities. No outside limitations exist to restrict that. This makes it so it should be nearly impossible for a character to have a flawless win record. And the resources you use in every battle you are in needs to be balanced against your opponent's abilities and how many fights you have left. Under my system it would be nearly impossible for anyone to have a perfect record for long. Even 3 wins in a row will be a fantastic accomplishment. But 15 wins in a row should be basicially impossible. Everyone will have to face the possibility of going into a fight where your opponent has more resources than you do. Characters that "Go Nova" will suffer more losses in the long run but they will get that one win. The only two complete solutions for the "Nova" problem are the 1/3 rule and selective pairrings. Unlimited casters could I suppose go "Super Nova" by casting every spell. Right now we already have spell casters "Going Nova" to a lesser extent. The reason the Harvester wins every battle is because he has the ability to cast every spell on the arcane spell list and every spell on the cleric spell list and he has allies and potent melee prowess. Although he doesn't cast every memorized spell, he casts all the right spells in every battle. If I were to get paired with the Harvester I'd think that it realy sucks that he always has the best spells to defeat me. He doesn't need to cast every spell on his memorized list. Just the correct ones are enough to beat my characters every time. I never get to be paired against him at a time when he doesn't have all those best spells memorized. Let me put this another way. Very few if any battles will ever be long enough for any caster to use all of their memorized spells. It doesn't matter how many spells you have. What matters is which spells you have. If you absolutely require that it be impossible for a tired character to be blown away by an opponent who has full spells memorized and uses all those spells, then you need to restore all spells of the tired character or limit the casting power of the fresh character or not allow such pairrings to take place. What we can do is make "Going Nova" a bad idea. I can imagine all sorts of strange rules, but all those will complicate things. The simplest way to make going nova a bad idea is to force the 3 battles win or loose. If that is not enough, then loosing out on a reward for winning 2 or 3 battles should be another step in the right direction. If that is not enough, then some kind of tactical reward for the 2nd or 3rd battle may be good. If that is not enough, then I don't know what else we can do. But keep in mind that all these are incentives to make going nova a bad idea, but none of them prevent the tactic. Nothing will prevent the tactic except selective pairrings or the 1/3 rule.
Caterane 05-05-06, 07:05 PM	And miniquests? Will they be using the 1/3 rule? There also remains the issue with Guild Operations.
Traevanon 05-05-06, 08:16 PM	It would seem that a 3 fight format would balance *toward* casters rather than away from them. I can think of many ways a caster will benefit from this, but only few that a non-caster would. It certainly cant hurt them, all they need to do is write in their tactics: "Under no circumstances use more than 1/3 of my slots" Writing that in they will have 1/3 or better to use in their final match, with no loss from what they have now. Of course 1/day abilities get balanced by this rule, which is a huge advantage, but arent non-fighter non-casters (monks, barbs, rogues) generally the ones with the most 1/day abilities? Then there are scrolls and potions which arent touched at all by this format, except that if something gets used they cant go out and immediately replace it (or can they?). This will just cause people to stock 2 or 3 of their favorites instead of one. Lastly buffs can last through more than one fight more easily, which would seem to balance in favor of casters. Am I missing something? For what its worth I am against a poll. I just want to be heard and hopefully make sense. Edit: Okay, good point. Sold. I think its solid enough to give it a shot.
Caterane 05-05-06, 08:41 PM	@Traevanon: Sauro has a good answer to your concern: [...]Although he doesn't cast every memorized spell, he casts all the right spells in every battle. If I were to get paired with the Harvester I'd think that it realy sucks that he always has the best spells to defeat me. He doesn't need to cast every spell on his memorized list. Just the correct ones are enough to beat my characters every time. I never get to be paired against him at a time when he doesn't have all those best spells memorized. And buying three times the number of potions will be impossible because we make a new rule that limits your max expendables to ECL²*50. This removes the flexibility casters have now, and flexibility is what wins you matches.
MindWandererB 05-05-06, 08:54 PM	Guild stuff is my biggest concern at this point. A one-week MQ or offensive guild action can just fit into the 3-week period. The problem is with defensive guild actions. If your character is attacked, does it count as an extra fight for them (so they do two fights and defend themselves before resting)? That might be the best way. Balance is an issue, though--a guild member who goes nova on their offensive action, particularly against a tired opponent, is gaining an advantage for not only themselves but the guild, and while the character pays the price by being out of spells for the next two fights, the guild is in no way penalized. Other than using the 1/3 rule for guild actions, I can't think of any solution at the moment. FFAs are also a problem. Because winning an FFA is so lucrative, it's worth it, rewards-wise, to use up most if not all of your resources. Take ECL 3: winning a 4-way FFA and losing twice nets you 2400 XP, whereas losing the FFA and winning both of the other matches gets you 2100 XP. And all it takes is one nova-er in an FFA to make the fight unfair for everyone. Also keep in mind that winning an FFA is statistically unlikely--someone who's being a good little boy and using only about a third of their resources per fight, and winning, is going to hate life when their third fight is an FFA, and they have a miniscule chance of winning (especially considering the risk of an enemy nova). That's penalizing them for no good reason. Unless someone has a better idea, it is possible to retain the 1/3 rule for these special cases. If you're in an FFA or guild action, you are in only one fight before resting, but the 1/3 rule applies. It's not really fair or reasonable to place FFA's in the middle of a 3-week series under this rule (since you can't plan for them), but it would be possible to do guild actions this way. It's a clunky solution, but it's better than just treating these like any other fights. Miniquests could also use the 1/3 rule. Consider this: if we have to use the 1/3 rule for even one type of situation, we might as well use it for several. I dislike SauroG's solutions. Guild activities will be in serious trouble if the character you were planning on using isn't available when you need them. Miniquests could also be a problem--say you're planning on MQing to become an assassin or warmind, and then you win three fights in a row... you could end up leveling before you're ready to do so. Of course, making FFAs count as multiple fights reduces the chances of this happening, but it's still possible if you miscalculate a bit. The other problem with the FFA=multiple fights is that it's obviosuly unfair to those on their last week--what good does it do them to have it count as extra fights, when they're on their last one anyway? Your opponent blows all their spells, comes in first, and gets to rest right away, and you never had a prayer.
SoulLord 05-06-06, 10:42 AM	Solved Topics * Allies Solved allies must be pre-buffed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8958435&postcount=241) affective april 19 * Ban the Magic Domain Solved Won't happen (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8910242&postcount=205) * Polymorph Solved effective april 19th (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8908815&postcount=189) * Metamorphosis Solved uses same ruling as polymorph (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8964735&postcount=246) effective april 19th * Guild: Covert Operations Solved Changed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9025958&postcount=266) * Challenge matches Solved you can set special circumstances if both parties agree (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9029941&postcount=274) effective may 3rd * Wild Shape SolvedWildshape (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9029941&postcount=274) is excluded from all rules affecting polymorph except for size stacking effective may 3rd * Equipment at Home Solved Equipment need not be prebuffed with but anything not listed in a special "At Home" section will be brought into the fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9049135&postcount=282) Unconcluded Topics * Reliance on expendables * Belt Slots * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters. * rules for inter-league matches * Frozen Characters
SauroGrenom 05-07-06, 11:08 PM	I think of the guilds as an add-on to the Arena. So we should be able to make guilds work in just about any type of arena environment. If we allow guild actions to take place in the middle of a day at the Arena and count as an Arena fight, it introduces potentially unbalancing effects on both the Arena fights and the mini-quest of the guild action. We all know that mini-quest and guild actions are going to be easier than a typical arena battle. Characters that use these types of actions could gain an advantage in further arena battles if they secure an easy win. So I think we should just treat mini-quests largely as we do now. They are an asside type of action initiated at times that the character is not otherwise occupied. You cannot mini-quest in the middle of a quest or day at the arena. Yes this limits when characters can be used for guild actions. But we were already discussing things to limit guild actions. Also this forces guild members and guildmasters to plan a head and make sure that the desired opperatives are available for the guild actions. That isn't a terribly restrictive requirement untill we start talking about preforming and defending against assault actions. Assault actions where characters are actually involved on either side will be a bit more difficult to deal with. Since some guildmembers may be away on a quest or in the middle of a day at the arena, they would be unavailable to participate in any action that is a mini-quest. I propose that these assault acitons be performed as team battles in a typical arena day. If we can devise acceptable rules to govern team fights, then it should be fair to use those same rules to govern these assault actions involving characters. Yes if a character "Goes Nova" he is winning for his guild as well as his character. However, the same state exists for both sides, and characters that do this will be loosing further fights in the day at the arena. The loss of income from those lost fights later in the day will hurt their guild as well. Who knows, maybe the attacking guild in week 1 will be counter-attacked in week 3 when all there characters are tired. Miniquests could also be a problem--say you're planning on MQing to become an assassin or warmind, and then you win three fights in a row... you could end up leveling before you're ready to do so. Of course, making FFAs count as multiple fights reduces the chances of this happening, but it's still possible if you miscalculate a bit.GM's often allow a player to delay leveling so that they are able to do things like quest/adventure to gain access to a prestige class. I don't think our GM would have a problem allowing a character to quest or mini-quest to gain access to a prestige class before updating their class levels to reflect there current xp level. If our GM were very-very strict about this kind of thing, then you are correct it could be a problem. However I don't think we are in that situation. My proposal for FFA fights may not be perfect. I'll give it more thought and see if I can come up with something better.
MindWandererB 05-08-06, 12:34 AM	We all know that mini-quest and guild actions are going to be easier than a typical arena battle.Miniquests now usually have an ECL equal to the character's ECL. That's not always easy. And guild actions come in several flavors. Covert ops may be easy or difficult depending on the other guild's defenses, but in any event they don't use up any resources (unless they have to go through a dungeon). Assault operations are liable to be hard--your opponent has a minimum ECL equal to your own, possibly several higher. However, you still have the option, if you plan it right, of attacking a tired character with a fresh one. Keep in mind that the attacker gets to choose the fight conditions, and are unlikely to put themselves at a disadvantage. I don't think our GM would have a problem allowing a character to quest or mini-quest to gain access to a prestige class before updating their class levels to reflect there current xp level. If our GM were very-very strict about this kind of thing, then you are correct it could be a problem. However I don't think we are in that situation. The current ruling is that you may not delay leveling under any circumstances. However, Cat may of course choose to be lenient--and if the character immediately undertakes the MQ, it doesn't really matter because they're not in a league battle. There is a very small potential for abuse (since a character at the end of a level has more treasure than a character at the beginning of one), but I don't see it as a problem.
Caterane 05-08-06, 06:54 AM	Defensive Assault Operations are a problem for this new proposal. Guild Members must always be available to defend their guild. They can do that even if they fight in the arena. And it is possible that guildmasters run such a defender if the player of the character has no time to defend the guild. This is currently no problem because characters are always in a 'ready and rested' state. The 1/3 rule makes sure that guildmasters don't expend all spells in such a defensive battle. With the new proposal, it can be expected that the guildmaster who runs such a character spends all the characters spells if he runs him. Or if the player runs his character, he might not use up any spells at all, which gives him an advantage in his next arena fight (at the cost for his guild). After all, guild operation losses don't appear as losses on the roster; you'll just see a [G]. Offensive Assaults, Covert Ops, Miniquests, Inter-League fights and Multiplayer Fights are also not 100% solved. And there remains my main concern that a wizard goes nova in week 1. Incentives, Treasure drops, prebuff rounds, spellcasting service and such things create a lot more artificial rules. But I found the solution to all our problems. :lightbulb Instead of coming up with a bunch of new rules and incentives to hope spellcasters will not fry you on week 1, or putting restrictions on miniquests and operations, we just have to put Sauro's proposal atop our current one. Concretely: We keep the 1/3 rule as it is. You may not spend more than 1/3 of your spells (measured in spell levels). If a spell is cast in a fight, it is marked off and is not available until you have fought three times. This also applies to x/d abilities. If you have used Rage in week 1, you cannot rage again in week 2 or 3 unless you can rage more than once a day. Will we finally see a barbarian past lvl 2??? :eek: No need for a treasure drop, free prebuff rounds, or any other artificial rules that are supposed to even out the handicap. It also solves the problem with miniquests and operations: You can only miniquest or operate at the end of week 3 of your routine. Then, if you go on a mini or ops, you just use the 1/3 rule normally as we do it now. After the miniquest, you begin your arena day normally on week 1 fully rested. Same for Operations. For Defensive Operations, we will have an interesting effect! If your guild is under attack, any guild member can be assigned for the defense, just as it is now. What is different is that you use the current version of the character sheet and apply the 1/3 rule normally. Spells and Abilities already used in previous weeks are not available for this defensive battle. However, the character will not really use up any additional spells and abilities in this defensive battle. Example: The Harvester - Member of the Soulreaver Guild (SRG) - is in week 2 of the arena routine. His current spell list looks like that: Memorized Spells [Spell Levels: 10; Use: 4] 1: Entropic shield, Bless, Doom, Bane 2: Blindness, Bulls strength, Aid The SRG is now under attack from the West Habari Trading Company and the Harvester is assigned to defend his guild. He can now cast 4 Spell Levels worth of spells in this battle (1/3 rule applies normally) but he cannot cast Entropic shield or Bulls strength since these spells were used up in week 1 of his arena fight. The Harvester just shrugs, casts Doom and Blindness on the WHTC operator and defeats him, so that the SRG successfully defends against the assault. Next week, the Harvester continues to fight in the arena in week 3. He still has blindness and doom available because these spells were cast on a defensive guild operation and do not count against his arena routine. That means, that characters who are in week 1 have a wider repertoire than characters in week 3 for such defensive battles. This creates the nice side effect that a guildmaster might choose a fresh character instead of a Great Renown PC in week 3. And this version can be started without any problems. The coco system will be the same with just a slight addition that you use up spells; something we should have done from the beginning on.
TheMagister 05-08-06, 07:20 AM	Well, now it seems that we're considering adding more house rules on top of house rules instead of replacing old rules with new. More complicated isn't better, IMHO. Not saying that the mix of ideas doesn't have merit, though. It's just more complication. TM
Traevanon 05-08-06, 07:39 AM	Nevermind...
Macbrea 05-08-06, 09:22 AM	Solved Topics * Reliance on expendables Solved max expendables to ECL²*50. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9100477&postcount=345) Mind defining what an expendable is? My definition of an expendable is much different then yours I am betting. Do you include wands, rods (with charges), staves, Wonderous items with charges, Alchemical items, Arrows, Potions, Powerstones, Tattoos, and anything else that is gone from the sheet that is used? If so, then 3rd level characters can very quickly reach the 450gp limit. And noone can own a wand containing a 3rd level spell before 15th level.
Caterane 05-08-06, 11:17 AM	Soullord misunderstood me. That wasn't an official ruling but a response to Traevanon's concern. We're still in the middle of the discussion. @TM: You know that the current version that allows 1/d abilities in every battle, and that allows you to have every memorized spell in every battle needs to be fixed. If you have a better idea, please tell us.
SoulLord 05-08-06, 11:27 AM	Oops I'll edit the last solved/pending post then.
Abyssal Stalker 05-08-06, 11:43 AM	Defensive Assault Operations are a problem for this new proposal. Guild Members must always be available to defend their guild. They can do that even if they fight in the arena. And it is possible that guildmasters run such a defender if the player of the character has no time to defend the guild. This is currently no problem because characters are always in a 'ready and rested' state. The 1/3 rule makes sure that guildmasters don't expend all spells in such a defensive battle. With the new proposal, it can be expected that the guildmaster who runs such a character spends all the characters spells if he runs him. Or if the player runs his character, he might not use up any spells at all, which gives him an advantage in his next arena fight (at the cost for his guild). After all, guild operation losses don't appear as losses on the roster; you'll just see a [G]. Offensive Assaults, Covert Ops, Miniquests, Inter-League fights and Multiplayer Fights are also not 100% solved. And there remains my main concern that a wizard goes nova in week 1. Incentives, Treasure drops, prebuff rounds, spellcasting service and such things create a lot more artificial rules. But I found the solution to all our problems. :lightbulb Instead of coming up with a bunch of new rules and incentives to hope spellcasters will not fry you on week 1, or putting restrictions on miniquests and operations, we just have to put Sauro's proposal atop our current one. Concretely: We keep the 1/3 rule as it is. You may not spend more than 1/3 of your spells (measured in spell levels). If a spell is cast in a fight, it is marked off and is not available until you have fought three times. This also applies to x/d abilities. If you have used Rage in week 1, you cannot rage again in week 2 or 3 unless you can rage more than once a day. Will we finally see a barbarian past lvl 2??? :eek: No need for a treasure drop, free prebuff rounds, or any other artificial rules that are supposed to even out the handicap. It also solves the problem with miniquests and operations: You can only miniquest or operate at the end of week 3 of your routine. Then, if you go on a mini or ops, you just use the 1/3 rule normally as we do it now. After the miniquest, you begin your arena day normally on week 1 fully rested. Same for Operations. For Defensive Operations, we will have an interesting effect! If your guild is under attack, any guild member can be assigned for the defense, just as it is now. What is different is that you use the current version of the character sheet and apply the 1/3 rule normally. Spells and Abilities already used in previous weeks are not available for this defensive battle. However, the character will not really use up any additional spells and abilities in this defensive battle. I'd hope that there could be another solution to these problems. I mean, this spoils the thing I liked SauroGrenom's idea: the flexibility. I liked the idea that if I met a difficult foe, I could balance things by using more of my spells and hope for the best in the next fight. Now I'm just stuck with the spells that suck in the last fight. On the other hand: what if I don't use any spells at all in the first fight? It would feel fair if I could use those spells that I saved in the following two. I'm sorry but this suggestion feels like a big hand coming down holding a huge stamp saying "NO FLEXIBILITY". I don't feel it's really that bad to get paired a nova-berserker-sorcerer. Next week I might get paired against a burned out has-been-sorcerer! Things like this happen in our current system already - you never know when you get paired against the Harvester! I'm sorry that I can't at the moment come up with a better idea. I need to think about this.
lonewolf 05-08-06, 12:14 PM	I agree with Abyssal Stalker. Taking away the flexibility which is IMHO the biggest advantage of the new systemis not a good idea. It will balance itself out eventually. Actually I dont even think that these Treasure drops, prebuff rounds, etc are really necessary, and they would make the game more complicated without beeing an optional rule.
Caterane 05-08-06, 12:44 PM	Guys, the flexibility you talk about is an artificial coco construct that does not appear in a real game. If you have cast your only fly spell in the first fight against the Dire Tiger, you don't have it available in the next fight against the Harpy Archer. You request something that the game designers don't allow. @Abyssal: The advantage of saving spells in the first fight is that you have more to choose from in the next one. Here's a compromise: We use the 1/3 rule backward. In week 1, you can cast 1/3 of your spells ie until you have expended 33% of your daily allotment. Any spell level not used up in week 1 can be added to the 1/3 of week 2. Any spell level not used up in week 1 and 2, can be cast in week 3. Example: Spells Memorized [Spell-Levels: 12; Available: 4] 1: Entropic shield, Bless, Doom, Bane 2: Blindness, Aid, Bulls strength, Spiritual weapon Week 1: The PC has 4 Spell levels available. He casts Doom (1 SL) and Bane (1 SL) in his fight and wins thereafter. He has spent 2 of his 4 SL. Week 2: The PC adds the unused SL of week 1 which sums up to 6 SL. Doom and Bane are not available anymore because they were cast in week 1. The PC casts Blindness (2 SL) and Entropic shield (1 SL) in this fight. He has spent 3 of his 6 SL. Week 3: Since it is week 3, the PC can now cast any spell he has left. No need to track SL in week 3. He can cast Bless, Aid, Bulls, and Spiritual weapon because they're still available. If you still want to track SLs, it sums up to 7. Fits. Here, you have your flexibility. You can cast any spell you want. It uses Sauro's proposal and at the same time prevents you from expending all your spells to gain an unfair advantage against someone who's exhausted. It doesn't matter if it evens out by you losing the next week without spells; the one who was blasted away by meeting all your daily spells got the shaft and it doesn't bring him any good if you lose the week thereafter. That's imo the best and especially easiest way to implement Sauro's proposal. The only thing you have to do is to mark off your spells after week 1 and 2. Rest stays the same as it is now. Looks like we win a lot for a very small price.
SoulLord 05-08-06, 01:11 PM	If we go this way I would have to say that we need to limit the free healing otherwise you are punishing casters while allowing fighter classes to be fully restored after each fight. for the healing I would propose that one is healed his level in hit points after each fight and cured of all negative effects suffered in battle. also I was looking forward to the removal of the 1/3 rule.
MindWandererB 05-08-06, 02:17 PM	I don't agree with limiting free healing. It penalizes anyone who cannot use a CLW wand unduly, since a CLW wand is extremely cheap healing. Instead of everyone taking a 1-level dip into barbarian, everyone will take a 1-level dip into ranger. It will be almost mandatory to at least dip into a class that allows CLW wands, and everyone will have to have one. The current proposal (reverse 1/3 rule) doesn't solve anything except immediate gratification. Casters can still use a nova strategy--they just have to do it on the second and/or third fight instead of the first. Granted, it changes the "incentive to save your spells" issue to a whole new ball game--suddenly it becomes "incentive to [u]use[/i] your spells!" I'm glad Cat thought of this, though--imagine if someone noticed this strategy later on. You essentially forfeit your first match by casting nothing. Second and third fights, you get a prebuff/spellcasting service/treasure drop and cast half your spells. That would be grossly unfair. The only way to correct this that I can think of is to apply the 1/3 rule the way Cat described it a few posts ago, where if you don't spend your spells, you still don't get to exceed your alotment later. There's no other way I can think of to distinguish between a caster who just gave up on their first fight, to save spells, and one that actually tried but lost. A bonus for winning two or three fights in a series doesn't help--if you only give the bonus for winning all three, then you demoralize the person who loses the first one, and if you give a bonus for winning just two, then the tactic described here will net you that bonus. Treasure drops and other bonuses provided in the later rounds actually make it worse. @lonewolf & Abyssal: You like the idea of flexibility, but that's exactly what we have to prevent. If a caster has the flexibility you praise, they have the nova option which we're trying to prevent. There's no compromise and no way around it. Either you allow the tactic--which, IMO, would be no fun for anyone (nothing will allow you to beat a nova caster except another nova caster, and nothing will lose to a used-up caster except another used-up caster)--or you nerf it with a 1/3 rule.
SauroGrenom 05-08-06, 03:45 PM	Cat's proposal a couple posts back can be restated as a 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 upper limit on uses of abilities and spells that changes with the number of fights you have had so far. So you have a 1/3 limit on the 1st fight and a 2/3 limit on the second and so forth... It's actually a very simple idea to impliment and avoids lots of potential "problems". One thing is that it would make it easy to allow mini-quests in the middle of a day at the arena. Interesting enough it creates a possibility for a reverse nova tactic. This is where you rely on scrolls and very conservative spell casting in the 1st and 2nd fights so that you can go into the last fight with a large number of spells/abilities remaining then unleash them all. If rewards (xp/gp) and purchasing are done at the end of the week, it will contain the resource management element that I was striving to include in my proposal. I give it a thumbs up.
SoulLord 05-08-06, 03:49 PM	I disagree this whole chain of thought was to get rid of the 1/3 rule now. if we don't get rid of it then there's no reason to change. what would the state of a regular party be after an encounter. the fighters would have likely been injured the casters would have likely used up some of their spells. if you just limit the spells and not the healing then your are unfairly nerfing the caster types. perhaps we can do a test run with the 1/3 rule in place and without it.
MindWandererB 05-08-06, 04:49 PM	what would the state of a regular party be after an encounter. the fighters would have likely been injured the casters would have likely used up some of their spells.Let me correct that for you: the fighters would have likely been injured by a couple of hit points the casters would have likely used up some of their spells and a few charges from a CLW wand to heal the fighters. Edit: I just came to an epiphany about the 1/3 rule. We have to have it. Here's why: In a P&P game, you have to be somewhat conservative, because you can die. If you screw up, even though the challenge is less than your typical CoCo fight, the penalty is severe--a level lost, or Constitution, or a TPK. In the CoCo, however, you know that no matetr what, you keep going. So your strategy in the CoCo can involve a certain amount of losing. You don't have to play to win every fight--in fact, you probably won't. That's a huge difference beween CoCo and P&P--in the CoCo you can cut your losses and accept defeat, where every fight in P&P is do-or-die. On the other hand, if, in a P&P game, your first fight of the day was against an extremely touch opponent, you would blow all your spells, then go home and rest. If I were in a solo game and my opponent was an NPC of the same level as me, I'd go all out. But time has shown us that this makes the CoCo unfair in the favor of casters. (Which makes me wonder--has anyone ever been in or run a P&P encounter against one or more NPC casters with an ECL similar to that of the party? How did it go?) This is an insurmountable difference, and I think the only way to prevent it is with a 1/3 rule in some form. Otherwise lose-and-nova tactics are possible, which is more dissimilar to P&P than the artificial 1/3 rule is.
SoulLord 05-08-06, 05:17 PM	Well usually in my experience with most of my DM's, when a battle ensues people get hurt I don't recall many ocasions where our fighters or the rest of the party for that matter were only dealt a couple of hit points of damage. but then again it shows how different our respective dm's can be.
MindWandererB 05-08-06, 05:22 PM	Well usually in my experience with most of my DM's, when a battle ensues people get hurt I don't recall many ocasions where our fighters or the rest of the party for that matter were only dealt a couple of hit points of damage. but then again it shows how different our respective dm's can be.You miss my point. Sure, the fighters get hurt, but then the casters use a bunch of CLW charges on them to bring them back up.
SoulLord 05-08-06, 05:35 PM	True but in that situation. you have fighters and other party members to fight your enemies while you save your spells. you might not wish to waste a fireball on a couple of bobolds if you have a fighter with you that can dispatch them with ease. but in the CoCo setting each battle is like a final encounter where you have to throw everything you have. first you would remove the wizard flexibility by using the 1/3 rule and then by sending him along in a 3 run encounter. then you grant full and complete healing to everyone. It seems to me that the situation is stacking against casters. As much as I hate this; here is an alternative that I dislike a little less. keep the 1/3 rule but make each character memorize as well only 1/3 of the spells but forget about the 3 week run. Or keep the 3 week run but allow the casters their full allotment of spells to be used as they wish.
lonewolf 05-08-06, 06:20 PM	I dont see why we should prevent someone from using the "nova tactic". It is my honest opinion that it will regulate itself so that smart players will use only as less spells as necessary to win the fight, maybe even try to use less spells than 1/3 on the first fight if possible, to have more spells available on later fights. Imagine your caster uses all his spells in the first fight and loses to a lucky crit for example. Then you would have two more weeks with sure losses. That would be annoying, right? IMHO going nova is a bad tactic, and there is no reason to forbid it. The only exception I see are FFA battles with higher potential rewards.
NiQil 05-08-06, 09:40 PM	Alright...let me preface this by saying that this is not intended to bash or belittle anyone's thoughts or opinions that have been stated to this point... I gotta ask...exactly what is Sauro's proposal supposed to be solving once again? This topic has gone down so many avenues that I wonder if anyone really knows. And it seems that we are really in the same place we were when we started. It seemed that one of the big plusses of Sauro's proposal was getting rid of the 1/3 rule. Now we are talking about using along with his proposal. Wouldn't that be kinda redundant? Another was to help squelch the use of expendables. Sauro came up with that nifty little ECL formula to limit the total expendables a player has (but we still need to define what is considered an expendable)....but that formula is something that can easily be instituted using the system we have in place now, irregardless of whatever else is decided. I guess I am just kinda confused at this point. I am still not a supporter of this proposal, but now it seems like the discussion has gone so far afield that finding a solution to the problems the proposal has is going to require more house rules and more work than just leaving well enough alone and sticking with what we have and finding other solutions to our problems. It seems like the way the discussion is now headed, there is no point to have a 3-battle day if we are still going to have the 1/3 rule in place at the same time. Am I the only one who that makes no sense to? Maybe I am...I dunno. Negatively speaking, as always...
Traevanon 05-09-06, 09:01 AM	Sauro's proposal, and Cat's modification of it are to take care of balance issues. Eliminating the 1/3 rule is a separate topic. I am defending house rules. House rules are healthy and unavoidable. For example, just choosing "Core Only" is a house rule and limits the applicability of the builds that leave here. Using "Rules of the Game" to interpret the rules is a house rule. Including errata, the FaQ and not including advice from Customer Service are house rules. Making characters fight other characters rather than monsters is a house rule. Matching them up by ECL rather than having level 20s beat up on level 1s is a house rule. How much treasure and experience we get is a house rule. Writing tactics and having a Pitlord run the match is a house rule. And the 1/3 rule is a house rule. House rules arent bad.I think we have to remember what the CoCo's purpose is. Is it the ultimate test of your "Core only" optimization skills? Is it a test of a particular character's value as a party member in a simulated dungeon situation as compared to others? Is it a game? Is it a test of solo worthiness? If its all these (as I believe it is intended to be) it cant be all these things at once. As a test of optimization skills, it begins to fail the more house rules and restrictions you place on it, but, then again, any test of the rules themselves is eventually going to end because we will actually discover what we set out to discover. As a dungeon simulation or solo simulation it fails because the terrain, range, conditions, opponents, allies, tactics and awareness are unlike what you would find in a dungeon. As a game anything goes, but a simple game has no purpose except to entertain. We can reach for more than this. Ultimately I see it as similar to an automobile race or a demolition derby. Options and equipment are limited, qualities of similar auto and driver are matched, everyone starts on an even playing field, and there is a definate finish. However, an auto race will never be an accurate simulation of real driving conditions, and real cars (even performance vehicles) are far different from racing cars.
SauroGrenom 05-09-06, 10:40 AM	NiQil, The central idea of my proposal is to introduce the game element of resource management that is present in a typical game and is a potent regulator of the power of prepared casters. What a wizard memorizes and when he casts those spells are important decisions for a prepared caster, and making those decisions well is what makes or breaks a prepared caster build who faces more than one fight a day. Without this challange to balance the advantages of a prepared caster, then there is little reason to be a sorcerer or other spontanious caster. Also every battle you face is when these prepared casters are at there peak of ability, and they dominate in the arena. My idea for an actual 3 fights between rests and resupply only after 3 fights was how I thought we could introduce this resource management game element. As the discussion developed over the last 4 pages of this thread, it became clear that some people (Cat included) are very concerend with fareness. For these people the chances of winning the last fight of the day must be about your own character's abilities not how well rested your opponent is. Thus the whole digression about "Nova" tactics. Cat considers it unacceptable to have the possibility of taking a loss because his opponent "goes nova". The negative aspects of this tactic are enjoyed by other players who battle that foe in the same "day" at the arena (after most spells are spent), and Cat's character bears the brunt of the "nova" tactic while not recieving the advantages that other players recieve when fighting this character after all his spells are spent. After discussing many possibilities, it has become clear that there is no incentive program we can use to make "Going Nova" impossible. Only something like the 1/3 rule is able to do that. I would very much like to see the 1/3 rule die. But more so I'd like to see the resource management challanges that are intended to balance the diversity of prepared spell caster power be introduced into CoCo. If we made such a change alone, we would only force casters to use more scrolls and powerstones to achieve the same spell casting power (yes they do spend some gp on this, but it is not a big enough problem to prevent rampant scroll use). So we will also need to place some kind of limits on the quantity and potency of scrolls and stones that a caster can buy. I proposed the 50xECL2 limit on total scrolls and powerstones. Also I think it is reasonable to place a caster level limit on scrolls and stole equal to the character's Caster Level +2. Thus preventing 1st-5th level magic domain clerics from having fly scrolls and all the spell casting power of a 5th level wizard. I think we have general agreement that some kind of scroll/stone limit needs to be put in place. We haven't finalized what that will be yet, but something will be done about that. Also I think that almost every post in the last few days have been trying to work on a way to get resource management into CoCo while preserving fareness in all battles. Where to go from here is not totally clear. Since fareness is absolutely required by our GM, we cannot ditch the 1/3 rule as I had hoped we could. So one of the major incentives/simplifications for my proposal is lost. However I still think it is worth working on a way to introduce resource management challanges into CoCo's Arena combat. How else would you suggest we balance the obvious advantages recieved by 1/day abilities, 1/day items and prepared spell lists in our current 1/3 rule? Sauro
SoulLord 05-09-06, 11:03 AM	Sauro's proposal, and Cat's modification of it are to take care of balance issues. Eliminating the 1/3 rule is a separate topic. Sauro's Original proposal which I supported took out the artificial 1/3 rule. If you add the 1/3 rule to Saurols proposal you are stacking the field considerably against spell casters. that would only cause wizards to buy as many wands and scrolls as possible which would not help in the limiting expendables topic we also have. As for the 1/day abilities I'd rather keep them as they are, compared to the modified Sauro's proposal. Going "nova" on fight 1 will only cause a wiz to lose his next two fights and even then there is no gurantee that a wizard going nova will win.
SauroGrenom 05-09-06, 11:21 AM	Going "nova" on fight 1 will only cause a wiz to lose his next two fights and even then there is no gurantee that a wizard going nova will win.You are still thinking of this from the perspective of the wizard. Flip it around and think of it from the other side. The whole point of the fareness argument is that the person who is victim to the "nova" is not around to kick that stupid wizard's ass when the wizard is in the next two fights. So yes a Nova is probably bad for the wizard, and it's also bad for his opponent. We don't care that it sucks for the player of the wizard when his character looses his next two fights. We are now talking about the fareness to the poor character who is blown away by the Nova. He doesn't get to reap the rewards of his opponent's stupid tactic. Other players get to do that. Infact you can imagine a chain reaction of Nova's going off everywhere. Say wizard 1 goes nova... In his 2nd fight he gets beat by cleric 1 using no spells to slay him... Cleric 1 now has extra spells to "Go Nova" on his 2nd foe... and so on... This could easily get out of hand where every other fight has no spells to be tossed, and the other half is where way too many spells are flying around. How do you put a lid on it? Also we need to do something to put a limit on casters. As I said a while back right now every single one of the "Great Renown" characters is a caster. None of the "Great Renown" characters is a pure non spell casting class. That fact alone tells me that we are now way stacked in favor of casters. Something needs to be done to swing it a bit the other way. What do you suggest?
SoulLord 05-09-06, 11:35 AM	All great renown characters are full casters? lets see (not taking into account the frozen leagues) Alagar, brother of Angosh: Barbarian 1/Psychic Warrior 2/Fighter 1/Kineticist 1 LA+1 EL6 THE HARVESTER: Cle5/Psw1 Aerryl Nalladar: 7 Druid Sliver Firebug: Sorcerer 3 (pixie) Nexa: monk2 druid 5 Gaston Dar'ath: [Kineticist] 7 Leif Goldeneye: Sorcerer 7/Aasimar 1 Barthleby: Cleric 8, LA 1 breakdown by class lvl Cleric 13 Druid 12 sorcerer 10 kineticist 7 psw 3 barbarian 1 fighter 1 The class who would be affected the most by the changes (wizard) does not even make the list of the great renown gladiators
Abyssal Stalker 05-09-06, 11:45 AM	I started to think how often spellcasters would go nova. It might be that not too often. There are many fights where spellcasters count on their first and most powerful attack. Then the dice decides if the caster wins. Many times the opponent gets to react and does something equally awful to the caster, prventing the caster from doing nothing more. What I'm trying to say is: There is a limit on how much you can do in one round! After that it's the opponent's turn. For example: A caster who relies on invisibility usually has a powerful spell that she uses to eliminate her opponent. If she had to fight three weeks in a row, it would mean that she had to have three invisibilities memorized and three scorching rays. She probably wouldn't use all of them in one fight. She goes invisible, sneaks close and torches. But the rolls are lousy and the fighter now sees her. The fighter comes and grapples and there goes the caster. There are multiple examples of this kind of builds. Usually they rely on several rounds buffing and then strike. Think about this kind of one-trick-ponies and what would their spell list contain? Is there a reasonable chance to go nova? Maybe sometimes, but would it be too often? My bet is that it won't be every second fight, more like two or three per week. Is this too bad?
SauroGrenom 05-09-06, 12:11 PM	All great renown characters are full casters? lets see (not taking into account the frozen leagues)Please re-read my post for what it actually says not what you want it to say. I didn't say that all "Great Renown" gladiators are full casters. They are all casters of some sort with at least 1 level in a casting or manifesting class. They all have access to scrolls or powerstones or both. This trend remains true even in the frozen leagues. None are pure members of a non casting/manfesting class. That is the point. You would think that at least 1 single class Barbarian or Fighter or Monk or Rogue or SoulKnife would make it to the "Great Renonw" status if the CoCo was balanced. In fact if you look at your list and expand it to include all "Great Renown" gladiators in fozen leagues you will find that the only single class gladiators who are on the list are members of a full casting class such as wizard, druid, sorcerer, psion, cleric or psiwarrior. There are no single class bards, rangers or paladins on the list. Also you are totally wrong by claiming that our proposals will only effect wizards. They will also effect clerics and druids. Notice how clerics and druids are the two most popular classes on your great renown class level breakdown. These classes are prepared casters in the same way as wizards. They recieve all same benefits from the CoCo environment that a wizard recieves but do not suffer the combat weakness of a wizard. Perhaps more importantly these classes do not suffer the drain on spell casting power that is associated with healing a party of allies as they are intended to do in a typical game where these classes are balanced. I hope it has become obvious that we have a serious balance problem.
SoulLord 05-09-06, 12:53 PM	Ah my mistake ok not full casters but casters at some point. this is another balance topic to be adressed; classes with 1 level in a caster or psionic class that can use the power list almost the same way as a full caster can. which is by the way not touched at all by the suggested change. but back on Topic let's see according to your proposal lets say a wizard with 18 inteligence would have at 3rd level 2 first level spells and 1 2nd lvl spell by class plus 1 extra spell at first and at second for high inteligence. if he has to do a 3 week run without changing spells and limited to the 1/3 rule it would look like this. (3*1= 3 +2*2=4) = 7/3= 3 spells now what would his memorized spell list look like? 1st.- sleep x3 2nd.- invisibility x2 week 1 sleep, invisibility week 2 sleep, invisibility week 3 sleep. Or he can rely on expendables... which are another unconcluded topic. perhaps the creation of a no-magic arena would help create great renown fighters, barbarians, rogues, monks and the like more than the current suggested changes.
SauroGrenom 05-09-06, 04:12 PM	perhaps the creation of a no-magic arena would help create great renown fighters, barbarians, rogues, monks and the like more than the current suggested changes.The point isn't to create great renown fighters, rogues and so forth. What is the purpose of having a special even more twisted arena for only melee characters? This is kind of like saying that well some character classes just cannot compete at a professional level. The point is that we know these classes to be balanced in a normal game environment, and we know they are not balanced in our game environment. So what is the difference between the normal game and ours, and how are we to restore the balance of CoCo so that is nolonger favors spell casters in general, prepared casters specificially and 1/day effects? The use of expendibles (specificially scrolls and stones) is something we have discussed limiting, and I think a complete solution will include limits on expendibles. I've proposed a few options that are simple to use. They are in the 4th paragraph of my post 7 posts back addressed specifically to NiQil. That's just a step in the right direction, and it leaves us with a couple unresolved balance problems. Specificially the spell selection for prepared casters is always at its maximum, even though we all know that many fights in an adventure do not take place just after the last rest (so some spells are already used). Also many class abilities, spell-like abilities or items are usable 1/day and this translates into 1/fight in the Arena as we now have it. The cost for these abilities was balanced by the game designers in an environment when they will only be used in 1 out of evey 3 battles. So these abilities are overpowered in CoCo. Take the Phrenic template for example. At say ECL17 a Phrenic character will have 15HD and 15 class levels. This character will also have 14 psi-like abilities manifest at ML15 and all powers are augmented to the max allowed at ML15. Also this character enjoys +8 on various stats and a 25 spell/power resistance and 1 bonus pp/day. The Phrenic Template makes this character have more powers available than a Wilder at his ECL. Also remember that this character has 15 class levels in another class. This is way overpowered for a +2 LA. Is +2 LA worth the equivalent of 15 class levels in Wilder? NO! The Phrenic template is valued at +2 LA because 9 of those 14 powers are only usable 1/day, and 4 of the remaining 5 are defensive powers. So it's expected that the offensive powers will not be available in every battle. So I think we should try to address all of these imbalances. We have 3 imbalances to talk about. 1: 1/day abilities are overpowered 2: prepared casters always have all there spell memorized when actually 2/3 of the battles should begin with a limited spell list 3: expendibles are over used Having 3 fights/day is a good way of making x/day abilities have the appropreat potency. Also 3 fights between resting answers the problem with prepared caster's having too much spell diversity for every battle. So two of our three imbalances are addressed by this idea. Expendibles will take something else. The 1/3 rule was invented to prevent casters from tossing too much spell power in a single battle (what we have been calling "Going Nova"). This possibility, however rare it may actually happen, is still present in the 3 fights/day format. There is nothing about this format that prevents a spell caster from deciding to cast way more spell power in his 1st battle than in his last. Only the 1/3 rule will restrict that. As mentioned 5 posts back the negative aspects of the "Going Nova" tactic are never enjoyed by the victim of that tactic. Other characters enjoy the benefit of having a weakened foe in his 2nd and 3rd battles. I cannot imagine a better way to prevent such unfareness than the 1/3 rule. If we can now agree on a way to reslove these imbalances, then we can move on to perhaps resolving other more subtle imbalances that may be resolved in favor casters. For example 10min/level spells are useless as pre-buff right now, but that's the obvious purpose of those spells in a real game. Perhaps after we get this issue resolved we can move on to examine those prebuff rules and find something to make those spells usefull in the Arena as they are typicially used in an adventure.
Vathelokai 05-09-06, 04:17 PM	...extra spells to "Go Nova" on his 2nd foe... and so on... This could easily get out of hand where every other fight has no spells to be tossed, and the other half is where way too many spells are flying around. How do you put a lid on it? Also we need to do something to put a limit on casters....So, uh, how is that different from a P&P game? The only regulation on a caster in a tabletop game is the players common sense. It seems that is what the 1/3rd rule is really about; making casters act reasonably; which I think is why it is so irksome to players who play casters regularly. Why not create a 1/3rd rule for ammunition, for those annoying horseback-sniper-shootout-must rolla 20-fights.... but I digress. THe nova tactic already exhists... how often are there fights where somebody uses more expendibles (gp wise) than they win in the fight. Not very often, but it happens. What is more likely to happen under a three fight policy is something similiar; a wizard will use only 1 or 2 spells the first fight, then 2/3 of their spells in one of the next two fights. With limited expendibles, this will be necissary; Auburn has been in a number of fights where her one shot kills spells are out the window. She ends up relying on lots of magic missles and shocking grasps; and she has lost more than one fight because she ran out. I could fix it by expenable hoarding, but after about ecl4, I decided to stop doing that and "play fair". This is an other vote that says I liked Sauro's proposal, but am not happy with keeping the 1/3rd rule. And to add more fuel to the fire, Coco isn't balanced for two reasons; 1 - we don't have teams 2- DnD was designed to use teams. It's that simple. Try running a game where you have an entire party with no caster, say with 4 barbarians. Without running to resupply frequently, they're not getting very far. Straight barbarians in the arena have no supernatural backup, but all the rules of DnD were designed with having some type of caster nearby. There is the balance issue. You can help a figher out by making him fight weakened opponents, but the game was never intended to have a lone fighter go toe to toe with anything, let alone a min/maxed wizard. Side note: neither three battles in a row, or the 1/3rd rule is going to stop Va'ria from memorizing feeblemind three times. *EDIT* Just in case; THis is the standard disclaimer; if I came off as annoyed or defensive or offensive, I didn't mean it
SoulLord 05-09-06, 04:37 PM	Particularly I would like it better if we focused first on points 1 and 3 of your proposal rather than on adding the 1/3 rule to the proposal............ One thing that I notice is your fighters , barbarians, rogues, monks and similar would be no different in week 1 than in week 3. where full casters would be sverely hindered by week 3. that does not seem balanced in my opinion. The only way a straight barbarian can match to a flying caster with protection from arrows is with magic of his own unless you ban magic on the first place.
Caterane 05-09-06, 04:37 PM	For those who shout Away with the 1/3 rule, I want to add something you might have forgotten: we have encountered problems we haven't been able to solve elegantly or even not at all with the removal of the 1/3 rule. Miniquests, Guild Operations, Multiplayer fights, Team Quests, etc provide a problem to a 3-fight routine. With the 1/3 rule, we can easily handle these fights just as we do now, and apply Sauro's proposal to the rest. Sauro has perfectly answered all your concerns. I know that there will still be those who think we should keep the 1/d abilities overpowered, or should let casters cast freely. I've also heard complaints when we introduced the 1/3 rule 1.5 years ago. "Hey! Why can't I cast ALL my spells in EVERY battle?? This will be the end of the wizard!!" :bored:
SoulLord 05-09-06, 04:42 PM	For those who shout Away with the 1/3 rule, I want to add something you might have forgotten: we have encountered problems we haven't been able to solve elegantly or even not at all with the removal of the 1/3 rule. Miniquests, Guild Operations, Multiplayer fights, Team Quests, etc provide a problem to a 3-fight routine. With the 1/3 rule, we can easily handle these fights just as we do now, and apply Sauro's proposal to the rest. Sauro has perfectly answered all your concerns. I know that there will still be those who think we should keep the 1/d abilities overpowered, or should let casters cast freely. I've also heard complaints when we introduced the 1/3 rule 1.5 years ago. "Hey! Why can't I cast ALL my spells in EVERY battle?? This will be the end of the wizard!!" :bored: That is something I could agree with; keep the 1/3 rule only to Miniquests, Guild Operations, Multiplayer fights, Team Quests. and leave the 3 week run without the 1/3 rule. [Not Shouting Away]
Caterane 05-10-06, 10:10 AM	@Soullord: Won't work because Multiplayer fights and defensive Guild Operations don't happen outside the 3-week routine, and for Multiplayer quests you'd have to wait till your buddy is done with the routine. And there remains my concern that nova tactics are possible which are unfair to the one on the short end of the stick. Really, we're just repeating ourselves again and again. I think we have found a good compromise that can be easily implemented and is fair to everyone.
SoulLord 05-10-06, 11:05 AM	@Caterane. But it could well work even within those boundaries. you have your 1/3 total of spell points allowed so for example if you have 3 spells per battle under the 1/3 rule that's the number of spell you can use while on a defensive guild operation or on a multiplayer fight. I Liked the original proposal and even agree on the 1/3 rule outside of the 3 week run, so I think I've flexibilized my position on this matter. Now there's the other Concern of a caster going Nova; I have to say that situation is no different at all than a Gladiator using all of his expendables on week 1 to beat an oponent even if expenses are bigger than his rewards. you don't see that happen so often because it's not so profitable. On the 3 week run there is absolutely no difference in a caster going nova than with someone blowing all his expendables on week 1, you could say that in this case it would also be unfair for the second and third week gladiators as they are fighting a weakened oponent and the first gladiator won't have a chance to get even as in the "nova" caster situation.
Caterane 05-10-06, 01:00 PM	That's two totally different things. While mem'd spells are free, expendables are regulated by their price. If you argument that way you could just complain about anything. Expendables are much less powerful than memorized spells. Their minimum DC makes them almost useless for offensive power. They cost a lot of money and everyone can buy the same amount. We're also making a cap of 50xECL² and CL+2 max which regulates them. Additional safeguards might be necessary (Belt slots, purchased scrolls always min CL, etc) but for now, these nerfs should be sufficient.
SoulLord 05-10-06, 01:12 PM	A quick question on that matter. will wands, dorjes,and staffs be included in the expendable GP cap?
Caterane 05-10-06, 01:16 PM	No. They come in bundles of 50 and thus do not allow the flexibility one-shot items grant.
SauroGrenom 05-10-06, 02:26 PM	Perhaps now would be a good time to put together a summary of the proposal as it currently stands. That should serve to dispell any confusion about what the topic is right now. Also it will help us all think about any issues that remain.
Caterane 05-11-06, 05:14 AM	I think we've found a very good solution to the problems. The changes will be effective from May 24 on. Here are the new rules: You have to fight three times in a row before being able to rest or buy new items. Any violation against that results in an auto-loss. Pitlords are encouraged to enforce this. You do not level up before the 3-week cycle is complete. The 1/3 rule stays in effect but now you have to mark off any spell or x/d ability that has been used. The Pitlord writes it into the fight summary as a reference for the new Pitlord and Player. Any spell-level not used up in the previous week can be ported to the new fight. So if you used only 3 of your 4 SL, you can port the unused one to your second fight to have a total of 5 SL available. Week 3 always uses all remaining spell-levels. Quests and Campaigns can only be started at the end of a 3-week cycle. Miniquests can be done as a part of the natural 3-week cycle and counts as a fight. The EL must be as high or higher than the character's ECL. Miniquests with a lower EL must be run outside the 3-week cycle just like Quests. Multiplayer fights are handled as they're now. They count as one fight. Guild Operations that include battles use the sheet in its current state (ie incl used up spells). They are treated just as if it would be the next arena fight but none of the spells you use up is marked off. Ressources are still used up (you gain xp and gp after all) but you can repurchase the ones you have used in the operation (and only those!). Expendables are now limited to 50xECL². So an ECL 4 character can have a maximum of 800 gp worth of expendables on his sheet. For this purpose, expendables use their effective price, not the market price. For example, a self-crafted Scroll of Invisibility [CL 3] is treated as a 75 gp expendable. Expendables are Scrolls, Potions, Stones, and Tattooes. Scrolls and Powerstones are furthermore capped to your CL+2. Potions and Tattoos are treated as they're now (Potions only those on list and Tattoos min ML; Blackmarket circumvents that). In case of different CLs (for example, +1 CL for Good spells due to the Good Domain) you can buy expendables according to your higher CL for the affected spells. Only permanent increases count (so you don't benefit from a bead of karma for expendable purposes). You have to list your "Virtual XP" on your sheet. That means, you just sum up all XP you earned so far without deducting anything. Loss of xp due to crafting, familiar death, xp spell, etc is deducted from your real xp. Your real XP determine your ECL, the Virtual XP determine your league. It might now happen that you end up a league higher than your ecl if you craft a lot. This is another step into the right direction. It fixes the broken use of 1/d abilities, removes the so-called flexibility of wizard which they do not have in a real game, and it caps the overused expendables. Virtual XP is a perfect way to handle xp loss. What the Players have to do now Not much. Here's a brief tutorial for your convenience. You have to create an Expendable Header on your sheet (if you don't have one already) and add the total expendable value next to it so that it is easily recognizable. Example for the Harvester (ECL 7): Expendables: [Value: 1350] [Max: 2450] Arcane: Alter self (Ogre) [4] (200) Arcane: Expeditious retreat [2] (50) [2x] Arcane: Invisibility [3] (150) Divine: Align Weapon [3] (150) Divine: Bless [1] (25) Divine: Cure light wounds [1] (25) [4x] Divine: Darkness [3] (150) Stone: Chameleon [1] (25) Stone: Dissolving weapon [3] (150) Stone: Energy adaption, spec. [3] (150) Stone: ExpansionA [3] (150) Make sure no expendable is higher than your CL+2. You have to list your Virtual XP next to your real XP. Just add all XP you earned so far together including your starting XP. You never deduct anything from the Virtual XP. If you end up in a higher league, please contact the Pitlords Account! You have to write the Week you're in into the title line: Ready for 24.May (Week 2). You have to mark off (strikethrough) any spell that you have cast the previous week. You have to move any used up expendable to your "Past Expenditures" sblock at the bottom of your sheet just as you do now. You may not buy any new stuff! It's not mandatory but you're encouraged to check your opponent's sheet for mistakes in porting over spells or expendables. You just click on his latest fight link and check the pitlord summary which spells and expendables were used up. These should not appear on the current sheet. If you find one, congrats on the free win. What the Pitlords have to do now You make a quick check wether the player has marked off all spells from his last fight(s) as well as expendables. If not, auto-loss. In the fight summary, you have to post which spells and expendables were used up. You also include the used up spells and expendables from the previous week's summary, if any. It should be as easy to read as possible for the new pitlord and player. Pitlords who moderate Week 3 do not have to do this since the character rests anyway after the fight. Please also note the streamlined title lines (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466621). That makes my job on wednesday easier. Pitlords should remind players who don't use streamlined titles. And finally, don't forget that any equipment not listed as At Home will be brought into the arena and vice versa. You also have to prebuff allies.
Caterane 05-11-06, 05:53 AM	Now that we've found a way to bring spellpower back down to earth, we can talk about a revision of the prebuff rule. Currently, only 16 hour spells are useful but 10min/lvl spells are often cast at the beginning of entering a dungeon in a real game because they last long enough. Perhaps we can do away with the 16 hour prebuff rule altogether. There are two ways on how to simulate this: The Gamble You list any spell you want to cast before the fight under prebuffs. You can cast anything, even list Round/Lvl spells (but that would obviously be wasted). The Pairingmaker rolls 1d6 to determine the hours that pass before the first fight occurs. This happens along with the pairings. The Pitlord then checks which prebuffed spells are still in effect. At the end of the fight, the pitlord lists all spells that are currently still in effect incl those cast during the fight along with their remaining duration. He can ignore any spell with a duration with less than an hour. The player lists these spells under prebuffs incl their remaining durations. He can also add new spells now and mark them off from his spell-list. The next pitlord repeats this procedure. He checks which spells are still running according to all time rolls affecting this character. Example: Before the first fight, the player prebuffs with an 8 hour mage armor and a 4 hour False Life. The Pairingsmaker sets your fight beginning 3 hours after you cast the prebuff spells so both prebuffs are still running. During the fight, the character cast an extended darkness spell with 2 hours 40 minutes duration. In the fight summary, the pitlord writes down the running spells incl their duration: mage armor (5 hours), false life (1 hour), darkness (2 hour 40 min). The player now lists these that way under his prebuffs for his 2nd fight. He also chooses to add Freedom of Movement (1 hour 20 min) to his prebuff list. The time roll before the 2nd fight (listed in the pairings) is a 1, so only 1 hour has passed. That means Mage armor, Darkness and even Freedom of Movement are available; only False life has run out. The easy approach The other approach is less flexible but a bit easier to handle because it needs no Pairingmaker time roll. Before his first fight, the PC can prebuff with 16 hour spells normally. After the first fight, the Pitlord makes a Time Roll and lists all spells that are still running along with the remaining duration. The player then lists these under his new prebuffs. He can also prebuff with any spell that lasts 16 hours minus Time Rolls. Example: Before Week 1, you prebuff with a 16 hour Mage Armor, just as it is now. During the fight you cast False Life (8 hours duration) and Freedom of Movement (80 minutes duration). After the fight, the pitlord makes a time roll and gets a 6 on 1d6. That means 6 hours will pass before the next fight occurs. The player can keep Mage Armor (since it's 16 hours), and he can keep False life (with 2 hours duration left). Freedom of Movement has run out though. Since 6 hours have passed, the new minimum prebuff time has decreased from 16 hours to 10 hours. Still, the player chooses not to add any additional prebuffs. The second fight, the player enters with Mage Armor (10 hours left) and False Life (2 hours left). He casts some minute spells but also an extended darkness spell (160 min duration; or 2 hours 40 min). The Pitlord makes his time roll and gets a 2. That means, Mage Armor is still in effect with 8 hours remaining, False Life has just run out, but Darkness is still in effect with 40 min left. The first option is more realistic.
Macbrea 05-11-06, 08:34 AM	Scrolls and Powerstones are furthermore capped to your CL+2. Potions and Tattoos are treated as they're now (Potions only those on list and Tattoos min ML; Blackmarket circumvents that). In case of different CLs (for example, +1 CL for Good spells due to the Good Domain) you can buy expendables according to your higher CL for the affected spells. Only permanent increases count (so you don't benefit from a bead of karma for expendable purposes). So, are rogues now limited to CL 2 spells on scrolls? Even though they might have a +20 UMD?
TheMagister 05-11-06, 09:02 AM	Yeah, it does need to be spelled out. I'm pretty sure I remember this mentioned before, and the consensus was considering a rogue's "CL" to be equal to his rogue level. I'm just remembering, so this could be flawed. Ask my wife...my memory isn't all that and a bag of chips. TM
SauroGrenom 05-11-06, 09:25 AM	You have to list your "Virtual XP" on your sheet. That means, you just sum up all XP you earned so far without deducting anything. Loss of xp due to crafting, familiar death, xp spell, etc is deducted from your real xp. Your real XP determine your ECL, the Virtual XP determine your league. It might now happen that you end up a league higher than your ecl if you craft a lot. The Virtual XP needs to be spelled out a bit more compleately. Getting this Virtual XP value for right now is correct as stated. It should also be noted that if you fall behind and are battling above your ECL, then your virtual xp grows at the level appropreat for a character of the correct ECL in the battle. Take an example where you are a wizard or cleric who crafts alot and you have a virtual xp value in the ECL9 range but your actual ECL is 8. If you win or loose an ECL9 battle, you recieve xp as an ecl8 character in an ecl9 encounter. But your virtual xp increases by the amount for an ecl9 character in an ecl9 battle. So if in our example the ECL8 wizard looses vs an ECL9 opponent and he recieves 1200xp and his virtual xp increases by only 900xp. This will slowly allow the wizard to recover the appropreat xp for the ECL he fights in, as should hppen with the self correcting nature of the xp system.
SoulLord 05-11-06, 10:43 AM	also all free and full activities will be limited to 1 per 3 week run. or will we have 3 full activities since it will only be a day in which the gladiators fight.
Caterane 05-11-06, 12:41 PM	UMD: Sauro provided us with a good solution for UMD. I believe it was your skill value-10 = CL for these purposes. Free Activities: Since I don't list them in the pairingspost anymore but the pitlord at the end of the fight, I am not interested in seeing Free Activities in the title lines. They can be sent with your tactic. Full Activities: can be done only at the end of a complete cycle. You just cannot add stuff to your sheet during that time. Virtual XP: read Sauro's last post.
waywreth 05-11-06, 12:57 PM	While I like and understand the concept of the changes, the 3 week schedule is going to play havoc on the bookkeeping aspect of the CoCo. I wouldn't be surprised if a third of the characters get DQ'd in their 2nd and 3rd week fights. I would highly recommend keeping the "virtual XP" and prebuffing rules out of it for now until people adjust to the change. Just my 2cp. Also: Wizards.com’s planned upgrade to the message boards has been rescheduled. The new timeline is May 30th, 9 pm PDT (midnight EDT/ GMT 4 am May 31st) – June 12th, 2006. What this means to you is that all posts that have been made since May 1 will not be lost as was previously described and registration has been re-enabled. The database snapshot that will be upgraded will be remade at the start of the new schedule. What does this mean for the CoCo schedule of activities?
Abyssal Stalker 05-11-06, 01:06 PM	Looks like we're getting two weeks active and then two weeks down. Again. Messy.
SoulLord 05-11-06, 01:53 PM	UMD: Sauro provided us with a good solution for UMD. I believe it was your skill value-10 = CL for these purposes. Free Activities: Since I don't list them in the pairingspost anymore but the pitlord at the end of the fight, I am not interested in seeing Free Activities in the title lines. They can be sent with your tactic. Full Activities: can be done only at the end of a complete cycle. You just cannot add stuff to your sheet during that time. Virtual XP: read Sauro's last post. it would be more fair to have each class with UMD as a class skill count as a CL class for scroll buying purposes. otherwise your 3rd lvl rogue with 5 ranks in UMD and 20 in charisma wont be able to use anything.
TheMagister 05-11-06, 01:57 PM	Right. Are rogues with UMD that much of a runaway problem in the CoCo that they need to be regulated at all? The UMD DC is high enough already that it serves as an effective deterrent to owning such high level scrolls. TM
Macbrea 05-11-06, 02:32 PM	No, the problem comes in with the following: 1) Rogue 4, Chr 14, 7 ranks UMD is CL: -1? 2) Bard 5, Chr 18, 8 Ranks UMD is CL: 5 or 2? 3) Psion (shaper) 4, Chr 20, 7 Ranks UPD, Feat: Skill focus UPD is CL: 4 or 5?
Caterane 05-11-06, 02:48 PM	There is no such thing as a -1 CL so the minimum CL you can have is 0. Since we allow to have CL+2, you can always cast CL 1 or CL 2 scrolls with 1 rank in UMD. Let's use Macbrea's examples: No, the problem comes in with the following: 1) Rogue 4, Chr 14, 7 ranks UMD is CL: -1? 2) Bard 5, Chr 18, 8 Ranks UMD is CL: 5 or 2? 3) Psion (shaper) 4, Chr 20, 7 Ranks UPD, Feat: Skill focus UPD is CL: 4 or 5? The Level 4 Rogue can use CL 2 scrolls. The Level 5 Bard can use CL 4 scrolls. The Level 4 Psion can use ML 7 stones. I don't know what is wrong with that. The level 4 psion could use Level IV powers on his opponents. No full spellcaster can do that at this level. We surely can't lessen the cap for such guys. The ECL = CL approach just encourages 'class dipping'. Wizards.com’s planned upgrade to the message boards has been rescheduled. The new timeline is May 30th, 9 pm PDT (midnight EDT/ GMT 4 am May 31st) – June 12th, 2006. What this means to you is that all posts that have been made since May 1 will not be lost as was previously described and registration has been re-enabled. The database snapshot that will be upgraded will be remade at the start of the new schedule. Well, seems like we get to roll pairings normally next wednesday and sit out from May 31 on - which is coincidently a wednesday.
SoulLord 05-11-06, 04:03 PM	Using each class with UPD or UMD as a caster level class I feel is much more transparent. in the example cited before. 1) Rogue 4, Chr 14, 7 ranks UMD is CL: -1? 2) Bard 5, Chr 18, 8 Ranks UMD is CL: 5 or 2? 3) Psion (shaper) 4, Chr 20, 7 Ranks UPD, Feat: Skill focus UPD is CL: 4 or 5? 1) CL 4 2) CL 5 3) ML 4 treat each class who has UMD or UPD as if it were a class with CL or ML respectively.
MindWandererB 05-11-06, 04:30 PM	Except that you can take UMD/UPD as cross-class skills. Example: Rogue1/Ranger8 with Cha 16 and 12 ranks in UMD has a skill modifier of +15, possibly higher with synergy and/or items, but a max scroll/stone CL/ML of 3? That's not really fair. Max CL should be based on either your ranks or your total skill modifier, or else cross-class ranks become useless.
SoulLord 05-11-06, 04:53 PM	If in any of your classes you aquire a skill for purposes of skill advancement it's considered a class skill (what does this mean it means that for example your rogue 1/ranger 8 can have 12 ranks in UMD) so you would have an efffective cl of 9 to buy scrolls in that example. In the case you only have the skill as a cross class skill I would suggest total Ranks/2 to determine Caster level or manifester level as appropiate.
MindWandererB 05-11-06, 05:08 PM	If in any of your classes you aquire a skill for purposes of skill advancement it's considered a class skill (what does this mean it means that for example your rogue 1/ranger 8 can have 12 ranks in UMD) so you would have an efffective cl of 9 to buy scrolls in that example. In the case you only have the skill as a cross class skill I would suggest total Ranks/2 to determine Caster level or manifester level as appropiate.Uh-uh. Too easy to abuse. Take a Shaper1/PsiWar1/Cleric7. Your formula allows this character to buy ML 11 PsiWar stones. Or a Rogue1/Cleric1/Fighter7, allowed to buy CL 11 scrolls for both divine and arcane spells. And if you're going to use total ranks in one case, why not use it in all cases? CL=UMD-10 is all inclusive, needs only one rule to cover everyone.
Book5 05-11-06, 05:17 PM	The Level 5 Bard can use CL 4 scrolls. I think you mean the Lv 5 Bard can use any lv 4 scrolls, as well as lv 7 scrolls listed on his spell list... eh? ;) enugh jokes.. more comments, I've already been scolded for having a too democratic board You are kidding me! Thats funny! Power to the people Cat! * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon also I was looking forward to the removal of the 1/3 rule. Leave vigor alone its nice. The only other way ...make it a dice roll (1d6)? --- That would just be "normalizing" rather than nerfing, but again I like it. Treat Dissolving weapon like poison. I really think we should be by raw. Also.... You and me both! Personally I think that the two failures in a row ... after the nova action is a sufficient detriment to prevent the behavior. Thats why this idea works so well - it forces you into a real world scenario where you have to deal with the consequences of your tactics. If you nova your spells in the first fight -> then you loose the other two. Fine by me. Me? I will make a half orc/toll fighter and watch him eat everyone :D You don't have to play to win every fight--in fact, you probably won't. No kidding, look at Tan... now - keep in mind. God forbid Tan found himself outside of a party environemnt (like here) and without free resurrections... (yipe!) he would be a runin' away little bastard! Point of fact - he would never fight to the death. He is a thief, a lover not a fighter! Wait.. a lover and a fighter... but not a killer. Most of the fights I have seen Tan loose in I have just shrugged because -> he stood up well for the circumstances. In a real game his goal would simply be distraction, theft, or flanking. Hence... lv 6.... any killer cohort suggestions? Vath's right - The A number one balance issue is the party problem. This game was designed with parties in mind. Fighters are expected to be buffed up, casters are expected to be on the backline, druids are supposed to win, and bards are supposed to be the glue. Hmmm, This post is getting too long, I will break and posit suggestion for the party problem in a newer (shorter) post.
MindWandererB 05-11-06, 05:23 PM	By the way, I think Dissolving Weapon will be adequately nerfed with the 3-fight sequence. It's no longer a "free" prebuff. And I think Vigor will be somewhat less useful now, too.
SoulLord 05-11-06, 05:52 PM	Uh-uh. Too easy to abuse. Take a Shaper1/PsiWar1/Cleric7. Your formula allows this character to buy ML 11 PsiWar stones. Or a Rogue1/Cleric1/Fighter7, allowed to buy CL 11 scrolls for both divine and arcane spells. And if you're going to use total ranks in one case, why not use it in all cases? CL=UMD-10 is all inclusive, needs only one rule to cover everyone. I think I see your concern for abuse. he won't nesesarily have enough ranks to activate the device but since the it is on his spell /power list it would allow him to cast it right? I would say those items would have to be activated to be used if you are following this rule to avoid the abuse you pointed out. added to this you have the limit proposed on expendables. as for UMD -10 lvl max ranks CL 3 6 6-10 =-4 =2 4 7 7-10 =-3 =2 5 8 8-10 =-2 =2 6 9 9-10 =-1 =2 7 10 10-10 = 0 =2 8 11 11-10 = 1 =3 9 12 12-10 = 2 =4 so yes rogues could buy scrolls for lvl 2 for most of their career and then it scales up in a not very pleaseant way. besides scrolls and the like cost money so it's exactly the same situation as someone wasting all his expendables on the week 1 fight and this was pointed out to be irrelevant.
Book5 05-11-06, 06:49 PM	By the way, I think Dissolving Weapon will be adequately nerfed with the 3-fight sequence. It's no longer a "free" prebuff. And I think Vigor will be somewhat less useful now, too. Nonetheless. I believe that you should have to treat dissolving weapon as though it were a poison/oil. I.e. if you don't know how to handle weapons carefully - boom! they go off.
Book5 05-11-06, 07:12 PM	There are two ways on how to simulate this: [list=1] The Gamble .... is more realistic. :ayyyy!:
Book5 05-11-06, 08:36 PM	The number one resource this place eats up is pitlords. The engines, if you will, of the machine. The greatest divergence from implementation of the rules as they were intended - is the focus one - on - one combat. Everything in the D&D (from exp to class balance) is built on a four member party base. Therefore the ideal scenario would be 8 players per fight per pitlord per week. Ideal, and particularrly at higher level - the only way to have a fair fight. I.e. 15th level wizard/cleric vs. any. one. else (not a 15th level caster) will win. My support for this claim is: "I wish .. I win." Fighers - will loose. Anyone without the ability to counteract a wish will loose. However if you were paired with a magic user... you might have a few things to say. Like "I wish - You didnt win." This is anextreem example that cascades down the spells to result in wizards having a percievably greater expectation to win in an individual fight. Ideal Solution: All fights are 4x4 unless requested otherwise. Plus: Closer connection to rule's intent, and fewer pitlords required to support a greater number of gladiators. Minus: Pitlords are required to spend more time on a single fight, and are expected to do more physical paperwork, maintenence, logistics, and etc. I think thats pretty simple, but perhaps tooo much. Actually - does anyone have a problem with that? Related Suggestion: Teams in the light of 4x4s As opposed to individual characters you can decide to make an entire team. Your team consists of 4 player characters and their allies. The team is kept on one sheet, and will always fight together. This of course is instead of two characters. And yes the rest of us still get 2. A team player does not get bonus characters until he runs three or more pitfights. The idea here is that you will simplify the logistics (and tactics) of 4x4 battles by having the entire team manged by one player. Also - its a kind of "DM" optimization option. Insomuch as you can min max a group based on their shared weakness or streangths.
NiQil 05-11-06, 09:40 PM	Well...as I stated when this whole discussion started...if the 3-fight thing goes into place, I would have to reconsider my involvement here. I think that this new rule is too much. Nothing that has been said here has changed my mind. I like some of the ideas that have come out of this discussion, such as the virtual XP thing, and the expendable limit formula....I was even warming up to the idea of our new maps (as an aside, Cat....that new standard arena map you made...kinda gaudy...the existing one is much better, in my opinion...but then again I am biased, since my wife made it LOL...but I do like the new sewer map). But I think that the 3-fight rule is going to be more trouble than it is worth. I think that it puts an even bigger burden on the pitlords than the already huge one that they have. I just can't back that. I think the bookkeeping will be a nightmare, and I think we will see far more auto-losses than we currently do due to mistaken changes. To go on a tangent for a moment...what happens when player a in week 1 and player b in week 2 fight, and neither players nor the pitlord notice that player b has incorrectly edited his character in some way, then player b wins the fight....but player a or the pitlord then finds the error a week later? In short, I don't agree with the idea of adding this much more bookkeeping to an already bookkeeping-heavy forum. We struggle to find new players and keep them as it is...we should be trying to make things less complicated, not moreso. All that being said...I think my time in CoCo is finished for awhile. I am saddened to go, but I can't justify sticking around when my heart isn't in it. So Cat, please retire my characters...and you'll need to find a new prisonlord and guildmaster...both passwords are still the same as when I received them. It's been fun y'all...but I need a big swig of time away to wash the bad rules change taste out of my mouth. See ya on the flip side.
Caterane 05-12-06, 05:05 AM	NiQil, before I begin, I have to say that I cannot base decisions on people leaving. I would bind my hands if I would give in or let the implementation be governed by the mood of the majority. People had left when we installed the 1/3 rule, and with every new rule, there's also the danger of more people leaving. But if you look at the whole picture, the CoCo has developed from a single thread with 5 rules to a popular board with many members, and we're still not even halfway done. You can be sure that every wrong rule will be corrected and improved as we go. Perhaps the 3-week routine is only a temporary solution until someone comes up with something more sophisticated. Take the Virtual XP thing for example. For almost 3 years now, we've tried to find a way to deal with XP Cost Spells. Now, 2 weeks ago, one of our members snipped and came up with an easy and elegant solution. I'm the last one who would close his eyes when a better rule is proposed. That said, it's absolutely sad that you have decided to leave us. Give me the chance to change your mind. NiQil, you're one of the most important persons to this board as well as one of the most respected ones. Although I made fun of your pessimism once in a while, you always provided me with a counterweight to effusive enthusiasm. You are the best prisonlord the coco ever had and the WAR guild is in perfect shape. We like your characters (all 20 versions of each) and your level of participation is what the coco lives of. Just one week ago, I asked Wizo Paradox to change your title to Core Coliseum Elder. It couldn't be done yet because of the upgrade but now that the boards are back, it can happen any second. I want to ask you to reconsider your decision. You haven't even seen the new rule in action and afaics it is not that much of a burden on us while the gains are huge. Give it a chance and make your decision then. Cat
Vathelokai 05-12-06, 05:18 AM	Sorry to see you go, Prince FyreDragon, though I understand (and can sometimes relate to) your decision.
Vathelokai 05-12-06, 05:42 AM	As far as I know, I have the only UMD/UMP monkey at this board, so might I use it as an example... Hassan Sabbah (rogue 3/Psion-shaper 3) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7842025&postcount=550). Now, Hassan has blown 20 credits on a +5 UPD/UMD headband (a bit over priced, but that's another topic) so his modifiers are...+16 Use Magic Device [8 Ranks] [8 rogue +3 Cha, +5 Competence] +17 Use Psionic Device [9 Ranks] [9 psion +3 Cha, +5 Competence]I might be able to squeeze in another few points, but that is close to maximized. Under the (ranks/2=CL) proposal, Hassan could use Scrolls - 4 Non class stones -5 class stones - 5 Under the (skill lv -10=CL) proposal Scrolls - 6 Non class stones - 7 class stones - 5 Under the (rogues lvs. count as CL) proposal Scrolls - 5 Non class stones - 5 class stones - 5 Turns out Sauro's proposal give me the most power... now. But at lv 10...? Hassan will have 4 more ranks in each, a cloak of charisma, and some kind of +2 unnammed bonus giving him...+25 Use Magic Device [13 Ranks] [13 rogue +5 Cha, +5 Competence, +2 BS] +25 Use Psionic Device [13 Ranks] [13 psion +5 Cha, +5 Competence, +2 BS] which gives him... Under the (ranks/2=CL) proposal, Hassan could use Scrolls - 9 Non class stones -9 class stones - 7 Under the (skill lv -10=CL) proposal Scrolls - 15 Non class stones - 15 class stones - 15 Under the (rogues lvs. count as CL) proposal Scrolls - 7 Non class stones - 7 class stones - 7 Now I really like Sauro's Proposal. Somehow I feel like I just shot myself in the foot... :(
NiQil 05-12-06, 08:33 AM	NiQil, before I begin, I have to say that I cannot base decisions on people leaving. I would bind my hands if I would give in or let the implementation be governed by the mood of the majority. People had left when we installed the 1/3 rule, and with every new rule, there's also the danger of more people leaving. But if you look at the whole picture, the CoCo has developed from a single thread with 5 rules to a popular board with many members, and we're still not even halfway done. You can be sure that every wrong rule will be corrected and improved as we go. Perhaps the 3-week routine is only a temporary solution until someone comes up with something more sophisticated. Take the Virtual XP thing for example. For almost 3 years now, we've tried to find a way to deal with XP Cost Spells. Now, 2 weeks ago, one of our members snipped and came up with an easy and elegant solution. I'm the last one who would close his eyes when a better rule is proposed. That said, it's absolutely sad that you have decided to leave us. Give me the chance to change your mind. NiQil, you're one of the most important persons to this board as well as one of the most respected ones. Although I made fun of your pessimism once in a while, you always provided me with a counterweight to effusive enthusiasm. You are the best prisonlord the coco ever had and the WAR guild is in perfect shape. We like your characters (all 20 versions of each) and your level of participation is what the coco lives of. Just one week ago, I asked Wizo Paradox to change your title to Core Coliseum Elder. It couldn't be done yet because of the upgrade but now that the boards are back, it can happen any second. I want to ask you to reconsider your decision. You haven't even seen the new rule in action and afaics it is not that much of a burden on us while the gains are huge. Give it a chance and make your decision then. Cat Give me some time to think about it. I'll post again this evening in more depth.
Pittbull 05-12-06, 08:41 AM	Give me some time to think about it. I'll post again this evening in more depth. To make it short: Please, don't leave, give the new system a chance.
Pittbull 05-12-06, 08:45 AM	Something I missed the gold proposal: Is there full healing after a fight? Time between the fight: I like the idea of roll by the Pitlord of 1d6 hours which is posted in pairings.
Macbrea 05-12-06, 09:30 AM	As far as I know, I have the only UMD/UMP monkey at this board, so might I use it as an example... Hassan Sabbah (rogue 3/Psion-shaper 3) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7842025&postcount=550). Your not alone your just the extreme of the cases: 3rd Level Rinwind [6 rnks] UMD +9 CL: 2 Dethicus Blaq [1 rnk] UMD +0 CL: 2 Ten Vermond [4 rnks] UMD +6 CL: 2 Cornalius Umberwood [4 rnks] UMD +6 CL: 2 4th Level Sybil ap Kalten [7 rnks] UMD +10 CL:2 Dr. Hexacious Pogboomer [4 rnks] UMD +9(+11 scrolls) CL:2 <- Has feat dedicated to it 5th Level Tan [3 rnks] UMD +7 CL:2 [2 rnks] UPD +4 ML: 2 Barak Brigandslayer [8 rnks] UMD +17(+21 scrolls) CL: 7(11 scrolls) 6th Level Hassan Sabbah [8 rnks] UMD +16 CL:6 [9 rnks] UPD +17 ML:7 The White Hand [9 rnks] UMD +13(+15) CL:3 (5 scrolls) You will notice some of the rogues/bards just aren't very good at it because they didn't design themselves to just UMD. And this brings up the question of can Barak under the new system buy the CL 11 scroll?
barrel_master 05-12-06, 01:43 PM	NiQil, the CoCo has developed from a single thread with 5 rules to a popular board with many members, and we're still not even halfway done..... Perhaps the 3-week routine is only a temporary solution until someone comes up with something more sophisticated. But thats one of the things though? What is better and what is worse? I remember in the older arena one of the big draws was that you could lvl quickly and that the rules where simple. Do more rules = more fun? For some members that may not be the case. and of course no one is trying to hold anyone hostage here, we're all just trying to do our best and improve the board is all while going about our own lives. Unfortunately I think these newer rules may harm enrollment of new members.
Kaigan 05-12-06, 01:53 PM	Hey guys, I've just read the last couple of posts, and I'm sad that NiQil would consider leaving, especially when I've now decided to come back. Haha. And I am curious as to what the change will be. I don't have the time atm because I'm busy getting oriented for my summer job, and will likely have the time in the future, so if someone could summarize it, that would be awesome, as I would like to add my 2 cents. With that said, I hope you stay NiQil.... as it would not be the same without you. Anyways, thanks for anyone that does the summary, and I'll be introducing 2 or 3 new characters for next week, or I might try to get Gundir, Rayos and Aeiou to level 10. Well see you guys around.
Pitlords 05-12-06, 02:15 PM	The Rules have been updated. It mostly revolves around Battles of Gladius I and II. If you find anything that needs to be updated, please tell me. I'll add the Virtual XP thing later. Kaigan, welcome back. Read "3-Week Cycle" in Battles of Gladius I, and "The 1/3 Rule" and "Cap on Expendables" in Battles of Gladius II.
Kaigan 05-12-06, 02:30 PM	Thanks for the links Cat. I actually support the 3-week cycle. It seems fun and enjoyable. I also like the cap on expendables. One idea that comes to mind for the 3-week cycle is to have maybe one or two members volunteer to check the character sheets each week. It should be fairly easy to do this, as most characters need to list any expendables used, and it is easy to view the fight to see what spells were used. Then it will certainly be easy for those 1 or 2 people to check up on all those that are fighting or beginning to fight, and any errors found should be stated in the prison thread. The only difficulties that I can see are when there are late fights. For this to work all fights need to be finished by tuesday morning, like they always have been, so that later that day, those volunteers can check the rosters, character by character. Perhaps it is asking much for these volunteers, but if you need someone to do it, I will volunteer, as I will have tuesdays and wednesdays off from my summer job. It may be a lot of work, but so long as you have people willing to make it work, and put in the time, then it should run smoothly, and any bumps can be smoothed along the way. Kaigan
MindWandererB 05-12-06, 02:37 PM	Whoa! I just noticed something very, very strange: Items and abilities that can be used a given number of times a day can be used 1/3 times that number, rounded up. For example, a Barbarian with 1 use of his Rage ability per day could use that ability once during his 3-Week Cycle. A higher-level Barbarian with 3 uses of his Rage ability daily can use it once in each fight. A Barbarian with 4 uses of his ability, however, can use it twice in one of the three fight. This also applies to magic items; for instance, a metamagic rod can only be used once during the 3-Week Cycle.I assume these are mistakes, and that 1) A barbarian's rage is still subject to the once-per-encounter rule, and 2) a metamagic rod can be used once per week (since it's a 3/day item), not just once per cycle. I'm also not finding the rule that says how long it is between fights. As written, unless I'm missing something, only 16-hour effects carry over from fight to fight. Was this an omission, or am I missing it?
SoulLord 05-12-06, 03:22 PM	Items and abilities that can be used a given number of times a day can be used 1/3 times that number, rounded up. For example, a Barbarian with 1 use of his Rage ability per day could use that ability once during his 3-Week Cycle. A higher-level Barbarian with 3 uses of his Rage ability daily can use it once in each fight. A Barbarian with 4 uses of his ability, however, can use it twice in one of the three fight. This also applies to magic items; for instance, a metamagic rod can only be used once during the 3-Week Cycle so let me get this straight. a higher level barbarian with 3 uses of his Rage ability daily can use it once in each fight but a metamagic rod than can be used 3 times a day can only be used in 1 fight? also Scrolls and Powerstones are furthermore capped to your CL+2. Potions and Tattoos use the normal D&D rules (Potions only those on list and Tattoos min ML; Blackmarket circumvents that). In case of different CLs (for example, +1 CL for Good spells due to the Good Domain) you can buy expendables according to your higher CL for the affected spells. Only permanent increases count (so you don't benefit from a bead of karma for expendable purposes). what is the ruling on CL for users of UMD and UPD?
NiQil 05-12-06, 09:26 PM	Alright....here goes... I've been doing a lot of thinking about this place. I have come to some conclusions. 1. While I am still against the 3-week rule, after reading it and rereading it and rereading it again...I've come to the conclusion that it is not the main source of my irritation. Other things have caused that, and I have let it affect my actions here. I want to at least give it a chance, regardless of how much I don't like it. Last month, my grandmother died. My apartment got taken over by the county and is being turned into low income housing, which means that we are getting kicked out because we make too much and have to move at the end of the month. This is the primary source of my stress and irritation. To go along with this, my car died, causing me to have to buy another. Third, my job is very stressful at the moment, due to an hour and a half commute in rush hour traffic each way. Last, but not least, my computer (just my monitor and some other accessories...not my harddrive, thankfully) was killed in a power surge (I am on my wife's at the moment), causing me to have to buy a new one (sort of a mixed blessing, that one). 2. Though I may be a cynic...I'm not a quitter. Ever since I posted that yesterday, I have regretted it. 3. I have too much that I still want to accomplish here..both with my characters and with the prison and my guild. That being said...it seems you are going to be stuck with me for awhile longer. So rescind my previous requests, Cat. If I don't keep you in check...who will? LOL All of that being said...I am going to make an announcement, regarding the prison, here. Due to my the issues I have mentioned above (for those that care), I am going to temporarily place the prison on hold until after the boards have been upgraded. Violations may still be posted as normal (until the boards go down again at the end of the month), but no prison updates will be performed. When the boards come back up after the upgrade, I will do a massive update at that time. All credit awards for maps and violations will be awarded at that time. Basically I am going to give everyone a fresh start with regard to violations. For those that are currently in prison, and those with existing violations, you have until the end of the month when the boards go back down to get them cleared. Same goes for any new violations that are posted. You may PM Prisonlords to review any violations that have been fixed only if you cannot get the original poster to alter their original post. Since the boards thing is such a mess, I have a feeling that we will be missing people that will normally be here otherwise, so I will review violations as needed. For those in the WAR guild, updates will still be done as normal, though they might be late this first week until my computer gets here. As an aside...Cat...with regard to the standard arena map....I would like to second MindWanderer's proposal. Every map we use except the arena map has only positive numbers in the x and y axis'. Lets make the new arena map uniform and make it the same way. That would eliminate the problem of not having a 0,0 square in the middle of the arena. It would also eliminate confusion for those pitlords that do not use the mapper...all coordinates for all maps would now be positive numbers...no need to worry about mistyping a negative and throwing your entire battle off. Also, when viewing the map in the Characters thread, it looks extremely blurry compared to everything else in there...is anyone else seeing this, or is it just me? Lastly....I quick thank you to those that expressed their desire for me to stay...not to sound too gushy, but its nice to feel wanted every now and again.
MindWandererB 05-12-06, 10:44 PM	Glad to hear it, NQ. However, if you do need to take things at a different pace to handle the chaos in your real life, let us know, there are a lot of us to pick up slack. You have a backup guildmaster for a reason--and isn't there supposed to be a backup prisonlord, too? Also, before any drastic changes to the arena map is made, I want to point out an important piece of Dracazar's mechanic. The way the mapmaker works, any IMG's that are pasted into the fight aren't actually stored there, they're generated on the fly with the PHP code. That means that if the main map is altered, the links won't work anymore. So if the coordinate system is changed so that it's all positive numbers, then all past fights will show the combatants standing in the walls. The only ways around this are to: A) Keep the existing coordinate system and map, exactly as they are (aesthetic changes are okay, but not relocating walls or obstacles), or B) Keep the old map saved so that old fights will still access its PHP script, and have the new map be considered an alternate option.
Vathelokai 05-13-06, 03:55 AM	You have to list your "Virtual XP" on your sheet. That means, you just sum up all XP you earned so far without deducting anything. Loss of xp due to crafting, familiar death, xp spell, etc is deducted from your real xp. Your real XP determine your ECL, the Virtual XP determine your league. It might now happen that you end up a league higher than your ecl if you craft a lot.The Virtual XP needs to be spelled out a bit more compleately. Getting this Virtual XP value for right now is correct as stated. It should also be noted that if you fall behind and are battling above your ECL, then your virtual xp grows at the level appropreat for a character of the correct ECL in the battle. Take an example where you are a wizard or cleric who crafts alot and you have a virtual xp value in the ECL9 range but your actual ECL is 8. If you win or loose an ECL9 battle, you recieve xp as an ecl8 character in an ecl9 encounter. But your virtual xp increases by the amount for an ecl9 character in an ecl9 battle. So if in our example the ECL8 wizard looses vs an ECL9 opponent and he recieves 1200xp and his virtual xp increases by only 900xp. This will slowly allow the wizard to recover the appropreat xp for the ECL he fights in, as should hppen with the self correcting nature of the xp system. Questions: Do monster fights of a different EL count as a battle at a different EL? Team fights? Hunter? FFA? There was one time that I was paired in the wrong league in error. Should I calculate that into things? Should I go through my characters and determine my virtual xp now, or is there other tweaking to be done on the system?
Caterane 05-13-06, 04:25 AM	I'm glad to hear that NiQil. You wouldn't just leave a D&D board but a community where you belong to and which would miss you dearly. Maybe the CoCo can be the light for you in this time of darkness... And don't worry about the Prison. You've deserved a break. @MW: Thanks.
Pitlords 05-13-06, 04:58 AM	Whoa! I just noticed something very, very strange: I assume these are mistakes, and that 1) A barbarian's rage is still subject to the once-per-encounter rule, and 2) a metamagic rod can be used once per week (since it's a 3/day item), not just once per cycle. I'm also not finding the rule that says how long it is between fights. As written, unless I'm missing something, only 16-hour effects carry over from fight to fight. Was this an omission, or am I missing it? Mistakes corrected. Thanks for pointing that out Mindwanderer. You're helping out a lot :thumbsup: About the 16 hour prebuffs, we haven't finished our discussion on the new Prebuff Approach. What do you guys think about it?
Vathelokai 05-13-06, 05:17 AM	I think that a static number of hours between fights would be the easiest and best. I understand that it takes away some realism, but it cuts down on the number of things a pitlord has to double check. Since there are 16 hours in which fights can take place, maybe 5 hours between fights (including 5 hours between waking and doing the first prebuff and the first fight). So this would only be availiable in the lowest leagues for characters that have the extend spell feat/item. But this would make 10 min/lv spells un-prebuffable. I think that a new prebuff rule will have to include surprise round rules to be reasonable in that regard.
Salrantol 05-13-06, 05:54 AM	Barak Brigandslayer [8 rnks] UMD +17(+21 scrolls) CL: 7(11 scrolls) And this brings up the question of can Barak under the new system buy the CL 11 scroll?Actually, since the limit is CL+2, it would be a CL 13 scroll. It could only be of a spell level 3 or lower due to the expendables cap. ((13 x 25 x 4)>(5 x 5 x 50)) Also...Normally, you can only buy expendables up to your ECL.So it would cost credits to get the CL 13 scroll. But, as I read the rules, he would be able to own it, if I would spend the 4 credits. I think the real intention of this rule is not to limit the cap by ECL (which is already done) but by CL, such as to stop Meinrad the Many-Fisted from buying scrolls of fly and fireball when he's only got one wizard level.
Pitlords 05-13-06, 06:04 AM	Rules for Virtual XP can be found in Rules of Gladius: Races and Classes. @Vath: The unpredictability is the strongest point of the variable prebuff. @Salrantol: That rule will soon be updated. I'll tend to the Blackmarket now.
Vathelokai 05-13-06, 07:23 AM	Rules for Virtual XP can be found in Rules of Gladius: Races and Classes. @Vath: The unpredictability is the strongest point of the variable prebuff. I read the virtual xp rules and it dosn't answer my question. Example: when auburn was ECL3 she fought a trio of bugbears. This was an EL5 encounter. Although she was still fighting in the ECL3 league, it was a higher encounter lv. because of unlucky random monster rolls. Which way does that count for the virtual xp? 3 or 5? Also, hunter/ffa - do they count as a regular league fight? The actual EL of a 4 man ffa is like ECL+2 (I think). I understand the unpredictability point, but it creates another tactics writing problem. If you don't know if your extended see invis is still active, how can you write tactics for the fight, specificly if you don't have more see invis memorized/on scroll? I think a set prebuff time, and a variable surprise round might be a better solution. Say 5 hours between fights, but up to a d6 rounds before each fight if you make the appropriate rolls/have the appropriate skills. If you are set on having a variable time, I vote with having a global time rolled at pairings, so that it is easy for everyone to see and plan for. And if you could be so kind in that scenerio, it could be placed under the "pairings done" sign in the fight of the week thread.
Pitlords 05-13-06, 07:31 AM	The Virtual XP doesn't apply to Quests, just to Battles of Gladius. A 4 pl FFA is not ECL+2 because you don't fight 3 opponents alone but everyone has the same number of foes. If you fight a monster of a higher league then it counts as a fight in a higher league. You misunderstood the prebuff thing. You will know how much time has passed when you write your tactic; either by a Global Time Roll made by me that affects all fights and will be posted along with the pairings, or the pitlord posts the time till your next fight in the fight summary.
Pitlords 05-13-06, 07:32 AM	Here's the proposal again: Now that we've found a way to bring spellpower back down to earth, we can talk about a revision of the prebuff rule. Currently, only 16 hour spells are useful but 10min/lvl spells are often cast at the beginning of entering a dungeon in a real game because they last long enough. Perhaps we can do away with the 16 hour prebuff rule altogether. There are two ways on how to simulate this: The Gamble You list any spell you want to cast before the fight under prebuffs. You can cast anything, even list Round/Lvl spells (but that would obviously be wasted). The Pairingmaker rolls 1d6 to determine the hours that pass before the first fight occurs. This happens along with the pairings. The Pitlord then checks which prebuffed spells are still in effect. At the end of the fight, the pitlord lists all spells that are currently still in effect incl those cast during the fight along with their remaining duration. He can ignore any spell with a duration with less than an hour. The player lists these spells under prebuffs incl their remaining durations. He can also add new spells now and mark them off from his spell-list. The next pitlord repeats this procedure. He checks which spells are still running according to all time rolls affecting this character. Example: Before the first fight, the player prebuffs with an 8 hour mage armor and a 4 hour False Life. The Pairingsmaker sets your fight beginning 3 hours after you cast the prebuff spells so both prebuffs are still running. During the fight, the character cast an extended darkness spell with 2 hours 40 minutes duration. In the fight summary, the pitlord writes down the running spells incl their duration: mage armor (5 hours), false life (1 hour), darkness (2 hour 40 min). The player now lists these that way under his prebuffs for his 2nd fight. He also chooses to add Freedom of Movement (1 hour 20 min) to his prebuff list. The time roll before the 2nd fight (listed in the pairings) is a 1, so only 1 hour has passed. That means Mage armor, Darkness and even Freedom of Movement are available; only False life has run out. The easy approach The other approach is less flexible but a bit easier to handle because it needs no Pairingmaker time roll. Before his first fight, the PC can prebuff with 16 hour spells normally. After the first fight, the Pitlord makes a Time Roll and lists all spells that are still running along with the remaining duration. The player then lists these under his new prebuffs. He can also prebuff with any spell that lasts 16 hours minus Time Rolls. Example: Before Week 1, you prebuff with a 16 hour Mage Armor, just as it is now. During the fight you cast False Life (8 hours duration) and Freedom of Movement (80 minutes duration). After the fight, the pitlord makes a time roll and gets a 6 on 1d6. That means 6 hours will pass before the next fight occurs. The player can keep Mage Armor (since it's 16 hours), and he can keep False life (with 2 hours duration left). Freedom of Movement has run out though. Since 6 hours have passed, the new minimum prebuff time has decreased from 16 hours to 10 hours. Still, the player chooses not to add any additional prebuffs. The second fight, the player enters with Mage Armor (10 hours left) and False Life (2 hours left). He casts some minute spells but also an extended darkness spell (160 min duration; or 2 hours 40 min). The Pitlord makes his time roll and gets a 2. That means, Mage Armor is still in effect with 8 hours remaining, False Life has just run out, but Darkness is still in effect with 40 min left. The first option is more realistic.
Vathelokai 05-13-06, 07:42 AM	Ah, I see my mistake. Option one then.
MitzaVolchenko 05-14-06, 11:33 PM	The three week cycle tracking seems to be more hassle than it is worth. I am stepping back from pitlording pending me making up my mind on whether I want to deal with it at all. I feel that the win/loss records across the board show that our current system is fairly balanced...the exception being for sorcerers who are completely nerfed by the 1/3rd rule. I don't think that all of the extra tracking is going to help anything. The virtual XP thing while seemingly a good idea is going to be a nightmarish editing job followed by the loss of a rather large number of wizards and scroll/wand users...yeah well let's just say that it is a good thing that Sybs never really relied on UMD. I am once again wondering if we are changing for the sake of change or some notion that we are improving the system. Caterane said something in relation to NiQil's original statement of resignation that truly bothers me. It is my firm belief that rules decisions and change implementations should be governed to a large degree by the desire of the majority of the community. The Gamemaster is responsible for making final calls when needed, but the will of the community is what keeps this place going. I think that perhaps there has been too little focus on what will make the place more fun and too much on what will make it more 'fair' or 'true to core' or whatever it is that is the aim of this series of revisions.
Usurpator 05-15-06, 08:43 AM	Is there already a ruling in the 3-week cycle what to do about: - Hp. recovery between fights? - Not self-affecting spells with long durations (Blindness/Deafness, Bestow Curse etc.)? - Sacrifice-type abilities (burning ability scores for extra pp. with Psionic Body)?
Usurpator 05-15-06, 08:59 AM	Prediction: The 3-week Cycle will produce more 'swingy' fights. In the old system, people still go 'all-out' against an almost unfindable/unhittable Pixie (for example), because they simple got nothing to lose by trying. In the 3WC system, people will accept defeat (and spend minimal resources) to have better odds in coming fights. Such a tactic makes good strategic sense. If winning odds with normal expenditure of limited resources drop below 25% (50/50 being the base) expect people to surrender. On the other hand, this will cause fights in week 2 to go the other way. You will have people that conserved resources more willing to go 'nova'. An opponent who did put in a good fight in week 1 would want to surrender in week 2 against such a character to improve his chances in week 3. Also tactics like: 'If my initial dissolving weapon psionic shot arrow misses or he saves against my hold person then surrender. No sense in spending more resources on a fight in which winning odds have turned poor.' Will become more popular. Don't get me started on the FFA's which already produce much waiting and avoidance type tactics. This will become worse still since now there is even more to lose by engaging first. Personally, I don't like swingy fights (and it becomes more tempting to play a Pixie or Ghost too, since few people want to spend resources in such a fight unless sure they can win), and consider it an unfortunate side-effect of the new rules. I like gladiators going all-out even if the odds are against them. This will now only happen on the last fight of the cycle.... I'm not against the 3WC rules per se, just pointing out possible unwanted side-effects.
Pitlords 05-15-06, 09:40 AM	New Rules for Prebuffs have been added to the rules in Rules of Gladius: Battles of Gladius II. It will start along with the new 3-Week Cycle on June 14. Until then, the old prebuff rules apply. The old 16 hour prebuff rule is outmoded by this more sophisticated system. It was also a necessary change because there is no 1/3 Prebuff allotment anymore from which we drew the prebuff spells. And finally, with all the hits spellcasters got with the last series of rules, this is actually to their advantage. The average prebuff time for a spell to last till the next encounter is 3.5 hours (instead of 16) and it takes an average of 10.5 hours for a spell to last throughout a complete cycle. Additionally, spells you cast in a fight might carry over (unless they do not qualify as a prebuff, like spells affecting the arena or hold the charge and such things). And finally, the level of unpredictability is the salt in the soup for our prebuffers. It's a bit like a gamble now. @Usurpator: Added these to Rules: Battles of Gladius I - the 3-Week-Cycle.
Macbrea 05-15-06, 09:56 AM	Please close font tag before sblock. And start a new one after it. You may use a font tag in the sblock perfectly fine as long as it closes inside the sblock. In other words, your example block doesn't work in firefox.
Pitlords 05-15-06, 10:41 AM	Fixed. I forgot about that problem ever since I changed to Opera.
Sindorin 05-15-06, 10:54 AM	As my buddies in a galaxy far far away said a long long time ago, I have a bad feeling about this.
SoulLord 05-15-06, 11:14 AM	As far as I know, I have the only UMD/UMP monkey at this board, so might I use it as an example... Hassan Sabbah (rogue 3/Psion-shaper 3) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7842025&postcount=550). Now, Hassan has blown 20 credits on a +5 UPD/UMD headband (a bit over priced, but that's another topic) so his modifiers are...I might be able to squeeze in another few points, but that is close to maximized. Under the (ranks/2=CL) proposal, Hassan could use Scrolls - 4 Non class stones -5 class stones - 5 Under the (skill lv -10=CL) proposal Scrolls - 6 Non class stones - 7 class stones - 5 Under the (rogues lvs. count as CL) proposal Scrolls - 5 Non class stones - 5 class stones - 5 Turns out Sauro's proposal give me the most power... now. But at lv 10...? Hassan will have 4 more ranks in each, a cloak of charisma, and some kind of +2 unnammed bonus giving him... which gives him... Under the (ranks/2=CL) proposal, Hassan could use Scrolls - 9 Non class stones -9 class stones - 7 Under the (skill lv -10=CL) proposal Scrolls - 15 Non class stones - 15 class stones - 15 Under the (rogues lvs. count as CL) proposal Scrolls - 7 Non class stones - 7 class stones - 7 Now I really like Sauro's Proposal. Somehow I feel like I just shot myself in the foot... :( actually Scrolls and Powerstones are furthermore capped to your CL+2. Potions and Tattoos use the normal D&D rules (Potions only those on list and Tattoos min ML; Blackmarket circumvents that). In case of different CLs (for example, +1 CL for Good spells due to the Good Domain) you can buy expendables according to your higher CL for the affected spells. Only permanent increases count (so you don't benefit from a bead of karma for expendable purposes). In case of Use Magic Device, you use your total skill value-10 to determine the CL (eg UMD+13 = CL 3). It seems unless you invest heavily in UMD ranks+charisma +magic items you'll be capped to a CL 2 at low levels (which means only 1st lvl stuff) and at high levels you'll have a CL even higher than full progression casters.
Ariel23 05-15-06, 02:24 PM	@Caterane and everyone re: 3-week system A lot of language in the rules is now confusing. It says at the top of the 1/3 Rule (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466659) "Since you have more than one fight a day..." but the rest of that page says it is a 3 week cycle. I'm not positive how to clear that up, other than to put in an explanation/definiton of a fight, a day, a week, etc. I think about half of my questions can be answered if we just clarify the terminology throughout the rules document as a whole. I would go through and CTRL+F for "week" and "day" and possibly "fight" and make sure that all of those are used correctly and match the new 3 week cycle rule and language. Questions: Am I to assume that X/day items carry over in the 3 week cycle just as spells do? What effect does this have on X/week items? What about crafting (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466576), which is 1000 gp/day, but what is a day? Did we now get rid of the 1/3 spell rule and replace it with a 1/3 crafting rule? :P You say that we have to plan "in advance" for crafting...does this mean we put down what we are crafting in Week 1? Do I have to put "Enchanting longsword to +1" in my activity line every week for 3 weeks? Does this affect money-making skills which are by week? What happens to your SP if you go inactive for week 1 or 2 of the 3 week cycle or have a holdover? Do your buffs go away when you die? [edit: If your familiar/companion dies, do you get him back immediately or at the end of the cycle?] Do Pearls and Crystals now function 1 per 3 weeks? Concerns: Week 3 holdovers will be a pain for everyone involved, particularly crafters. Probably all holdovers, for that matter. Can I take a number for the Character Changes thread to change feats on all of my casters to give them Extend Spell/Power now? Only 3000 gp for a rod of metamagic. :D Before it was only useful at 8th level, now it can be useful at ECL 3! Assuming that you have 3 or more characters to choose from, what if you only use your mundane gladiators in week 1 (or 2) and then every week (2 or) 3 bring in your casters? If you miss Week 1, you should only have 1/3 SP available for Week 2 and 2/3 for Week 2. If you miss Week 1 and 2, you should only have 1/3 SP for Week 3. For buffs/pre-buffs you would have to roll 2d6 instead of 1d6. How to document the 3 week cycle...on the character sheet or in the pairings? Or will it be a 3 week cycle per individual, not for the whole arena? (I.e., my fights are always 1-2-3, 1-2-3, even if they take place over the course of 12 RL weeks.) This adds a lot of complexity to writing tactics (and PLing). You will have to specify how many spells to use each week if you don't want to automatically lose in Week 3. And you will have to specify which spells to use or not to use in more detail than before. Expect losing gladiators to complain a lot about how many spells were used in the fight (winners too). Also, I will probably have to change my pre-buffs and default tactics each week according to what effects still remain from the previous week. Example:As it stands now, I can prepare one Hold Person but cast it every week (standard/default tactics) but with the new system I can only use it once per 3 weeks. On the plus side, this makes sorcerers about equal to Wizards. On the downside, it makes Psions and Psychic Warriors way more powerful, as if they needed it. Wilders still suck. I don't have time now, but I will definitely be posting new characters (both primary casters) to take advantage of this. I guess after the reset, if that ever actually happens. As an aside...Cat...with regard to the standard arena map....I would like to second MindWanderer's proposal. Every map we use except the arena map has only positive numbers in the x and y axis'. Lets make the new arena map uniform and make it the same way. Please include me in that vote...I hate the true Cartesian system of the main arena compared to the others where all values are positive. Nothing against DesCartes. I quick thank you to those that expressed their desire for me to stay...not to sound too gushy, but its nice to feel wanted every now and again.I didn't know you were leaving, but I want you to stay. I've mostly ignored the boards, thinking that it was all meaningless anyway (during board maintenance), but they changed that.
Ariel23 05-15-06, 02:36 PM	I've seen this before and I don't understand it. Can we also nerf CLW which costs the same amount of SP/PP but provides 1d8+Lvl HP? A 5th lvl psionic can spend 5 PP to get 25 HP in one round. A 5th level cleric can spend 5 SP to get 25+5d8 HP over 5 rounds. They are about equally balanced.
Macbrea 05-15-06, 02:45 PM	I think you misunderstand. CoCo isn't running pairings in three week increments. Your gladiator is fighting in three week increments. Given that: Using Izumi: May purchase stuff fights week 1 in May 17th. Takes break week of May 24th. fights week 2 in May 31st. Takes 5 week break on Weeks June 7, 14, 21, 28 and July 5th fights week 3 on July 12th May purchase stuff again after week 3 fight. I need to keep track in her fight log what fight week, she is on. All fighters will not be on the same week worth of fight. It should in theory even out. Though, is a bit fo a paperwork hassle in order to allow casters alittle more flexability.
MitzaVolchenko 05-15-06, 03:24 PM	Um, time is gonna get wonky...what happens when a character takes off on quest after fight one? Or crafts full time for three weeks? Their fight time is frozen until they return? Gonna wreak havoc with those of us that actively RP our characters.
Zevox 05-15-06, 03:27 PM	Um, time is gonna get wonky...what happens when a character takes off on quest after fight one? Or crafts full time for three weeks? Their fight time is frozen until they return? Gonna wreak havoc with those of us that actively RP our characters. 'Twas addressed previously. Full-week crafting and full 3-week quests (and Guild Operations that involve combat, if memory serves) can only be begun if you're not in the midst of a 3-week cycle (i.e. just finished week 3 of previous cycle). Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-15-06, 03:44 PM	I've seen this before and I don't understand it. Can we also nerf CLW which costs the same amount of SP/PP but provides 1d8+Lvl HP? A 5th lvl psionic can spend 5 PP to get 25 HP in one round. A 5th level cleric can spend 5 SP to get 25+5d8 HP over 5 rounds. They are about equally balanced. The major difference is not in the use of spell points vs power points. Nor even in the number of HP provided. The important distinction is that Vigor gives temporary HP so the power can be used before you are wounded. This is a tactical advantage and a disadvantage in a certian sense as well. The advantage is that you can use it before you are in a position where you need those HP badly. So manifesting Vigor ML4 before you get hit is attractive since you can basicially give yourself 20 extra HP. There are disadvantages as well. If you are down to 2 HP and manifest Vigor then you get 20 temporary HP, and you foe can hit you with a dispell magic effect to remove that. Such measures are impossible to counter a previously cast healing spell of any kind. The major issue for those who consider the power to be imbalanced is a specific case. That is the augmented Powerstone of Vigor ML4. This dandy little item grants 20 extra hp for the bargin price of only 200gp. Thats hp you can use to boost your ability to survive a big hit, and it is more hp than are healed by cure serious wounds scroll and it's about the same price as such a scroll. All in all I agree with your assesment. Vigor is balanced and doesn't need to be nerfed. I just felt the need to point out the arguments on both sides of that issue.
SauroGrenom 05-15-06, 06:11 PM	I'm writing this example out so that we can all understand the various implications of our new rules for Virtual XP and the 3-Week Cycle. In my example I hope to make clear how you track this as a player and how you account for it as a pitlord. Let me introduce Geisha. Geisha is an ECL10 Half Celestial Elven Cleric with the Magic and "Charm" ;) domains. Geisha has a long history of crafting lots of items, so she has lost enough xp to put her into a position where her Virtual XP is higher than her actual XP and she fights in a league above her ECL. We shall say that Geisha has spent 1500xp crafting and has 5 class levels in Cleric. With a wisdom of 20, she has a total of 23 spell levels memorized and she can use a maximum of 8 spell levels in her first fight. Also she can own a maximum total of 4050gp worth of scrolls. And the maximum CL of any divine scroll is CL7, while her arcane scrolls cannot be above CL4 (unless her player pays credits). In the first week Geisha prebuffs with her air elemental ally, uses a prebuffed scroll of Mage Armor CL3 (the best she can cast without a check) on her ally, and Magic Vestment from her spell list on herself as another prebuff with 6 hour durration. Then she sets her litle line to indicate that she's "Ready for March 56th Week1:ECL10". Then Pitlords rolls pairings and he rolls that Geish is paried with Grock a orcish barbarian. Also there is a 3 hour time frame before all fights that week. Finally pitlords indicates what battle field we use for this fight. When Geisha's player gets ready to write tactics, she goes to look at her foe's sheet first (as any good player does). There she looks up the last fight her foe participated in (also always a good idea). In that fight is listed Grock's previous character sheet. She quickly determines that Grock has already participated in 2 fights in his 3-Week Cycle. So she checks to make sure that Grock hasn't bought any new expendibles since his last battle. (If this was the 1st week in Grock's 3-week cycle this check would be unecessary.) Geisha is delighed to discover that Grock has used all his fly potions and most of his arrows. He has only 17 arrows and two throwing axes left. Since her battle has a 3 hour time frame before it begins, her mage armor spell on the air elemental ally is expired. However her Magic Vestment spell remains. She is allowed to use 8 spell levels and so far has used 2 for the magic vestment spell. She can cast 6 spell levels in the fight. Geisha's tactic to defeat this foe is using a scroll to become invisible, and then a true strike scroll to attempt a disarm attempt with a reach weapon. Finally her ally will swoop in and steal the fallen bow before Grosk can recover it. Her tactic succeeds at stealing Grock's bow from him. Geisha then slay's Grock with a rain of Magic Missiles from her wand while flying out of reach. When the battle is done, the pitlord lists xp and gp rewards for both players. Also the pitlord includes in his fight summary what scrolls and spells were used by Geisha. Finally the pitlord lists any spell effects that continue to be in effect at the end of the battle. In this case Geisha's Magic Vestment spell continues for 2 more hours. Grock recieves xp and gp rewards for loosing an ECL10 fight as an ECL10 player. Also Grock may now "level" his character with the cumulated xp for his last 3 week cycle. Finally Grock can now spend gp to purchase any expendibles he may need. Geisha recieves gp rewards for winning an ECL10 fight, and xp rewards for being ECL9 and winning an ECL10 fight. However her "Virtual XP" increases by the amount that an ECL10 character would recieve for this battle. In this case Geisha wins 4050xp and her "Virtual XP" increases by 2700xp. Notice that Geisha was 1500xp behind, and now this decreases to only 350 xp behind. However she is not allowed to level her character till the end of the 3 week cycle. So Geisha's player now puts an sblock at the bottom of the sheet. This includes the everything in the fight summary from the pitlord of the last fight that has to do with Geisha. So it should list spells used, gp earned, xp earned, virtual xp earned, items used and any spell-like abilities used. Geisha's player now revises her pre-buff section to include the magic vestment's 2 hour durration that remains, and she uses an strikethrough for the used spells domain abilities, items, class or racial abilities and so on that require a rest to recover and were used in the last battle. Then she set's the tile line of her sheet to read "Ready for March 63rd Week2:ECL10". Pitlords runns pairings again and now the pre-fight time frame is 1 hour. Her foe this time is the Reaper!!! a halfgiant cleric psywarrior with the magic domain and a fantastic record. Well Geisha looks at the Reaper's sheet and discovers that this is the 1st fight of his 3 week cycle. He is totally stocked with scrolls (and she doesn't have to look at his expendibles list from last week). Also Geisha has used 2 spell levels so far, and fortunately her Magic Vestments spell continues to be in effect. She is allowed to use up to 8 spell levels in this fight plus any unused spell levels from last fight. Since she has 6 unused spell levels in the last fight, she can use a total of 14 spell levels against The Reaper. Also she hasn't used any of her spell-like abilities yet, so they are all available to her. However the Reaper is still limited to 1/3 of his total spell levels. Let's say that Geisha uses up many spells and scrolls and spell like abilities, and looses none the less due to the Reaper's grappling tactics with spiked armor. At the end of the battle, the pitlord again makes the same list as the pitlord of the last battle did. However he check's Geisha's last battle and quotes the summary their so that his new summary is a cumulative summary of all used spells, items, prebuffs remaining.... and rewards since the last rest. In this battle Geisha looses an ECL10 fight and her Virtual XP increases by 900xp. Her actual xp increases by 1350. Now she is totally caught up since her actual xp exceeds her virtual xp. Her virtual xp is from now on the same as her actual xp unless she crafts again or looses xp for some reason. The player doesn't need to track virtual xp untill her xp decreases again for some reason. Let's say that Geisha's player goes to spring break in Cancun and is gone for 3 weeks. Geisha is on hold for that time. When the player returns, she puts the new fight summary in an sblock at the bottom of her sheet. Also the player goes through and edits the prebuffs section and uses a strikethrough on all used abilities and items. Finally the player sets the title line to read "Ready for April 5th Week3:ECL10". When pairings are done Geisha's prebuffed magic vestments has certianly expired since it had only 1 hour remaining after the last battle. Also any ability, item, spell or other x/day effect that has not been used in the previous days can be used in this battle. Geisha check's her foe's sheet as before and writes tactics. When the battle is complete Geisha's player can edit the entire sheet. Rewards from all 3 battles are summed and added to the sheet. The player may now decide to craft (and cause virtual xp to be tracked again). Or the character may now quest. Certianly the player can purchase any item desired and can decide on new spells or perhaps increase the level of the character. I hope that little example makes clear how the player and pitlord are to keep track of the 3-week cycle.
Book5 05-15-06, 06:13 PM	As far as I understand at this point - we are attempting to maintain the day for day time scale of CoCo, and I can imagine that will become odder when it requires three weeks to get through one day. With that in mind perhaps we should make a logistical decision and make it so that the arena "only runs once every three weeks" - this has an effect on the accounting of the guilds - they would only get the rewards from a fighter at the end of the three week period. There is a conceptual dissonance however when you allow gladiators to be on different weeks. To sync everything (since we still have time to make these decisions) we can actually make the weeks consistent.. now before you stop me hear me out. This does not mean that a fighter can't come in on the second week of the tourney - but if they do their "three week cycle" resets after two weeks. Basically they showed up late and jumped in midday. This would guarantee that all campaigns not only started the same time, but were in sync with the three week cycle (being a three week cycle already). Now the loose ends here are the full activities and mini's. Perhaps, (considering synchronization) enforcing a “three week full activity” would be in order. That will require more consideration, but I think the control and consistency benefits of this along with the 3WC deal would be invaluable.
SauroGrenom 05-15-06, 06:55 PM	As far as I understand at this point - we are attempting to maintain the day for day time scale of CoCo, and I can imagine that will become odder when it requires three weeks to get through one day. Where ever did you get that idea? Sorry to break it to you, but that's totally wrong. We are not interested in maintaining a realistic time line for all events in CoCo. It is impossible. If you want to think of it in a semi-realistic way, then go right ahead. I imagine that the Arena is a strange construction with some kind of magicially transforming terrain. When a gladiator goes to the Collosium they get put into a room and wait till it's their turn. Who know how long they wait? Maybe 2 hours maybe 6. In any case after the 1st battle, they are restored to life and health by epic magics that are placed on the Arena its self and the gladiators return to their rooms. When a gladiator goes to the Collosium, he contracts for 3 fights in that day to recieve his rewards. At the end of the day, the administrators fork over the gold and the gladiator goes home. Perhaps time does not flow normally in those holding rooms in the Collosium. The Collosium is a strange place endowed with epic magics.
SoulLord 05-15-06, 07:03 PM	Well there's the small matter of role playing the time systems complicates things. As an alternative to don't mess up with the time so much perhaps each 3 week run cicle also has 2 full activities included. just some thoughts
MindWandererB 05-15-06, 07:21 PM	@Sauro: There is supposed to be a realistic time system. According to Cat, each battle takes place actually takes place in a different week. As he put is: Week 1: Arena battle 1, unknown battle, unknown battle. Week 2: Unknown battle (with, coincidentally, the exact same expenditures as arena battle 1), Arena battle 2, unknown battle. Week 3: Unknown battle, unknown battle, Arena battle 3. (There is still no explanation why you can't go shopping, but such an explanation is not impossible.) The random time between battles is a function of real-world randomness. You don't wait in a room, you're going about your business in the real world. When the bell tolls for thee, the fight starts. If you're near the coliseum, you fight in the arena. If not, you fight in the city streets, or the forest, or whatever.
NiQil 05-15-06, 09:26 PM	@ Cat: Now that people are starting to come back because they were under the impression that normal postings would not start until this coming week, we are starting to see more and more questions brought up regarding this 3 week cycle. As you can plainly see, more and more people seem to have reservations about it. The only true supporters of this idea that I have seen are you and Sauro. There are several that don't really care one way or the other, as long as things run smoothly, but there seem to be a growing number of people who share my line of thought on this matter. There are still several questions that haven't been answered with regard to this new system. I would highly encourage you to once again rethink the implementation of this system. I know that I keep saying the same thing over and over, but as more and more people return to our forums, we are seeing more and more questions and concerns brought forth. It seems plain to me that this system is more trouble than it will be worth. As an example, what now happens to weekly free activities? If all of these fights are set to occur in the same day, how do free activities now occur? I don't recall seeing this addressed anywhere. Using Sauro's example scenerio above, we have now increased the bookkeeping and set-up time of both players writing tactics and pitlords running fights considerably. I thought the idea was to make things easier and simpler. This seems to be a rather large step backwards in that regard. We already have a large dearth of pitlords, and now we want to make their jobs *more difficult and time consuming? That just seems counterproductive to me. Again...these are all things I have said before...and I haven't made a dent before, so I'm not sure why I think it will do any good now...but I can't just not say anything as the objections and concerns continue to pile up.
Book5 05-15-06, 09:43 PM	I know I have read that before - that we would prefer to keep consenual timing. Running a tourney "once every three weeks" and then performing the physical pitlording sequentially over the three week period would allow you to do that. The hassle is codifying a three week non-combat activity option. The characters that take advantage of the full activities could probably get allot done in a three week period. Perhaps more than could be done with three consequtive full activities as they stand now... But I guess you could do a mini then two full activities, or maybe, I dunno, but I am pretty certain that we want to have a one-to-one relationship with real time. Doing it this way could get that done. The only techinical differences are the two and one week entries.. and the three weeks delay between guilds getting paid by the arena officials. I think this would accomplish everything the current proposition achieves as well as being easier to contemplate. There is less confusion. There is a "morning, noon, and night" battle. And you know which one you are entering at the outset. Like as if you went to a tourney. For RP purposes you pretend like you havent gotten into any fights until the third week and then everybody starts talking about whatever - and setting up campaigns instead of signing up for the next tourney. If thats what they want to do over the next three weeks. Weather and random guild activities would not be effecting the arena as much either. Only the effect of the "actual" week (the morning week) that the tourney occured. Further - since all these fights are happening on the same day - free activities probably aught to reflect the time between the tourneys - basically you don't set free activities for the first two "weeks" but set a more three effective weeks of free activities in the third week. You should still be resticted to the simpler level of free activites (instead of full activities). Even though you have "three weeks off" - if you are planning on involving yourself in the next tourney ... you're practicing/training/researching too much to take a Full activity.
Book5 05-15-06, 10:04 PM	@ Cat: ... The only true supporters of this idea that I have seen are you and Sauro. AND ME! Using Sauro's example scenerio above, we have now increased the bookkeeping and set-up time of both players writing tactics and pitlords running fights considerably. I thought the idea was to make things easier and simpler. This seems to be a rather large step backwards in that regard. We already have a large dearth of pitlords, and now we want to make their jobs *more difficult and time consuming? That just seems counterproductive to me. However using my idea would simplify that massivly - you could do prison reports once every three weeks. The vast majority of the guild actions would only occure once every three weeks. Campaigns would always be started at the reset mark. Basically the "big hassle" of figuring out the next three weeks would always be in that one week. Instead of dispersing the confusions at multiple points. Again - I think this system will generate the benifits we imagine - however there is no use in pretending we arnt all gonna :banghead: for a few iterations until it starts to make sense.
Traevanon 05-15-06, 10:07 PM	He has only 17 arrows and two throwing axes left. Hold on a moment... you cant recover arrows or throwing weapons used in previous fights? You have to leave them laying on the field even if they are perfectly usable?
Book5 05-15-06, 10:10 PM	Hold on a moment... you cant recover arrows or throwing weapons used in previous fights? You have to leave them laying on the field even if they are perfectly usable? Well I think sauro is implying the ammo broke.. odd that he would include throwing axes in that list...
SauroGrenom 05-15-06, 11:34 PM	Hold on a moment... you cant recover arrows or throwing weapons used in previous fights? You have to leave them laying on the field even if they are perfectly usable? My only point was that in this example the character Grock has a limited number ranged attacks available. Perhaps he actually shot every arrow in his last battle and recovered 17. Not a big deal realy.
SauroGrenom 05-16-06, 12:13 AM	...Using Sauro's example scenerio above, we have now increased the bookkeeping and set-up time of both players writing tactics and pitlords running fights considerably. I thought the idea was to make things easier and simpler. This seems to be a rather large step backwards in that regard. We already have a large dearth of pitlords, and now we want to make their jobs *more difficult and time consuming?...If you read closely you find that there are actually very few additional things for pitlords or players to do that they were not already doing. I tried to make my example for Geisha as complicated as possible because I wanted to illustrate all the new rules going on at once. Thus I chose a half-celestial template for the spell-like abilities and I chose the magic domain for the expendible's limits and I chose to use pre-buffed spells. Using names from my example: 1:Geisha's player now looks at her opponent's sheet in the last battle and compares it to the current sheet looking for illegal expendibles purchases. The player only needs to do this if the opponent is on a 2nd or 3rd battle in the cycle and if they care to look. This is actually never required, and is only worthwhile 2/3 of the time. 2: Geisha's player marks off used spells before her 2nd fight and coppies (cut and paste anyone?) the fight summary into an sblock at the bottom of her sheet. 3: Pitlord lists all used spells, abilities in the fight summary. 4: Pitlord checks previous fight summary and coppies that into current fight summary (cut and paste again). That's it. Doesn't look to hard to me. Actually it looks to me like it rather encourages everyone to be a better player and look up your foe's previous fights. Infact if anything it makes it easier to run a character. You are not shopping for your character every week. You do not need to update used expendibles every week, you do not need to restructure your memorized spell list every week, you do not need to update your gp and xp earned, spent, current amounts every week. These several tasks are now only done every third week. The pitlord isn't rolling any extra dice or linking any extra rolls. The pitlord doesn't need to keep track of any additional placements on a map. Nor does he need to keep track of or type anything he wouldn't normally track untill he writes up the fight summary. At that time only the pitlord then looks at last week's summary and makes the new summary cumulative. Two of the four new duties for players and pitlords are simply coppying with cut and paste a record of the last week's summary. These are not complicated or burdensome things to do. The other details for a pitlord or player to keep track of are the same that our questlords have kept track of for months and months. Also these are things that are recorded by a good pitlord as he runs his fight anyway. All we ask is that the pitlord simply posts his list of used stuff and abilities in the fight summary. All other things are the same as we would do them without a 3 week cycle. As for free activities, this was discussed in the original proposal. Basicially there is nothing that changes. A free activity is recorded by the pitlord in the summary for each week (same as it has been done for months now). You fight 3 fights and it takes 3 weeks to run those fights, then you get 3 free activities.
Book5 05-16-06, 03:03 AM	NiQiL, perhaps you would be better to say (and totally right) that there will be an increased workload on the narcs. Its harder on the players probably more so than the pitlords. The players are the ones that are behooven keep track of everything on their sheet, and they are the ones the most prone to making mistakes. Sauro's right in that the pitlords workflow is minimally effected. The players' bar is the one that has been raised - and simple failures alone will increase the number of characters running through the prison. I know I barely manage to update my characters every two weeks. I also hate doing math.. :P but yeah - the pitlord just runs the fight same as always. Beyond checking for the easy (but blatent) cheat of incorectly recording your status... not much difference to them. Ok, we will now be expecting the pitlord to record more statistics of the fight... they just ran. Half the time the fotw thread has half that information in it already. I'd say most the pitlords I have been run through have put an equivalent + commentary. No more hassle than counting arrows - and it can be done at the same time.
Usurpator 05-16-06, 03:26 AM	Hi Sauro, Would the following be possible? Geisha prefight: actual ECL9, virtual ECL 10 Week 1: wins, actual ECL 10, virtual ECL 10 Week 2: wins, actual ECL 10, virtual ECL 10 Week 3: wins, actual ECL 11, virtual ECL 11 Since Geisha can only level after week 3, has she just bypassed lvl 10 entirely? Addendum: if she wants to craft something in week 2 as free activity, what level is she? Can she use her actual level, even though she hasn't actually levelled?
Usurpator 05-16-06, 04:09 AM	Nexa teaches the Wolf she has brought to the combat the trick 'Attack' in week 1. Does the Wolf know the trick in week 2? How do I note it on the sheet? Shazzelin uses his skill to gain a blackmarket item without credit cost in week 2 as free activity, does he have it available in week 3? How do I note it on the sheet? Borodin upgrades his armor to +1 as free activity in week 1, is it +1 in his next fight? How do I note it on the sheet? Boroding upgrades his armor from +1 to +2 as full activity after week 2. Can he do that? Can we do any full activities within a 3WC? How do I note it on the sheet? ECL 9 Geisha (virtual ECL 10) with CL 6 becomes ECL 10 (virtual ECL 10) after the first week, and also reaches CL 7. She really likes to scribe a scroll of Rigtheous Might (a 4th lvl spell), but she can't since she hasn't actually levelled. After her 3WC is complete she is ECL 11 (virtual 11) and CL 8. As free activity in her next fight (and next 3WC) she has her first opportunity to write the scroll. However, she isn't able to use it until that cycle is completed too. After completing she is ECL 12 (virtual 12), and has to go 5 fights without having the scroll available, even though she could craft it before those 5 fights. This is a correct interpretation, yes? I mean, the last scroll scribing rules wreaked havoc with free activity scribers, the current 3WC setup tops that by a fair margin. I think allowing weekly activities as done previously doesn't fit the new system. It doesn't make sense from a logic standpoint (the fights are supposed to take place within a day, how can you do a week's worth of activities in between?), and produces other problems as shown above. Free Activities within the 3WC system should logically take place after the fight and generate all benefits at once. Also, it doesn't make sense to make people 'prebuff' their free activities anymore or mention them in the fight logs or title line. Just have them note it on their sheet. Activities after cycle 1: free activity 1: xxxxxx, free activity 2: xxxxx, etc.
Usurpator 05-16-06, 04:29 AM	Basically the "big hassle" of figuring out the next three weeks would always be in that one week. No it would not. I have 11 characters, and try to run 2 different ones each week. In the 3WC system, my characters will run 15 weeks before any big update (like levelling). Next to that, fight weeks of characters will be different. Eventually, one-third of all characters will be fighting in week 1, one third in week 2 and the final third in week 3.
MitzaVolchenko 05-16-06, 04:41 AM	I am in 100% agreement with NiQil. There are perhaps three rabid supporters of this and a lto fo unanswered questions. I am particularly perturbed about the nerfing of timelines. It will be really ugly if guilds actually start assaulting each other. For example, I start in a three week arena cycle with Zwei. CEF assaults EHTC in some way in week 1 of Zwei's cycle. I can't take week 2 to go retaliate by sneaking into CEF and wreaking havoc on them? Why? My morning workout in the arena was too strenuous to protect my investment in my guild? Sorry guys, but this system may make you all happy about spells used and expendables tracked, etc. but it is killing my joy more and more as I think about it. I also have ZERO interest in having to audit every character sheet I run a fight for. Sure, it is the players' jobs but how many of us have never goofed? What happends when someone points ut the illegal expenditures on Monday night? How do carried over fights work? I request that the implementation of the 3 week cycle as written be put to a community vote prior to implementation. I think we need everyone here to either yes or no the system. If the majority says no, then it goes back to the drawing board to address the concerns voiced with the votes. Make it mandatory to vote as a post so that you have to say why you are voting the way you are voting. I am not saying that there are not things that could be done to work on the issues that this system supposedly solves, but I do not think this is the best way to go about it.
SauroGrenom 05-16-06, 08:45 AM	Hi Sauro,... Since Geisha can only level after week 3, has she just bypassed lvl 10 entirely?... Usurpator, Yes Geisha can bypass the 10 level entirely. She was fighting at that level for 3 battles. After those battles she will fight at ECL11. Actually this is not a new thing caused by the 3-Week Cycle. Questing above your ECL or participating in a fight several levels above your own could all have the same effect. All the free activities take effect at the end of the cycle. If you craft an item it is not available untill the end of the cycle. If you train your animals they do not have the trick till the end of the cycle. If you buy something with gather information, it is not available untill the end of the cycle. All these changes take place once every 3rd week. Untill then the free activities are recorded in the fight summaries (same as we do it right now). Geisha does not actually gain a level in any respect durring the 3-week cycle. If she desires to craft a scroll above her current caster level, then she should do it after her 3 week cycle is over. Probably the smartest thing for her player to do is take a week and spend it crafting as a full activity after the cycle is over. At that point in time she can craft a number of scrolls not just 1. If you realy think that an overhaul for the free activities system is needed, try to make a case that a problem exists and propose a solution. For Mitza, All guild actions are considered to be just like miniquests. As such they are the same as 1 week in the 3 week cycle. So Zwei can go and sneak into CEF in week 2. Infact there is very different about how this miniquest is run compared to before. Any miniquest can take place at any time in the cycle as 1 fight. Also time lines are not "nerfed". Cat's proposal about how time lines should be concieved was repreated by Mindwanderer a few posts back. It works fine. As a pitlord you are not required to audit every character sheet. No auditing requirements are in place for anyone. There is incentive for a player to look and see if there opponent has illegally purchased items or recovered spells. However there is no requirement. Carried over fights and cheating are treated as they always have been. Nothing changes in this regard. If your fight is carried over, it is carried over. Nothing more nothing less. All your concernes are important things to be concerned about. However none of them are actually going to be a serious increase in workload for running your characters or your fights. As I mentioned in my post here it may infact be easier to run a character since many tasks are only done every 3rd week instead of every week. We are only asking for 4 things that were not required for all pitlords and characters before. Two of the 4 are just copy and paste. The other 2 are very simple things that good players and pitlords should be tracking anyway. Now we just ask pitlords to write out a summary and players have an incentive to look carefully at there opponent's sheet before writing tactics. Do not be confused by the multitude of things that were discussed in the council over the last 3 weeks. There are several different things that were put into place all at once but are part of different solutions to different problems. Virtual XP is not part of the 3-Week Cycle and opposing the 3-Week Cycle will not make it go away. Also expendable limits are something different and not a part of the 3-Week cycle. Finally the CoCo boards are not a democracy. That fact may be something you don't like, but it is a fact. Cat has said so several times in this discussion. Infact apparently he has been scolded by the boards administrators for running his board too democraticially. So a community vote will not be used to determine if the 3-Week Cycle is going to be stopped or whether it will continue. Persuasion is ever your tool to get what you want in this forum.
Traevanon 05-16-06, 09:15 AM	By the way, I want to offer my support for something that has come up before, is minor in nature but would have been a big help in the practice match that I ran... Eliminate the negative numbers from the coordinate system in the main arena map, please. Begin things at 0,0 down in the bottom, left corner. @Sauro: The throwing axes had me confused.
Usurpator 05-16-06, 09:31 AM	Yes Geisha can bypass the 10 level entirely. She was fighting at that level for 3 battles. After those battles she will fight at ECL11. Actually this is not a new thing caused by the 3-Week Cycle. Questing above your ECL or participating in a fight several levels above your own could all have the same effect. Just asking. And this *is* a new thing for fighting regular weekly battles. It might be that I like my build to fight at 10th lvl, to see how it operates at 10th lvl, in the new system I might now miss this possibility entirely unless I am careful in planning my levelling. All the free activities take effect at the end of the cycle. If you craft an item it is not available untill the end of the cycle. If you train your animals they do not have the trick till the end of the cycle. If you buy something with gather information, it is not available untill the end of the cycle. All these changes take place once every 3rd week. Untill then the free activities are recorded in the fight summaries (same as we do it right now). If activities take place at the end of a cycle, it is stupid to post them after a fight or call them 'weekly'. It makes no sense to do so except for adhering to tradition. As I said, it would make more sense to change the 'weekly free activities' to 'free activities per cycle', and multiply all limits by three, or allow a combination of activities. Also, the new system is making full activities more desired, since it takes at least 4 weeks before you get the effect of any free activity you like you character to do. You are taking away a lot of the freedom and flexibility I had previously, so the new system has to solve a lot of urgent problems to justify taking away that freedom, or it has to make allowances for those freedoms. Geisha does not actually gain a level in any respect durring the 3-week cycle. You do understand that by artificially preventing levelling you are actually making it less like tabletop play instead of making it more like tabletop play (in that respect)? If she desires to craft a scroll above her current caster level, then she should do it after her 3 week cycle is over. Probably the smartest thing for her player to do is take a week and spend it crafting as a full activity after the cycle is over. At that point in time she can craft a number of scrolls not just 1. That is my point exactly. Replenishing scrolls used is now something that takes a full 6 weeks to do unless you take a full activity to do so (even if you only want to craft a few hundreds of gp. worth of scrolls). That's just plain weird. And full activities (costing credits and time) were not meant to allow scroll users to rescribe a few expended scrolls. Once again, I am pointing out the (unintended?) changes the new system will bring about. You haven't stated at all if you like these changes or think they are balanced, or that you are willing to sacrifice such for a greater good perhaps. I would like your opinion on this. If you realy think that an overhaul for the free activities system is needed, try to make a case that a problem exists and propose a solution. I did both, please read my posts more carefully, you are sounding a bit defensive to me while I am just asking for clarifications. I don't want to have a fight with you because you are already at an emotional 'point of no return' due to the effort you have put into the system. Please don't defend your ideas, since the goal of our discussion is not to implement your ideas, but to improve the current system, right? Talk with me about it, don´t fight me please. I have not said I am rejecting it, do I? Persuasion is ever your tool to get what you want in this forum. I think 'boycott' is another tool, and it seems to be the only tool if the 'rule-changers' have a large emotional investment in a system they thought up. In any case, if I don't feel my opinions are respected, I generally won't bother to put in the effort to make them. And another tool is public disobedience. I can just play without conforming to the new rules, and if I get enough players to do so as well, there is precious little anyone can do. Saying such things as you do above makes me feel adversarial. If anyone intends to change something without listening to me openly, I will fight them even if I agree with their proposal.
Macbrea 05-16-06, 10:20 AM	Finally the CoCo boards are not a democracy. That fact may be something you don't like, but it is a fact. Cat has said so several times in this discussion. Infact apparently he has been scolded by the boards administrators for running his board too democraticially. So a community vote will not be used to determine if the 3-Week Cycle is going to be stopped or whether it will continue. Persuasion is ever your tool to get what you want in this forum. Diplomacy is not one of your assets SauroGrenom, don't be fooled by thinking it is. Your suggestion that we swallow any random crap you think up is horribly wrong. We don't have to. We can reduce the participation in the boards to zero. Now, that doesn't seem like a very good method of gaining new people or actually keeping people working on the boards. If you really feel that you can stomp your foot and things will be the way they are. Your horribly wrong. I personally retired my spell caster rather then try and figure out the random crap that is the change to a three week cycle with him. It isn't worth it. I will play my fighter and not have to think much about it. Easy fix for my side.
Myrridin 05-16-06, 10:33 AM	So I just read Sauro's recap of what the 3 week cycle's will be like...and I think it sounds like a crap idea. The amount of book keeping sucks, from a player perspective, and adds a lot of complexity. I think that instead of gaining new players, we'll scare away potential players, and drive older ones to stop participating. I'll probably move to only running questing/campaign characters if this happens. Just doesn't look like near as much fun.
SoulLord 05-16-06, 10:49 AM	lets see we have 3 defenders of the 3 week cicle as it currently stands SauroGrenom Caterane Book5 and we have several people at least with reservations on it SoulLord MacBrea Usurpator MitzaVolchenko among others Concerns on the 3 week cicle 1.-Messed up Time (affects Role Playing) 2.-Free activities (holding up rewards until the end of the 3 week cicle) 3.-Holding & slowing Leveling up.. 4.-Increased BookKeeping. 5.-Increasing expendables dependency. 6.-Increase of learning curve (affects recruitment of newbies). 7.-reduced freedom. 8.-reduced flexibility. If you see others please tell me and I'll add them. Personally I don't think I'm ready to try the 3 week run so I'll withdraw my Gladiators from participating on it (titles set to empty); I'll limit myself to full quests and perhaps campaigns.
SauroGrenom 05-16-06, 11:44 AM	Just asking. And this *is* a new thing for fighting regular weekly battles. It might be that I like my build to fight at 10th lvl, to see how it operates at 10th lvl, in the new system I might now miss this possibility entirely unless I am careful in planning my levelling. You are correct in all but one sense. The possibility of gaining enough xp to skip a level in typical arena fights is not caused by poor planning of levels. Instead it is caused by prodigious crafting so that at some point your character is behind his contemporaries in levels. Being able to "catch up" is an intrinsic part of the xp system. The Virtual XP idea is intended to mimic how a player falls behind his party and catches up after a few encounters. If activities take place at the end of a cycle, it is stupid to post them after a fight or call them 'weekly'. It makes no sense to do so except for adhering to tradition. As I said, it would make more sense to change the 'weekly free activities' to 'free activities per cycle', and multiply all limits by three, or allow a combination of activities.It's a decent idea and it crossed my mind a while back. The only reason I'm reluctant to support it is that we have already instituted many other rules changes at the same time. Changing the way we handle free activites may be an easy thing to do at some point in the future. Right now I'm leary of tossing more straw on the camel's back. You are taking away a lot of the freedom and flexibility I had previously, so the new system has to solve a lot of urgent problems to justify taking away that freedom, or it has to make allowances for those freedoms.The freedom of free activities is not drasticially decreased, butr it is decreaed somewhat for those who craft cheap items. For example if you use a CL3 Scroll of Deathstar Blast in your 2nd fight, then you can craft a new one as a free action for the 3rd fight. Also the new scroll is available for you to use in the 1st fight of next cycle. In this case the "delay" between using an item and replacing it is exactially the same as our current system. The worst case is items used in the last battle. If you insist on crafting these items as free activities, then a new one cannot be crafted in a battle untill the 1st battle of the next cycle, and you must wait 5 battles to use it. However spending a week crafting inbetween cycles will make a surpluss of scrolls available immediately. BTW a full activity crafting doesn't take credits, only time. You do understand that by artificially preventing levelling you are actually making it less like tabletop play instead of making it more like tabletop play (in that respect)?Does you GM award xp at the end of every battle in an adventure? If so how does he/she handle it when players level and gain new abilities/spells in the middle of an adventure? That is my point exactly. Replenishing scrolls used is now something that takes a full 6 weeks to do unless you take a full activity to do so (even if you only want to craft a few hundreds of gp. worth of scrolls). That's just plain weird. And full activities (costing credits and time) were not meant to allow scroll users to rescribe a few expended scrolls.As I mentioned before 5 weeks is the maximum time required, and at other times 2 weeks is all it takes to craft replacement scrolls for those used last week. Also full activities do not cost credits. They cost only time. Once again, I am pointing out the (unintended?) changes the new system will bring about. You haven't stated at all if you like these changes or think they are balanced, or that you are willing to sacrifice such for a greater good perhaps. I would like your opinion on this.The effects on free activities are minor in my perspective. Perhaps that's because I'm willing to wait an extra week or two for the benefits of free activities to be available. From what I understand free activities were introduced to make crafting and profession skills usable in the CoCo where they otherwise have no use at all. If that is correct, the original intent was not to make life easier for those who scribe and use scrolls. In any case the minor delay in the scribing and use of scrolls doesn't bother me, especially in light of the fact that we are trying to limit scroll use and the diversity of spell effects that casters enjoy in all battles. I did both, please read my posts more carefully, you are sounding a bit defensive to me while I am just asking for clarifications. I don't want to have a fight with you because you are already at an emotional 'point of no return' due to the effort you have put into the system. Please don't defend your ideas, since the goal of our discussion is not to implement your ideas, but to improve the current system, right? Talk with me about it, don´t fight me please. I have not said I am rejecting it, do I?I do not intend to be defensive or fight with you. I am sorry if you were offended. Rather I intend to answer questions and make clarifications about what has been discussed and written into the rules so far. Also I'd like to be clear that Free Activiteis is not something I'll choose to argue for changing. Some members are resistant to change, and a debate will likely be had about your suggestions. In light of the recent changes your next suggestion may meet greater resistance. And I invite you to make your own arguments in favor of your own ideas. Convince the council, and perhaps Cat will agree. I think 'boycott' is another tool, and it seems to be the only tool if the 'rule-changers' have a large emotional investment in a system they thought up. In any case, if I don't feel my opinions are respected, I generally won't bother to put in the effort to make them.Since our environment is a game and it is run by the unpaid good will of fellow hobbiests who have no obligation to support our participation, boycott is unlikley to result in the desired effects. Perhaps I am wrong. Regardless, I will not boycott in an attempt to accomplish goals that could be achieved by discussion and persuasion. And another tool is public disobedience. I can just play without conforming to the new rules, and if I get enough players to do so as well, there is precious little anyone can do.I suppose this is a forum equivalent of a war of attrition. Our rules dictate that each person who follows this corse of action will probably have there characters tossed in prison and they will not be trusted to pitlord. Perhaps the prison would be overwhelmed. This would be very unfortunate for everyone if such an escalation took place. You would be ruining the game for yourself and everyone. I hope that such a desperate and malitious action never takes place. Saying such things as you do above makes me feel adversarial. If anyone intends to change something without listening to me openly, I will fight them even if I agree with their proposal. Honestly I am confused how "Persuasion is ever your tool to get what you want in this forum." is an adversarial comment. If it commes of as being confrontational, I appologise. Please allow me to rephrase. Since you think thay free activities can be run in a better way, address your suggestions to the community as a whole. By inviting their criticism and suggestions, you will most likely get a number of good ideas better than what I alone can create. Develop a better rule than what we now use, and persuade the community that your ideas are better. Then it's likely that your idea will be adopted.
SauroGrenom 05-16-06, 11:53 AM	Diplomacy is not one of your assets SauroGrenom, don't be fooled by thinking it is. Your suggestion that we swallow any random crap you think up is horribly wrong. We don't have to. We can reduce the participation in the boards to zero. Now, that doesn't seem like a very good method of gaining new people or actually keeping people working on the boards. If you really feel that you can stomp your foot and things will be the way they are. Your horribly wrong. I personally retired my spell caster rather then try and figure out the random crap that is the change to a three week cycle with him. It isn't worth it. I will play my fighter and not have to think much about it. Easy fix for my side.I'm sorry that my simple statements of fact have offended you. Also I'd like to point out that the idea was proposed over 3 weeks ago, and has been discussed for that entire time. If your opinion is so firmly established why didn't you comment bifore or participate in the discussion? The final version implimented is in many important ways different and better than what I originially suggested. Perhaps if you had participated, it would be even better. Posting comments about me personally are entirely counter productive and contrary to the Code of Conduct. This whole idea and process has not in any way been a power play of mine. I have not forced the community to do anything. I do not have the power to do that. I do not pretend to have that power. Right now my only intention is to answer questions about how the new rules work. I was a participant in the whole discussion, and I feel (hopefully correctly) that I have a decent grasp on the new rules. I feel that I'm reasonably knowlegable about the questions being asked, so I'm trying to make clear answers to those questions. With each question answered I hope to clarify a point so that confusion can be dispelled.
SauroGrenom 05-16-06, 12:04 PM	So I just read Sauro's recap of what the 3 week cycle's will be like...and I think it sounds like a crap idea. The amount of book keeping sucks, from a player perspective, and adds a lot of complexity. I think that instead of gaining new players, we'll scare away potential players, and drive older ones to stop participating. I'll probably move to only running questing/campaign characters if this happens. Just doesn't look like near as much fun. Your criticism here is well... not very usefull. I invite you to repost with a greater detail describing what aspects are "crappy". I'd posted a quick summary here that describes the bookeeping associated with the 3-week cycle. Several of you have latched onto the idea that a 3-week cycle involves dramaticially increased bookeeping. This is just not true. Infact the suggestion that anyone will avoid the extra bookeeping by questing or campaigning only highlights the fact that the bookeeping required by the 3-week cycle cannot be clearly understood by those who make this suggestion. The bookeeping required by the 3-week cycle is precisely the same as that required by a quest. Nothing more, nothing less.
SoulLord 05-16-06, 12:53 PM	Old Can level up between fights Can add results of free & full activities to next fight Easier timekeeping can starts quests at anytime less rules New Can't level up between fights Can only add results of free activities to end of 3 week run forced timekeeping can only quest at end of 3 week run more rules
SauroGrenom 05-16-06, 12:56 PM	Concerns on the 3 week cicle 1.-Messed up Time (affects Role Playing) 2.-Free activities (holding up rewards until the end of the 3 week cicle) 3.-Holding & slowing Leveling up.. 4.-Increased BookKeeping. 5.-Increasing expendables dependency. 6.-Increase of learning curve (affects recruitment of newbies). 7.-reduced freedom. 8.-reduced flexibility. 1: When I posted a reply to Book5's question I forgot about Cat's nice RP description of how the time line would work in a 3 week cycle. A 3 week cycle should have little to no effect on any RP time line. 2: The hold over of crafted items from a free activity is not a problem for me. However it is a concern for others, and may be worth discussing. 3: Leveling is not slowed in any way. You still fight the same number of battles at each ECL (3 if you win). XP rewards are not changed at all. The rate of leveling is not changed. Holding leveling is necessary and actually represents no problem at all in any way unless you talk about crafting scrolls with free actions. Hence look back to issue 2 (the only one worth further discussion). 4: Bookeeping requirements for the 3-week cycle are nearly the same as quests. This was never considered to be an issue that prevented people from questing. Why should it be an issue that prevents people from fighting in the Arena? 5: If the 3-week cycle was a change that stood alone with no other changes, then expendibles would be used more. Expendibles dependancy is not increased overall due to the limit on total value of expendibles you can own. This rule is new and not a part of the 3-week cycle, but it corrects this concern about the 3-week cycle. However it would be implimented anyway even if we were not using the 3-week cycle (Cat's decision not mine). 6: If the rules are well described, it is still far far simpler than what we all learned to play this game in the first place. D20 rules are vastly more complicated than all CoCo rules combined including this. The rules are simple and direct if simply and directly described. 7: The 3 week cycle sacrifices the option to craft at any time and start a quest at any time. That is the only loss of flexibility. I feel that small sacrifice of time is worth the benefits. A 3 week cycle allows any class that is not a full casting class using memorized spells to reap the benefits that are a part of those other classs and are not a part of the previous CoCo environment. The 3 week cycle helps to counter the infinitely replenishable scrolls that many caster use to blurr the distinction between a spontanious caster and a prepaired caster. The 3-week cycle allows abilities usable x/day to have the appropreat potency. In my opinion these are all worth the week or two delay before crafting or going on a quest. 8: This is a bit vauge. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Reduced Flexibility". Please clarify. Anyway, I hope to one by one address all these concernes and clarify the rules we have been discussing for 3 weeks. Those of you who were not around at that time cannot be expected to read 5 pages of council discussion to find where your concern was previously discussed. The only new concern on this list is that introduced by Usurpator about free activities. I implore that everyone now discuss that concern, and hopefully that discussion will create a new and better idea about how to handle the free activities.
SauroGrenom 05-16-06, 01:04 PM	Old All great renown gladiators have levels in a casting class. No great renown gladiators are pure members of a non full casting class. All 1/day abilities usable in every fight. All memorized spells available for use in every fight. Caster's are always limited to 1/3 spell levels. Totally different sets of rules governing arena and quest tracking. New Prepared casters do not have artificially elevated diversity of spells memorized in every battle. Non full casting classes have a chance to meet a less prepared caster. All x/day abilities have correct potency. Prepared casters do not have the entire spell list available in every battle. Casters can use more than 1/3 spells in battle 2 and 3 if they conserve spell power in previous battles. Same (or nearly so) rules used to track arena and quest activites.
SoulLord 05-16-06, 01:28 PM	Old All great renown gladiators have levels in a casting class. this you can't guarantee that it will change in the new format besides many just dip into a caster class to have access to the spell list. No great renown gladiators are pure members of a non full casting class. this you can't guarantee that it will change in the new format All 1/day abilities usable in every fight. Agreed (many for non caster classes) All memorized spells available for use in every fight. Agreed Caster's are always limited to 1/3 spell levels. The new proposal also has the 1/3 rule Totally different sets of rules governing arena and quest tracking. Agreed even though I don't see it as a bad thing New Prepared casters do not have artificially elevated diversity of spells memorized in every battle. Agreed Non full casting classes have a chance to meet a less prepared caster. they will never find a caster with less than 1/3 of their spells All x/day abilities have correct potency. Agreed Prepared casters do not have the entire spell list available in every battle. Agreed Casters can use more than 1/3 spells in battle 2 and 3 if they conserve spell power in previous battles. then you won't find less prpared casters as you claim earlier. Same (or nearly so) rules used to track arena and quest activites. ------ what about healing? I assume this has full healing of hit points and other negative effects afer each fight. I see benefits in Your proposal, but the benefits I don't feel are enough to implement this change as of now those who don't benefit from change will usually oppose it
Usurpator 05-16-06, 02:08 PM	My general position is that changing to a three-week-cycle is an interesting idea, and certainly one that deserves to be considered for adoption into the CoCo rules. Two things: 1. Since it is in many ways a major deviation from the normal operations, a careful examination of unwanted side-effects is needed. I feel this examination is currently lacking (not been done thoroughly enough). 2. Rules changes should always be considered with caution. We should always examine the purpose and goals of the changes carefully. Is a change really neccessary? Is the problem that bad? Tinkering with rules is a lovely passtime, and most of us who are DMs tinker with house rules a lot. Everybody has their own vision of how to make it better, but too much and constant rule change will cause rule-change-burnout. Some of us are here to play, and rather play with an imperfect system that works than feel forced to constantly adapt to new rules. This holds true even if the new rules are significantly better than the old. Some other arguments brought up: Classes with Caster Levels are too Powerful! Characters with caster levels (and especially multi-class characters) are more powerful in the CoCo simply because here you have to fight every fight yourself instead of relying on party members to shore up your weaknesses. Also, in CoCo combats your opponent has complete information about your weaknesses, and thus there are easy to exploit. Multi-classing and spells are the best tools to hide your weaknesses. This has nothing to do with fighting single or multiple battles in a row without resting (like the three-week cycle). Trying to solve it with a three-week-cycle is missing the point. Let's make it more like Table-Top D&D Table-top D&D games are based on teamwork, CoCo fights are solo, and are *meant to be solo*. This makes it very different (in balance) from table-top games, and this has nothing to do with fighting single or multiple battles without resting. In my campaigns, if the party meets an opponent with an EL equal to their combined party EL, they usually rest afterwards, because those are generally very tough fights. In my campaigns, when the party runs out of essential expendables, they quit the adventure at the earliest opportunity to restock. The idea of trying to make CoCo more resemble table-top play is simply not achieved by this proposal, and we shouldn't even try to. The CoCo is an arena, and we should make it as much fun for being an arena as possible. Mentioning table-top emulation as a reason for the change is a bad argument. We have to do a lot more bookkeeping! Frankly, I don't see the new system bringing a hugely increased load of bookkeeping. I do think a goal of the new system should be to reduce the amount of bookkeeping. Getting Pitlords is a problem, and the time it currently takes to Pitlord a fight is the biggest factor that keeps Pitlords from running more fights. If we bring in a new system, please make it so that the tasks and responsibilities of the Pitlords are descreased. It is a missed opportunity not to do so if we are instituting a big rules change. The only bookkeeping I see a problem with is the Virtual XP, while an elegant solution, is simply a very difficult concept to grasp. We already have EL, ECL's, Level Adjustments, XP penalties etc. etc., gaining XP is a complicated matter in D&D, no need to make it more difficult by introducing yet another kind of XP and level appreciation for only a small advantage gained. Generally, I like the weekly-cycle idea, but I like to hear more other members about their opinions and issues, even if they don't have any other argument than 'I don't like it'. Personally, if I think of a new house rule and a majority of my players is against it, I won't push through the house rule. Any maybe, *maybe*, if the current rules are so detrimental to my enjoyment of the game, then I will go look for a new group that will adopt my new house rule. Most detrimental to my current enjoyment as a Pitlord are: - Time, 6+ hours to run one fight (including posting, calculating rewards etc.) is simply too long for me. Lots of dispersed extra rules (FAQ and Rules of the Games articles anyone?) takes me a lot of extra time to look up. Many allies like familiars, mounts, animal companions and cohorts double or triple my workload. Exotic creatures with exotic powers or movement modes further increase my workload (Pixies, Ghosts, Flyers). - Bookkeeping responsibilities. I am simply bored stiff by bookkeeping. Counting how many arrows a character used in a fight, recording what squares they stand in every round, *jawn*. Simply have a hard time concentrating on such completely boring matters. Most detrimental to my current enjoyment as a player are: - Changing house rules. Sometimes I simply cannot keep up with all the Elder Rulings, new rules or obscure rulings posted in the prison. Rules change that can easily foil my tactic, make my character built mediocre or even make it useless. - Bookkeeping. Its harder for me to properly update my CoCo character than my real D&D characters. Linking purchases, linkg free activities, linking scroll scribing, noting everything down to the last gp. in multiple places on the sheet. Adding and subtracting gp. and XP totals. It is a lot of work, and time I rather spent doing more fun activities.
Usurpator 05-16-06, 02:37 PM	Possible other unwanted side-effects: - New players joins the CoCo and starts a new lvl3 fighter type. New to the CoCo enviroment he fails to buy potions of protection from X and similar things really essential to low-level CoCo success. He learns after his first match, but cannot rectify his mistakes until two matches later. Not good. - Whoops, experience player forgot to buy/resupply that essential scolls/potions or made some other updating error. He's now stuck with his situation for two more matches! - Fighting and then actually doing something with the rewards (like buying cool new stuff) is a satisfying feeling. Delaying that gratification for 3 or more weeks makes getting the rewards less fun.
Macbrea 05-16-06, 03:46 PM	Very well, There are currently pitlords for 22 fights + 1 max fights + 1 pitlord for monster fight only. There are 6 pitlords listed for minquest/quest only. This means that we may have a total of 45 active fighters. This is because changes in the rules and arguementative players has resulted in a lowering of the number of people willing to pitlord. There are 38 active members of our section of the board. This pretty much means we should be in a state of emergency. So, given that, I wouldn't advise anyone to activate more then one fighter this week, unless you plan for cat to randomly pick which one you are actually going to get to fight with.
Ariel23 05-16-06, 03:54 PM	First, I like the 3 week system. A lot. :love: (Or 3 Fight Cycle or whatever you want to call it). I can bring my sorceress back! :cheer: My main issue with it is any other CoCo rule that references time or duration or even "before/after the fight" needs to be reworded and all language in the rules need to match. I had some questions about it, that's all. (And, yes, I was ignoring the boards because I thought they were meaningless until May 15.) @Caterane: I'm not sure if a lot of people are really opposed to it, or a lot of people just don't fully understand it. I think if you ask Sauro he will confirm that it is the latter. I am one of those people. The easiest way to fix all this would be to stop saying "3 week cycle" and then just change the 1/3 rule to "Your SP/PP and spells/power [and items] only reset after every 3rd fight. Your pitlord checks your last fight results to see if they need to be reset." Forget any mention of time or space or reality or cycles. Now you are finished! If you want to get more complicated, then throw in the 1d6 hours thing (later). Enough people would support abolishing the 1/3 rule that this would be easy to implement in stages. I think you misunderstand. CoCo isn't running pairings in three week increments. Your gladiator is fighting in three week increments. May purchase stuff again after week 3 fight. If I want to craft things, how many fights do I miss? 1001 GP = 1 or 3? 3000 GP = 1 or 3? 4000 GP = 1 or 2 or 3? 7000 GP = 1 or 3? 8000 GP = 2 or 6? 21000 GP = 3 or 9? I don't believe we are actually fighting in "three week increments," rather 3 fights/day increments then 6 days off. There is no longer a 1/3 SP rule, but is there now a 1/3 item crafting rule (or crafting costs you 3x as many fights)?
Ariel23 05-16-06, 03:57 PM	First, I don't think the XP tracking is worth the time and effort. But given that I have a minority opinion, here are my concerns. Why are we treating this advantage differently than the only other XP-affecting advantage I'm aware of in the CoCo--allies? To me, crafting is like a class feature of being a pure caster. Why not Virtual XP = +XP/GP for opponent Real XP An ECL 8 [Real ECL 7] character with 28000 XP and 26050 Virtual XP = +7.5% to opponent. About the same as some ally awards. Tinker with the formula if you want, but don't put an ECL 7 in the ECL 8 league based on the fact that his familiar died 10 times. Or why not have the ECL 7 fight other ECL 7's, but let his opponents treat the fight as ECL 8? That's a big boost in XP and GP for the opponent, rather than for the crafter. This system also raises mathematical questions whose answers seem to defy logic: An ECL 8 fighter buys a set of +1 adamantine full plate for 17650 gp but loses no XP or feats or skills and has no CoCo penalties. An ECL 8 haggling Rog 3/Ftr 5 gets the same thing for 15708.5 gp (11% discount), 24 skill ranks, but no feat or XP loss (he can get a bigger discount with feats but he has the choice to do so) and has no CoCO penalties. A crafty ECL 8 dwarf fighter makes the full plate and buys the enchantment for a total price of 9380 gp (counting tools), 5 skill ranks, no feat, and no XP loss and has no CoCo penalties. A baseline ECL 8 CL 3/FTR 5 enchants a set of adamantine full plate for 17150 gp but uses no skills, however he loses 40 XP and a feat and pays a penalty in the CoCo. A cunning dwarf cleric ECL 8 crafts a set of mithral full plate +1 all by himself for 8825 GP, loses 40 XP, a feat, 5 skill ranks, and pays the same CoCo penalty as the guy above. GP Feat Skill XP Virtual | GP Spent Used Ranks Loss XP | Saved* 17650 0 0 0 0 N | 0 15708 0 24 0 0 N | 1941 9380 0 5 0 0 N | 8270 17150 1 0 40 40 Y | 500 8880 1 5 40 40 Y | 8770 * Character will have this much more gold to spend than an equivalent non-crafting character. In the case of Feats and Skills, she will have less than her counterpart. You want all your numbers on the left to be as small as possible and the number on the right to be as large as possible. The simplest rule is to treat like things alike and different things differently. --Players 1,2, and 4 saved virtualy nothing on GP, meaning they will have about the same equipment as their fellow ECL 8s. --Player 3 saved a ton of gold and gave up some crappy Ftr/Cl skills at 1st level. He has effectively 8000 more gold than his ECL 8 opponents. --Player 5 saved a little bit more than Player 3 but used a feat and XP to do so. I'm not sure exactly how the 3 fight cycle works but this character might also miss 6 or more fights to gain this benefit. It is true that at higher levels he will be able to enchant for better savings, but he will miss even more fights. Why does he need an additional penalty imposed? Realistically (roleplay-wise) if there are 3 fights per day in CoCo RL, they would likely pair winners against winners and losers against losers. Aside from the pairings nightmare, as an idea, it wouldn't be a bad one. It would drastically alter the "Loser" tag, though. Have we ever considered a fixed leveling system, such as 3 Wins moves you up an ECL [but not until the end of the cycle], regardless of XP? If you have a really good build (or luck) you could be ECL 5 in the ECL 7 league, but you would stay there until you won 3 fights. This would be a good way to control leveling rate, as some people want to level faster and/or open up the higher leagues. I think that W/L is more indicative of an opponent's challenge than his XP total.
Ariel23 05-16-06, 03:59 PM	Except that you can take UMD/UPD as cross-class skills. Example: Rogue1/Ranger8 with Cha 16 and 12 ranks in UMD has a skill modifier of +15, possibly higher with synergy and/or items, but a max scroll/stone CL/ML of 3? That's not really fair. Max CL should be based on either your ranks or your total skill modifier, or else cross-class ranks become useless.Not to disregard the CL/ML issue for UMD, but having +15 in UMD would be a lot better than having the Rogue 1's +7. It has not lost its utility in that regard. To address the CL/ML issue, allowing what some might consider to be unfair to "real" casters--a high CL/ML based on total UMD bonus (or total Ranks, which I oppose)--is counterbalanced by the fact that the player has a legitimate chance of failure to activate the item and might lose the device for up to 3 fights. @MindwandererB or anyone else who's interested: I don't want to see UMD get abused, but I am wary of saying that using an obscure rule, egregious specialization or combination of abilities, and exploiting that is "abuse." That would define 90% of the characters in CoCo with winning records. The losers probably tried to exploit something that didn't work (making it not an "exploit" I guess). :allalone:
MitzaVolchenko 05-16-06, 04:50 PM	At this point, I have read the new stuff until my head is throbbing (literally). I will be deactivating my fighters this week for arena duty and only working on my questing characters. I will not be pitlording again unless the concerns brought up by several prominent and very active members of this COMMUNITY are addressed with more respect than they have been given. I will run quests/campaigns and play in them, as they are unaffected by the changes. There are a lot of good possibilities with this new system, and I am intelligent enough to comprehend them and the intentions with them. I do not agree with the execution. Please note that the "we've been discussing this for 3 weeks" argument is quite invalid as much of the board was not aware that we would be back up and running so soon. Many have not had a chance to read through and get a grasp of what is going on. So far the tally is against the new rules being implemented immediately. Of course that tally means nothing because we are a dictatorship, not a community. I must have missed something when I logged in through the WIZARDS COMMUNITY link. I don't think anyone is 100% against the new rules. I think many of us are concerned with the bad things that come from them and would rather see them discussed and worked on further to eliminate as many of the issues as possible. I will not be responding in this thread again until I have had time to cool off and try to look at this from the position of 'if I were in charge.'
SoulLord 05-16-06, 04:52 PM	Not to disregard the CL/ML issue for UMD, but having +15 in UMD would be a lot better than having the Rogue 1's +7. It has not lost its utility in that regard. To address the CL/ML issue, allowing what some might consider to be unfair to "real" casters--a high CL/ML based on total UMD bonus (or total Ranks, which I oppose)--is counterbalanced by the fact that the player has a legitimate chance of failure to activate the item and might lose the device for up to 3 fights. @MindwandererB or anyone else who's interested: I don't want to see UMD get abused, but I am wary of saying that using an obscure rule, egregious specialization or combination of abilities, and exploiting that is "abuse." That would define 90% of the characters in CoCo with winning records. The losers probably tried to exploit something that didn't work (making it not an "exploit" I guess). :allalone: I think I'm Not following up so it's either get really specialized in using UMD or be limited to using cl 1 stuff for most of your career? I don't think that's fair.
barrel_master 05-16-06, 05:01 PM	Most detrimental to my current enjoyment as a Pitlord are: - Time, 6+ hours to run one fight (including posting, calculating rewards etc.) is simply too long for me. Lots of dispersed extra rules (FAQ and Rules of the Games articles anyone?) takes me a lot of extra time to look up. Many allies like familiars, mounts, animal companions and cohorts double or triple my workload. Exotic creatures with exotic powers or movement modes further increase my workload (Pixies, Ghosts, Flyers). - Bookkeeping responsibilities. I am simply bored stiff by bookkeeping. Counting how many arrows a character used in a fight, recording what squares they stand in every round, *jawn*. Simply have a hard time concentrating on such completely boring matters. Most detrimental to my current enjoyment as a player are: - Changing house rules. Sometimes I simply cannot keep up with all the Elder Rulings, new rules or obscure rulings posted in the prison. Rules change that can easily foil my tactic, make my character built mediocre or even make it useless. - Bookkeeping. Its harder for me to properly update my CoCo character than my real D&D characters. Linking purchases, linkg free activities, linking scroll scribing, noting everything down to the last gp. in multiple places on the sheet. Adding and subtracting gp. and XP totals. It is a lot of work, and time I rather spent doing more fun activities. I must echo Usurpator's concerns... I'm most worried that these new rules will decrease the amount of fun that players have in the arena. I'd ask that we consider maybe making these changes simpler and/or removing a number of pre-existing rules.
Zevox 05-16-06, 05:01 PM	A reminder since some seem to have missed it: The new system is not being implemented immediately. It is currently planned to be implemented on June 14th, the first pairings after the board upgrades are (hopefully) complete. The weeks of May 17th and May 24th will still run as they have been previously, with none of the new in-discussion rules (3-week cycle, expendable cap, etc) yet implemented. Zevox
Caterane 05-16-06, 05:11 PM	Wow, one evening gone and two pages of posts which seems to be due to the suspected boards upgrade being finished. For those who haven't been around, we have a slightly different fight routine from June 14 on which we discussed during the last weeks. Instead of just one fight, you fight 3 times before you can buy new things. There's (almost) no additional workload but the benefits are huge; for example x/d abilities who were available every fight similar to "at will" are now fixed, or wizards don't have all of their mem'd spells to choose from in every fight (which was never intended to be). The 1/3 rule met a lot of opposition in the beginning of Living Gladius in Jan 2005 (much more than Sauro's proposal) but it was a necessary step to keep spellcasters in check (they could cast all spells in every battle before that), something most of you can see. The 3-Week-Cycle is the next step in evolution which fixes problems the 1/3 rule couldn't fix. I've read all concerns and most stem from people not fully understanding it. That's fine. Just ask away here and we'll try to answer your questions. The new system will start on June 14 so you have plenty of time to learn the changes. For those who still don't like the system for whatever reason, I want to ask to give it a chance. You cannot assess something you haven't even seen in action. All your concerns have been answered by Sauro who has shown that it is no more bookkeeping than now in quests. Talking everything down, quitting to pitlord, or taking your characters down doesn't give you the experience you need to make up an objective view. And if you still have reservations after you have experienced it as a player and pitlord, post your concerns here and we'll see how we can solve them. I also want to say that the 3-Week-Cycle system can be adepted to some your wishes. I agreed from the beginning on that updating your sheet every 3 weeks is not cool that's why I said you can do it after every fight. You can add gold and xp, move used up expendables to the Past Expenditures section, just like now. You mark off used spells, prebuff according to the new prebuff rules;... you just cannot buy new things. This however is not something that can't be changed. The problem is with expendables; maybe we can allow non-expendable purchases, maybe we can allow limited purchases as a Free Activity, maybe we add free random Treasure Drops for everyone after a fight just like in a dungeon crawl. Whatever we do, ideas are out there and the system is flexible enough to adept. At the moment, I just want to concentrate on getting it on its feet before adding new things. I am glad about this new system. It fixes many holes in the coco - holes created by our own house rules, not by the D20 rules, and holes that were not intended by the game designers. Most of my characters exploit these holes (Indri and Ixenthor with their many 1/d abilities available in every fight; the Harvester with his pile of expendables and unlimited access to three spell lists; Uhme with access to all his mem'd spells in every fight as well as a huge diversity of scrolls) and their success talks for itself so I personally know firsthand what the old rules did to this board just by looking at my own PCs. As the GM, I cannot let such a hole in the rules stand. That said, we have still about 4 weeks to discuss. Cat PS: The time will be unchanged. You fight once a week in real time and the same time passes in Gladius. Anything else would create problems. The only problem that arises because of the new system - why you cannot buy new stuff or rememorize if you have a week time - is just a matter of roleplay explanation and has technically no impact at all. We created the Nimbus that raises you and even fixes your equipment so we can solve this too. Come up with whatever you like. If it really bothers you, propose a roleplaying explanation and I'll add it to the rules.
Traevanon 05-16-06, 11:25 PM	I just had an epiphany I am tempted to save for myself, but I'll share it so that the implications of it dont get overlooked in the 3/fight per cycle change. If a wizard gets at least 1 hour between fights he should be able to leave spell slots open at the beginning of the day to memorize before the next fight. A wizard can fill 1/4 of his spell slots in 15 minutes. I'm not sure if you consider that unbalanced or unintended or whichever, but as it stands now it should be available for use. To do it you'll have to allow editing to fill unused slots.
MitzaVolchenko 05-17-06, 02:54 AM	For those who still don't like the system for whatever reason, I want to ask to give it a chance. You cannot assess something you haven't even seen in action. All your concerns have been answered by Sauro who has shown that it is no more bookkeeping than now in quests. Talking everything down, quitting to pitlord, or taking your characters down doesn't give you the experience you need to make up an objective view. And if you still have reservations after you have experienced it as a player and pitlord, post your concerns here and we'll see how we can solve them. I promised myself to not comment any further in this thread, but once again you have said something that strikes a bad chord with me. You think we can't see the effects and evaluate them without them being in effect? If that is so then I counter with, you can't look at the changes and say that our concerns are groundless and that we are being dismissive or not giving things a chance. Do I have to burn myself to know that sticking my hand in a fire is a bad idea? There are a number of concerns that have been voiced and the only responses given to them have been we'll think of something later or a restatement of the very rules that are causing the objections.
Usurpator 05-17-06, 03:31 AM	Proposals to simplify the proposed changes: Virtual XP This addition to the CoCo rules brings extra bookkeeping, adds extra rules which are conceptually complicated. They are also not a part of the three-week-cycle proposal (3WC). Q: What urgent and serious problem do we have with crafters that we need to introduce this rule? I don't remember people complaining about anything related to this new rule. As Sauro himself pointed out, in the most extreme scenario someone would have to fight *once* in a higher league, but doing so would earn enough XP to bring his virtual and real XP back to the same level. So the real effect of this rule would be minimal. It would affect maybe 5% of all battles. Do we really need an extra rule with such a small effect? Sauro, you said yourself that you didn't want to add any rules with the 3WC proposal because there is already a lot of change, why do add these rules? In case they are supposed to solve a possibly skewed gp./XP ratio, there are much worse contributors to that problem, like monster fights and not-equal EL quests. As far as I can see it is really an unwanted and very limited solution to a non-existent problem. So let's drop it, ok? The 1/3rd rule Let's drop this too from the proposal. That way we actually get to remove rules and make the CoCo simpler! The only argument I heard against the dropping of the 1/3 rule is that certain people are scared casters would go 'nova', that is, spend all their spell levels in one fight. But the current 3WC rules still allow the caster to go Nova. Yes, they do. They just disallow it in the first and second fight, but a caster is perfectly allowed to do so in his last fight. He can save his spell levels and use them all in his third fight. Why the 1/3rd rule in the new system? Are we scared casters? Are the people who have a perfect fight record so scared that a nova-ing caster will beat them, or make them spend so much resources they may get a loss in a subsequent fight? Well, suck it up I would say! The purpose of a 3WC is also to have gladiators balance their resource expenditure right, why artificially limit them? In a real game, wouldn't you want to spent more resources against a tougher opponent? Are we tactically limiting casters because some people fear that their unbeaten gladiators get beaten? Also, why can't casters go Nova with their spells on the first fight, but is everyone still allowed to go Nova with scrolls, potions or other limited-use items or abilities if they want to? They can spend all of those in the first fight if they want to. The reasoning just doesn't add up. We now have a 1/3 rule, rules about porting over spell levels etc. This can all be scrapped, and at a minimal cost. So out with the 1/3rd rule!
Caterane 05-17-06, 09:58 AM	Virtual XP: The main reason for this rule are the XP Cost spells. The first time I have access to an XP Cost spell, I could cast it over and over again so that I never level up yet get the gold rewards for fights at my level. After some time, I have twice the gold I should have at that level, and there is no limit for me to stop at all. Recently, Raskos familiar died which resulted in the loss of 1600 XP for Raskos. Instead of being sad about that, he can jump up in delight because he is now 1600 Gold ahead of anyone else with his XP. Why not repeat this tactic over and over again? Crafters are the least reason to introduce this rule although the penalty for fighting in a lower league for at least 3 fights - probably more - fits perfectly into this. You already gain a lot by crafting for half price; if it would be me I wouldn't even give the chance to catch up. The alternative is to ban all XP Cost spells, ban XP loss at the familiars death and let crafters craft unchecked. 1/3 Rule: Anyhow many of you still have the impression that the workload increases and that the 3WC (nice abrevation) would be easier without the 1/3 rule. Let's see... what would fall away for the pitlord without the 1/3 rule? He would still have to list all spent spells in the fight summary. He would still have to 'port over spells' (and sometimes even more than 1/3). We would still need the 1/3 rule for Guild Ops, Multiplayer fights and Miniquests below your EL so it does not vanish from your sheet. I can see no workload difference at all to a 3WC system without the 1/3 rule. But what I can clearly see (and what you play a bit down, Phillip) is that someone can decide to spend all Powerpoints on one opponent to win this fight. This is unfair to the one who gets beaten by such an overkill. This victim doesn't benefit from the caster now losing his next 2 fights. Secondly, it is also there to protect the player and the pitlord. What if the Pitlord has to decide how much PP and spells he spends? This will lead to a lot of complaints in the FotW threads as to why the Pitlord spent so many spells in this "hopeless" fight. This is a big issue, and one that can easily aggrevate our heated discussions in the FotW even more. With the 1/3 rule, there will always be at least 1/3 left for each fight to come. Summary: 1) No less workload if we do away with the 1/3 rule for the 3WC 2) The 1/3 rule would still be on your sheet for other fight types 3) It protects players and pitlords alike These are strong points that make the decision clear.
Caterane 05-17-06, 10:24 AM	I promised myself to not comment any further in this thread, but once again you have said something that strikes a bad chord with me. You think we can't see the effects and evaluate them without them being in effect? If that is so then I counter with, you can't look at the changes and say that our concerns are groundless and that we are being dismissive or not giving things a chance. Do I have to burn myself to know that sticking my hand in a fire is a bad idea? So you mean we can both not know before we have tried it out? Agreed, let's see how it works. That's what I'm asking. There are a number of concerns that have been voiced and the only responses given to them have been we'll think of something later or a restatement of the very rules that are causing the objections. Sorry Mitza but that's not true. You made one post (#467) with concrete concerns and Sauro answered the two concerns you voiced right in the next post. The rest of the post and that of your other two posts (#437 and #448) is just complaining about how unhappy you are with the 3WC. But alright, I will now browse back and retrieve any comment you made, then answer it with quotes from this council plus some additional comments from me. I will address all your issues and answer them all. There are perhaps three rabid supporters of this and a lto fo unanswered questions. This is incorrect. Asides from Sauro and me, Book5, Kaigan, Pittbull, Ariel23, Usurpator, Zevox have voiced their support, and many others are neutral on that. And most of the concerns were coming from not understanding the system at first. I am particularly perturbed about the nerfing of timelines. It will be really ugly if guilds actually start assaulting each other. For example, I start in a three week arena cycle with Zwei. CEF assaults EHTC in some way in week 1 of Zwei's cycle. I can't take week 2 to go retaliate by sneaking into CEF and wreaking havoc on them? Why? My morning workout in the arena was too strenuous to protect my investment in my guild? All guild actions are considered to be just like miniquests. As such they are the same as 1 week in the 3 week cycle. So Zwei can go and sneak into CEF in week 2. Infact there is very different about how this miniquest is run compared to before. Any miniquest can take place at any time in the cycle as 1 fight. Also time lines are not "nerfed". Cat's proposal about how time lines should be concieved was repreated by Mindwanderer a few posts back. It works fine. I also have ZERO interest in having to audit every character sheet I run a fight for. Sure, it is the players' jobs but how many of us have never goofed? What happends when someone points ut the illegal expenditures on Monday night? How do carried over fights work? As a pitlord you are not required to audit every character sheet. No auditing requirements are in place for anyone. There is incentive for a player to look and see if there opponent has illegally purchased items or recovered spells. However there is no requirement. Um, time is gonna get wonky...what happens when a character takes off on quest after fight one? Or crafts full time for three weeks? Their fight time is frozen until they return? Gonna wreak havoc with those of us that actively RP our characters. 'Twas addressed previously. Full-week crafting and full 3-week quests (and Guild Operations that involve combat, if memory serves) can only be begun if you're not in the midst of a 3-week cycle (i.e. just finished week 3 of previous cycle). The three week cycle tracking seems to be more hassle than it is worth. If you read closely you find that there are actually very few additional things for pitlords or players to do that they were not already doing. I tried to make my example for Geisha as complicated as possible because I wanted to illustrate all the new rules going on at once. Thus I chose a half-celestial template for the spell-like abilities and I chose the magic domain for the expendible's limits and I chose to use pre-buffed spells. Using names from my example: 1:Geisha's player now looks at her opponent's sheet in the last battle and compares it to the current sheet looking for illegal expendibles purchases. The player only needs to do this if the opponent is on a 2nd or 3rd battle in the cycle and if they care to look. This is actually never required, and is only worthwhile 2/3 of the time. 2: Geisha's player marks off used spells before her 2nd fight and coppies (cut and paste anyone?) the fight summary into an sblock at the bottom of her sheet. 3: Pitlord lists all used spells, abilities in the fight summary. 4: Pitlord checks previous fight summary and coppies that into current fight summary (cut and paste again). That's it. Doesn't look to hard to me. Actually it looks to me like it rather encourages everyone to be a better player and look up your foe's previous fights. Infact if anything it makes it easier to run a character. You are not shopping for your character every week. You do not need to update used expendibles every week, you do not need to restructure your memorized spell list every week, you do not need to update your gp and xp earned, spent, current amounts every week. These several tasks are now only done every third week. The pitlord isn't rolling any extra dice or linking any extra rolls. The pitlord doesn't need to keep track of any additional placements on a map. Nor does he need to keep track of or type anything he wouldn't normally track untill he writes up the fight summary. At that time only the pitlord then looks at last week's summary and makes the new summary cumulative. Two of the four new duties for players and pitlords are simply coppying with cut and paste a record of the last week's summary. These are not complicated or burdensome things to do. The other details for a pitlord or player to keep track of are the same that our questlords have kept track of for months and months. Also these are things that are recorded by a good pitlord as he runs his fight anyway. All we ask is that the pitlord simply posts his list of used stuff and abilities in the fight summary. All other things are the same as we would do them without a 3 week cycle. If you have additional concerns or questions, ask them here and we will answer them.
Stormwind 05-17-06, 12:42 PM	I have a comment directed at all the complaints that I have seen lately, and a few questions on the three week system: Comments - A lot of people seem to have already made up their minds that the changes are bad. I don't know if they are going to be good or bad, but I will not make my judgement on the changes until I have tried them out. It may be that some of those changes are bad and need further modifications, but without experiencing them all we can do is speculate about what might be. Why not give the changes a chance before complaining about them? Remember that we are trying to have fun. Questions - Is it okay to move equipment around between fights? For example, after their week 1 fight, could a character move equipment from their at home section to their normal equipment? - If Virtual XP and actual XP are the same, is it necessary to list Virtual XP on your sheet? - Is it possible to make use of NPC spellcasting/manifesting services between fights? For example, after their week 1 fight, could a character purchase spellcasting services before their week 2 fight?
Caterane 05-17-06, 12:49 PM	Thanks Stormwind. Questions - Is it okay to move equipment around between fights? For example, after their week 1 fight, could a character move equipment from their at home section to their normal equipment? [Yes] - If Virtual XP and actual XP are the same, is it necessary to list Virtual XP on your sheet? [No] - Is it possible to make use of NPC spellcasting/manifesting services between fights? For example, after their week 1 fight, could a character purchase spellcasting services before their week 2 fight? [No]
Usurpator 05-17-06, 12:51 PM	Virtual XP: The main reason for this rule are the XP Cost spells. The first time I have access to an XP Cost spell, I could cast it over and over again so that I never level up yet get the gold rewards for fights at my level. After some time, I have twice the gold I should have at that level, and there is no limit for me to stop at all. Cat, once again you bypass my points completely. 1. Has this been a serious and urgent problem? was my question. You don't answer that at all nor do you give arguments concerning this question. 2. Is this a worse problem than other sources of skewed gp./XP ratios? was another question. I argued that there are currently rules that have a greater effect on these skewed ratio's than this XP spellcasting business, like fighting multiple monster fights of lower ECL. You don't respond to this at all. 3. I said that we have a big rule change with the W3C already. Then I argued, why compound this with another extra rule unless these additional rules are absolutely neccessary. Once again, no response from you concerning this argument. 4. The effects of the new rule, as I (and Sauro) have shown are minimal in normal operations. It will only have an effect in a very small portion of the battles. Once again, no response from you to this argument. So, I have no idea if you agree or disagree with me on these points and why. You simply don't address my concerns. You appear to simply don't understand my point of view, and unfortunately, this has happened several times before. I really feel like talking to a wall sometimes. I understand your reasons, and I acknowledge your reasons. Skewed gp./XP distrubitions can become a real problem. But the new rule doesn't prevent all those abuses, just one particular (which hasn't even appeared yet). You don't have to try to explain me why you want the new rule, you have to argue while the rule change is *neccessary*, especially if it entails extra bookkeeping effort from everyone. There are a thousand good reasons for rules changes, both in CoCo rules and D&D rules, having a reason for change does not in itself justify the change. Please, look at the big picture, instead of focusing on justifying and polishing the mechanics of small rules changes. 1/3 Rule: But what I can clearly see (and what you play a bit down, Phillip) is that someone can decide to spend all Powerpoints on one opponent to win this fight. This is unfair to the one who gets beaten by such an overkill. This victim doesn't benefit from the caster now losing his next 2 fights. Cat, I agree completely, and I also provided arguments against this. I think I must repeat them because you seem to have missed them: A. The rule doesn't protect you against a caster going Nova in their last fight. And in that case 'the victim doesn't benefit from the caster having lost his previous two fights'. I simply reversed your argument to show it is a weak argument. My corresponding question was, if its not unfair for for a caster to go Nova in his last fight, why is it unfair if he does so in his first fight? You don't give any answer to that question. B. Why are spells exempt from 'going Nova', while other limited abilities and items are not? We don't allow a caster to cast three scorching rays in one fight, but we do allow the caster to spent his whole load of 5 scorching ray scrolls. Why? We forbid a psion to use all his pp. in three Mind Thrusts, but we do allow a Phrenic creature to use its Mind Thrust 3/times day? My question was: why is it unfair for spells to be used up all in one fight, but not unfair for items or other abilities with limited usage? You don't answer this. C. A new (and good) argument from you is that we need to handhold Pitlords for fear of big discussions. I personally don't feel we need to handhold Pitlord's like this. But, if what you say is true, then why not extend it to expendables as well, since they will suffer from the same problem: 'Hey Pitlord, why did you use all my expendables in the first fight!'. We haven't tried the new system, so your statement is an educated guess. Personally, if I want the Pitlord not to spend more than 1/3 of my spells in a certain (hopeless) fight, I can easily mention that in my tactics, problem solved. In fact, as I argued previously, I predict we will see precisely an increase in such tactics. If your first fight has bad odds even when you spend a reasonable amount of spells an expendables, you will instruct the Pitlord *not to use any limited resources*, since you might be better served in overpowering an enemy in a later fight, than spending 1/3 or something like that on a fight that will not give you good odds anyway. Also, I think you are giving Pitlords and players too little credit when you predict some kind of heated debate. I have never before seen a heated debate over too much spent expendables here. Have you? Most heated debates concern tactics and rules, and not the use of limited resources. Therefore I think you prediction is not supported by facts from the past. 1/3 Rule: Anyhow many of you still have the impression that the workload increases and that the 3WC (nice abrevation) would be easier without the 1/3 rule. Summary: 1) No less workload if we do away with the 1/3 rule for the 3WC 2) The 1/3 rule would still be on your sheet for other fight types 3) It protects players and pitlords alike These are strong points that make the decision clear. Because you say they are strong doesn't make them so. And its not a decision as far as I am concerned, it is a proposal. The 1/3 rule was invented to reduce caster power in arena fights, right (and an excellent choice if I say so myself). Why not just drop it in Miniquests as well? Since it is not player versus player, the balance issue of casters versus non-casters will not be felt there at all. Besides I thought Guild Ops and Miniquests will be integrated in the current system. So you can fight in week 1, go on a Miniquest in week 2 (minus your spent stuff), and do a multiplayer fight in week 3 (minus spent stuff in previous weeks). Has this changed? Can you clarify the new rules then, since intermixing all combat activities was Sauro's intention in the new system as far as I can tell. Not a 3WC for one-half of the activites, and business-as-usual for the other half. Not having the (non Core) 1/3 rule eliminates an additional rule, and all calculation (when writing tactics, when running fights, ) and aggravation that goes with it. You claim that doing away with an extra rule doesn't make a system of rules simpler? I cannot imagine how removing a rule doesn't make things simpler. I agree with you that the profit in reducing bookkeeping will be minor only. But it will help new players to adapt more easily, and ease aggravation by many players who previously balked at the 1/3 rule. Once again, we must only add the 1/3 rule to the new system if it is *neccessary*. Your arguments fail to convince me it is. To paraphrase yourself: "let's try it without the 1/3 rule and see how it goes?" Right?
Usurpator 05-17-06, 01:12 PM	I have a comment directed at all the complaints that I have seen lately, and a few questions on the three week system: Comments - A lot of people seem to have already made up their minds that the changes are bad. I don't know if they are going to be good or bad, but I will not make my judgement on the changes until I have tried them out. It may be that some of those changes are bad and need further modifications, but without experiencing them all we can do is speculate about what might be. Why not give the changes a chance before complaining about them? Remember that we are trying to have fun. I have not made up my mind at all. I think it is an interesting proposal, I am just trying to make it even better. To me it also seems that some opponents and proponents have indeed their minds made up already. Some opponents may have done this just because they are already having fun, and the things that are most detrimental to their fun have nothing to do with the problems the new rules address. They may be pretty neutral regarding the actual content of the rules, but are tired by the fact that there are more new rules *again*. There are only a few true opponents who don't think much of the rules itself. And I am not complaining, I am pointing out potential problems. And sure, we can speculate about changes before we have seen them. It happens all the time with any rules changes. You don't think they talked about and discussed 3.5 rules changed before they implemented them, right? Discussing them in advance is *the* method to pre-empt possible changes. Personally, I have not seen Cat come back on any of his rules changes, which leads me to believe that these new rules changes are not of the type 'we try and go back to the old rules if it doesn't work out'. I previously pointed out the failing Guild Wars rules as an example. When I pointed out the failings in the beginning I was ignored, and told 'wait until you see it, it will be good', followed by months and months of tweaking, rules changes and generally the system not working as intented. The original concept of the Guild Wars rules was poor and flawed, and this could (to a certain extent of course) been prevented by listening to good common sense arguments. But (like these changes), it seems once enough emotional investment is made in the proposal, there is no room anymore to even revise some small portions. We practically needed a mutiny of the boards to avoid the unasked for and undesired 'mandatory dice roller' rule. That is the general trend I see here: 'we have thought up this fantastic system and we are so pleased with our hard work that your choice is: take it our leave it.'
Stormwind 05-17-06, 01:35 PM	@Usurpator: I apologise if my comments were unclear. My comment was directed towards the complaints, not towards constructive comments and concerns regarding the changes. I agree that a constructive discussion is a necessary part of rule development.
Caterane 05-17-06, 02:31 PM	1. Not urgent because the open leagues have little access to xp cost spells. It was something that we had to fix though else I could start doing that trick from now on. 2. Yes, especially in regard to xp spells and familiar death. And no matter how it scales against other skewed ratios, it's definately one problem less to worry about. 3. You are right that these rules have nothing to do with each other. Perhaps it would have been better to wait a couple of weeks. My line of thought was to better make one big packet change now instead of more smaller stabs. 4. The effect is there which is what matters. You have to fight at least 3 fights against a higher league, probably much more than that. The effect will be huge in case of someone abusing the xp spells. A. There is a huge difference! In Week 1, everyone will have all spells available thus everyone could go nova. In week 3, only those who saved up a lot of spells or were lucky will be able to go nove. This is a margin of "All PCs" vs "A few PCs". Additionally, it is much more tempting to spend all powers now than think what will be in 2 weeks; call it human nature. B. I've answered that before. Expendables cost money, spells don't. Expendables use minimum DCs. Expendables will mostly be used at minimum CL. Expendables are already capped. All this makes them much weaker than real spells, and it's not worth coming up with an additional rule to cap these too. Btw, a phrenic creature can only mindthrust 1/d which is to say 1 per 3 weeks. C. Free Expendable access for Pitlords is something we had all the time and it wasn't a problem. I've seldomly heard complaints about free expendable usage. This is different with mem'd spells and powerpoints - your true power ressource. If you're a pitlord of an elan, would you spend all PP to negate the damage from the last hit and try to win the fight for the player, or would you let him die to conserve his PP? Not even I know the answer. These can become player complaints with much more persuation power because it affects the player's next 2 fights aswell. And imagine the increase in the emotional level if you now not only have to swallow down the current loss but are also doomed in the next two fights if your pitlord decided to spend all PP. Just a few minutes ago Argaud said goodbye because of bad pitlording. I don't want to create more situations that lead to player frustration. You say that players now have to instruct the pitlord that he shouldn't use more than a certain number of PP which is effectively almost the same as the 1/3 rule plus some tolerance. The 'freedom' of deciding how much you want to spend is only clearly visible in case of a nova ...and this is exactly what we do not want to see. The 1/3 rule is also necessary for MQ below your ECL. Miniquests below your ECL cannot be included into the 3WC because then a ECL 10 character could do a EL 1 mini to save a week of spells and ressources. So Miniquests with a lower EL must be done outside the 3WC. Since they last only 1 week, we need a rule to prevent casters from using 100% of their powers in a one week endeavour -> 1/3 rule. The same is true for defensive guild operations. They can also not be part of the 3WC because they almost always use different ELs due to District Defense Points. Without the 1/3 rule, a guild player can spend 100% of his powers on those guild opponents which produces ridiculous results in case of fighter vs wizard guild operations as we've seen in Classic CoCo. So we cannot do away with the 1/3 rule anyway. If we have to keep it, then we can just also apply it to the 3WC (at no additional workload) in order to fix problems that I explained above.
Ariel23 05-17-06, 05:00 PM	3 week cycle I don't know Cat personally at all so I may be way off, but I believe that what Caterane is trying to convey is: He doesn't know if the changes will all be good, but he does think they are worth trying. What turns out to be good will be kept, and what turns out to be bad will be changed. I think that, in fact, Caterane is suggesting that he can't foresee all the effects of these changes...and won't be able to unless they are put into practice. The same goes for people opposed to the 3 cycle rule. [edit: And skeptics/critics fear that the system may be so disastrous that it won't be fixable. That's a legitimate concern, I guess, but the worst that will happen is you lose a fight or two because you/opponent/PL doesn't understand the rules or makes a mistake in recording something. Who cares? At least you're fighting.] @Cat You say that the time is still one week per fight even though there are only 1d6 hours between fights. And so that paradox is what you are asking for a RP explanation for? If that's the case then all of my concerns about the 3 week cycle are gone so long as the language is clarified. IMO we should say "You have one free activity per fight" or "You can craft 7000 GP worth of materials instead of one fight" or "You regain all of your SP and re-prepare spells after three fights." We should basically eliminate the use of the word "week" in the Gladius rules except to refer to the RL calendar (Tuesday fight deadline, Wed pairings, Thurs tactics, etc). And we definitely need to call it a 3 Fight Cycle, not a 3 Week Cycle. It really has nothing to do with weeks. With holdovers, vacations, board maintenance, etc, it can't even be accurately applied to RL weeks. Why the 1/3rd rule in the new system? Are we scared casters? Are the people who have a perfect fight record so scared that a nova-ing caster will beat them, or make them spend so much resources they may get a loss in a subsequent fight? Well, suck it up I would say! The purpose of a 3WC is also to have gladiators balance their resource expenditure right, why artificially limit them? With very good reason: it is not realistic. There was a recent article (Mindwanderer is the person who usually knows all these) about that very fact. It is recommended by Skip Williams or someone that encounters with enemy casters allow the enemies to only use about half of their available SP or PP. The party does not expend all of its resources in the first encounter of the day because that would get them killed in case there is a next one, so neither should the monsters. The monster "exists" for only one fight, so it will use every available resource because it will cease to exist after that moment. It is basically the exact same scenario in the arena except it applies to both sides. So this is a "rule" that does come from D&D proper and there are arbitrary limits (Skip's is 1/2). Even in RL you don't use all your ammunition or commit all your troops in the first battle, so there are RL parallels as well. You have 3 fights in one day, much like a session of D&D, it is up to you whether to self-impose a 1/3 rule or not. Just like Pen-n-Paper, you will have to fight again without resting. And to be perfectly honest, yes, it is motivated by a fear of casters. :gah: Rightfully so. Virtual XP follow up: It seems to me that a Virtual Gold system would make more sense. If my opponent has self crafted +2 sword, +1 mithral plate and shield, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, he has like 20000 GP more equipment than me. I'm more worried about his superior STR, sword, and armor than I am whether he has 29000 XP or 27995. Every reference I have seen to the XP problem is with gold, not XP. Add up the total market value of all items owned or expended over the course of the character's career. What does XP have to do with it? The simplest rule to solve this whole (XP) problem would be "There are never any XP costs in CoCo" except when hiring NPC crafters [Edit: I meant "casters" not crafters]. I may be hopelessly naive, but wouldn't this solve the entire problem? Who cares if they pay the XP penalty or not? I don't. In fact, as Caterane has pointed out, the XP "cost" is really of immense benefit.* * If you are more concerned with winning than with leveling. I think I'm Not following up so it's either get really specialized in using UMD or be limited to using cl 1 stuff for most of your career? I don't think that's fair.Since you're quoting me, I will assume you are addressing me. I was only answering Mindwanderer's comment that a +15 UMD would be useless or the same as a +7 UMD. It's not and never will be. In CoCo, in table-top, in D&D Online, Neverwinter Nights, or anywhere. It's still a +15 skill bonus to a skill that is highly volatile. I am not arguing for or against any UMD system being discussed. The only comment I made in that regard is that I will always oppose any system which relies solely on ranks and does not rely on attribute/feat/synergy/magic bonuses as well. There is no parallel to that anywhere in the D&D SRD. The only thing even close is synergy bonuses which require 5 ranks (not a +5 bonus).
MindWandererB 05-17-06, 05:17 PM	....With very good reason: it is not realistic. There was a recent article (Mindwanderer is the person who usually knows all these) about that very fact. It is recommended by Skip Williams or someone that encounters with enemy casters allow the enemies to only use about half of their available SP or PP. The party does not expend all of its resources in the first encounter of the day because that would get them killed in case there is a next one, so neither should the monsters. The monster "exists" for only one fight, so it will use every available resource because it will cease to exist after that moment. It is basically the exact same scenario in the arena except it applies to both sides. So this is a "rule" that does come from D&D proper and there are arbitrary limits (Skip's is 1/2). Even in RL you don't use all your ammunition or commit all your troops in the first battle, so there are RL parallels as well. Heh... I'm glad you have such faith in me, but I personally don't recall any such thing. The only thing like it I can remember is something (in the DMG?) that recommends limiting expendables for one-shot adventures, because expendables are disproportionately more powerful when there's no incentive to save them. The same logic applies here, of course; in a P&P game, there's no incentive to save anything when the alternative is death. Dying kind of defeats the purpose of saving anything. Not so in the CoCo, which is why we need arbitrary limits.
SoulLord 05-17-06, 06:17 PM	@arieil23: I agree with you on this and applaud your reasoning. the Most elegant Solution to the XP problem, since it's more of a boon than a hindrance is to not charge xp for items,spells,familiar death etc. that require it. end result no more virtual xp. I will always oppose any system which relies solely on ranks and does not rely on attribute/feat/synergy/magic bonuses as well. Since you brought this up. Skills and Earning Money (Profession/Crafts/Perform/Sleight) you can use certain skills to earn extra money if you have at least 5 ranks in that skill Skills and Discounts (Appraise/Bluff/Sense Motive) you can haggle about one item if you have at least 5 ranks in bluff, sense motive, and appraise. Gather Information Characters with at least 5 ranks in the Gather Information skill can circumvent that credit cost by paying the Blackmarket Hiding: You are autospotted if you leave cover or concealment, and opponent has Line of Sight to you; while moving from cover to cover, you can remain hidden as long as you are no more than 1 foot per rank in hide away from a cover. You cannot hide within effects provided by spells or items that affect only you and give concealment or cover such as Blur, Concealing Amorpha and a Tower Shield. there are many things that use ranks in the coco Heres yet another possible alternative ranks/2=Caster Level or total value / 4 = Spell Level with a cap of your ecl+2 in both cases
bluemage55 05-17-06, 06:42 PM	Given the implementation of the 3 Week Cycle, is it still necessary to have a 1/3 rule for spells and abilities usable a certain number of times a day? If we are going for a simulation of table-top play, as some proponents of the 3 Week Cycle have argued, then why not allow the use of more abilities in Week 1 at the cost of fewer abilities in Week 2? Under the currently proposed rule, a gladiator with an ideal pairing in Week 1 or Week 2 will be able to save up power for Week 2 or Week 3, but a gladiator with a difficult pairing early on will be unable to use extra juice when he needs it. Of course, the 3 Week Cycle already subjects gladiators to rely more on luck (since you can still use your one use of resist energy against an opponent that uses burning hands and then wind up with an opponent who has fireball), but the 1/3 rule emphasizes luck even more.
Book5 05-17-06, 07:52 PM	3WC Timing Anytime you have something that is hard to imagine coneptually - it becomes more difficult. Regardless of how hard or easy the techinical actions are ... if you don't understand they become harder. There is one very difficult to rationalize component of the 3WC - the timing. When is this all taking place? Does the arena run once a week or once every three weeks or constantly? I can concieve of the arena in the manner sauro seems to - "its magic" - basically it runs constantly and regardless of which fight you are on you could be fighting someone on the same fight sequence or someone on one of the other two possibilties. this suggestion might have slipped through your notice Cat As far as I understand at this point - we are attempting to maintain the day for day time scale of CoCo, and I can imagine that will become odder when it requires three weeks to get through one day. With that in mind perhaps we should make a logistical decision and make it so that the arena "only runs once every three weeks" - this has an effect on the accounting of the guilds - they would only get the rewards from a fighter at the end of the three week period. There is a conceptual dissonance however when you allow gladiators to be on different weeks. To sync everything (since we still have time to make these decisions) we can actually make the weeks consistent.. now before you stop me hear me out. This does not mean that a fighter can't come in on the second week of the tourney - but if they do their "three week cycle" resets after two weeks. Basically they showed up late and jumped in midday. This would guarantee that all campaigns not only started the same time, but were in sync with the three week cycle (being a three week cycle already). Now the loose ends here are the full activities and mini's. Perhaps, (considering synchronization) enforcing a “three week full activity” would be in order. That will require more consideration, but I think the control and consistency benefits of this along with the 3WC deal would be invaluable. Doing this makes the relationship between arena time, guild time, and real time explicit and clearly understandable. After some consideration I can think of an "abuse" this might lead to. * Only fighting on the last fight of the cycle. The last fight has no casting limit - so a wizard/sorcerer/psion could only set themselves as ready once every three weeks - thereby ensuring they will only fight at full power and therefor keep their win record in good standing Honestly - yes this will increase your win record (more for casters, but to a lesser extent fighters as well) but I don't think its that is all that undesirable. In fact - rather than making a rule to prevent it... just use a multiplier on power level to reflect the greater success of the characters that run through the entire cycle. "choosing your battles" is something that is a real way to get ahead in life .. so why not here. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expendables available at the arena There has been some mention of the fact that people might make mistakes or misunderstandings in that they do not bring the right expendables into a fight by accident. I have a lovely idea for that - "Arena Store" Now - we all know that in a TT game - if you go to a store you cannot buy "everything" in the srd. You have a limit and the prices may vary from the book listings. Why? because a good dungeon master controls the availabilty of items based on the campaign and setting. To reflect that and give those that have made oversights a option they can take advantage of - we can make an Arena store. This should be a store of all the basic expendables that we believe "everyone" should use. Only scrolls, potions, and stones (no tats - takes too long). Only a select list of stuff - maybe some "advanced ones" that you can only buy at the arena store without credits... and run the price up like we were selling popcorn at the movie theater. Seriously - have a store with a limited selection, profiteering prices, and a few "unique" items only available elsewhere with credits. The inventory should be one that is pertinant to the arena - prots, see invis, AC buffs, stat buffs, healing - AND we can throw a service or two in there - like healing. Let fighters list purchases in their tactics - and no one will ever have to walk in to the arena unprepared - even if they forgot something when they set the fighter to ready. This would allow people to wait until they were paired to purchase a specific item that will win the fight for them... but honestly - running up the price to something almost prohibitive will prevent that from being used as an intelligent tactic. Basically - by making the Arena store pricey in comparison - anyone who might be tempted to use that as a tactic will be encouraged to just pre-buy all these things. As far as the special items - lets call em "weekly specials" - they are items that would otherwise cost credit - and the choice of what is available this week could be set by the fotw thread starter. This is something they could have a little fun with, a little pendantic even. Items would of course need to be something that already exists in the via the blackmarket - for example: For this weeks specials we have convinced Mr Sabbah (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7842025&postcount=550) to reveal the secrets of his all seeing third eyes! You can pick some up for the mere price of 3500 GP! Sorry no double third eyes this week. Also - for those who are looking to end thier fight with a "big bang" we have some Caster Level 12 fireball scrolls! Only 1000 GP! For fighters looking to keep their feet off the ground all fight we have some CL 10 Fly potions (thats 10 minutes of flight! ) for the low low price of only 2000! Heck I think it would be awesome to even throw a couple undepriced special items in there for people paying attention ;) And to reiterate/encapsulate. Arena store- Very limited item selection - mostly expendables. Standing 15% markup over normal market price. Variable "weekly specials" that would normally cost credits. Purchases must be listed in tactics and must be linked to fight.
Usurpator 05-18-06, 01:38 AM	3 week cycle I don't know Cat personally at all so I may be way off, but I believe that what Caterane is trying to convey is: He doesn't know if the changes will all be good, but he does think they are worth trying. What turns out to be good will be kept, and what turns out to be bad will be changed. My biggest problem with Cat is that he only seems to want to try what he thinks will work, and unwilling to try anything he doesn't agree with. I think that goes against the spirit of a community. In my opinion a community leader in particular only should use the powers granted to him when there is a crisis or a conflict. He should most certainly avoid using his powers to push through his own agenda when there is neither a crisis nor a conflict. Cat's clear, no-nonsense and even-handed approach is much appreciated (by me at least) when he institutes a state of emergency because of a shortage of Pitlords, when he makes a ruling after Elder's cannot seem to agree on a certain house rule or when he decides what to do with people that have multiple accounts. When he tries to institute changes without properly listening or taking heed of the wishes and opinions of the community, then things go awry (and I get aggravated). With no crisis or conflict at hand it becomes the task of a community leader is to seek consensus. This is particularly true in a community of volunteers. We are not a military unit, a school class or business operation. All people are here and contribute of their own free will, there is no need to push us or tell us what is best for us. If someone acts as an authoritive leader who pushes through his own agenda (however well-intended and perfect it might be!) with a group of volunteers, he will risk alienating members of the community. A good community leader allows members their contribution even if he thinks it won't work (and regardless if he is right), unless he thinks that the contributions in question will severly damage the community. At least, the above reflects my experience with styles of leadership in different circumstances. I don't desire to be led and be told what is best for me, I want to contribute meaningfully to the community. In other words, if Cat doesn't know for sure, and is 'willing to give it a try', in most cases he should not try what he wants, but what other community members want. Such is the (hard) task of a community leader.
Usurpator 05-18-06, 02:11 AM	Cat, Thanks very much for responding to my questions and issues! I appreciate it a lot. While we don't agree on the virtual XP, I think both positions are clear. My request is to postpone instituting virtual XP until we think of a system that solves all gp./XP ratio problems (Ariel23 already made a suggestion) and not haphazardly institute a new rule because it is so elegant in solving just problems with spellcasting and crafting XP. I have a global solution lying around for this problem as well. A. There is a huge difference! In Week 1, everyone will have all spells available thus everyone could go nova. But those who face a caster with all spells still available who does go Nova will still be unjustly penalized. Just think on it. Nexa faces the Harvester in week 1: Will she go Nova in order to win? Sure, this will probably the most difficult fight in the cycle, so it would be stupid to safe resources until later. Nexa faces Perius in week 1: Will she go Nova in order to win? Certainly not, even worse, she will probably not cast *any* of her spells at all, so she can save them and go Nova in case she faces The Harvester in week 2 or week 3. (no offense Ravashack) You say the first tactic is not ok, but the second is fine. Both are essentially the same tactic, using your limited resources when they are most needed. Another example to try and convince you: ThaBomb, lvl2 barbarian Duergar (week 1) - invisibility 1/day (ability) - expansion 1/day (ability) - rage 1/day (ability) - protection from evil 1/day (potion) Arcanix, lvl3 human wizard (week 1) - invisibility 1/day (spell) - enlarge person 1/day (spell) - bull's strength 1/day (spell) - protection from evil 1/day (spell) - mage armor 1/day (spell) You are claiming that it is perfectly ok for ThaBomb to spend all his abilities in week 1, while Arcanix is not allowed to do so? Their abilities are almost exactly the same, why isn't it a problem for ThaBomb to spend all limited abilities, but it is a problem for Arcanix? Don't we have to 'protect' Pitlords and players from ThaBomb in spending all his abilities in week 1? Flighty, 1st lvl sorcerer Pixie (week 1) - lots of spell-like powers 1/day - bag of tricks 10/week Leaflover, 5th lvl human druid - some minor powers (abilities and items) - summon nature's ally I-III 10/day Once again, it is apparently perfectly fine for Flighty to spend all her abilities in week 1, but Leaflover is forbidden to do so. Both can summon up to 10 creatures, but only Flighty can do so in week 1. What gives? C. Free Expendable access for Pitlords is something we had all the time and it wasn't a problem. I've seldomly heard complaints about free expendable usage. This is different with mem'd spells and powerpoints - your true power ressource. If you're a pitlord of an elan, would you spend all PP to negate the damage from the last hit and try to win the fight for the player, or would you let him die to conserve his PP? Not even I know the answer. These can become player complaints with much more persuation power because it affects the player's next 2 fights aswell. And imagine the increase in the emotional level if you now not only have to swallow down the current loss but are also doomed in the next two fights if your pitlord decided to spend all PP. Just a few minutes ago Argaud said goodbye because of bad pitlording. I don't want to create more situations that lead to player frustration. You have said it yourself. Expendables never posed a problem, and you are only theorizing (based upon that you think memorized spells and powerpoints are a characters true power resource, which clearly has never been the case with say, The Harvester) that spells will be a problem. As I explained before, most cases (90%) of bad pitlording complaints has to do with not following tactics as the player would have liked, or rules errors. I truly think you are deluding yourself if you think that this rule will in any way minimize player complaints or bad pitlording. There is no basis in fact for this idea, and almost no basis in theory. The 1/3 rule is also necessary for MQ below your ECL. Miniquests below your ECL cannot be included into the 3WC because then a ECL 10 character could do a EL 1 mini to save a week of spells and ressources. So Miniquests with a lower EL must be done outside the 3WC. Since they last only 1 week, we need a rule to prevent casters from using 100% of their powers in a one week endeavour -> 1/3 rule. You did read my suggestion right? Drop the 1/3 rule entirely from the 'outside-3WC-miniquest'. No reason to have it there as far as I can see other than adhering to tradition. The same is true for defensive guild operations. They can also not be part of the 3WC because they almost always use different ELs due to District Defense Points. Without the 1/3 rule, a guild player can spend 100% of his powers on those guild opponents which produces ridiculous results in case of fighter vs wizard guild operations as we've seen in Classic CoCo. Well, better change the guild rules then! Because they are now having an impact upon how CoCo battles are fought, which was exactly what was not intented in the original concept of the Guilds. Just fight guild battles without any effect on XP/gp. and you are set! (which is probably what should be done anyway, if what you say about skewed odds is true, because otherwise guild battles would become easy levelling/gold gathering options). I hope you can see the sense in my suggestions, and see that most of your own objections are based on speculation of 'how it might work out', and generally don't give players and ptilords much credit (you seem to be trying to protect them from themselves). If both are suggestions make sense, and we both have good arguments, well, let's try my suggestion for a change instead of choosing your own again!
Usurpator 05-18-06, 02:46 AM	@Book5: I apologize for not often responding to your ideas and proposals. No matter how often I try to read them, I have extreme difficulty understanding what you are trying to say and what the point of your proposals is and why you think they would be a good addition to the CoCo, especially considering all the concerns adressed here previously. I simply seem not able to follow your train of thought. I am just glad I can make sense of your tactics when I Pitlord, because they are usually quite 'off the wall' in comparison to most other tactics writeups. I do appreciate that though.
MitzaVolchenko 05-18-06, 03:33 AM	Thank you Usurpator. You have made the points fairly clearly that have most of my concerns included. I would like to see examples that show why we need or should want this system. Instead of trying to defend it, how about trying to sell it? Tell me why this is the best idea that has ever come along to the CoCo. Get me revved up to try it. Show me that the changes are solving real problems without creating a host of other problems. *shrugs* I'll say it again, the system may turn out alright. It may turn out stellar. I think it is being hastily implemented without enough input from the community's will.
Usurpator 05-18-06, 04:04 AM	Usurpator's Total XP/GP Ratio Solution This is a solution for gladiators who get less or more gp. than average for their level (and thus are less or more powerful for their level). The Problem Below is a list of XP and gold a gladiator gets when winning a fight in his own league (A loss is 1/3rd the listed amount). ECL/CR XP GOLD RATIO 1 300 300 1/1 2 600 600 1/1 3 900 900 1/1 4 1,200 1,200 1/1 5 1,500 1,600 1/1.06 6 1,800 2,000 1/1.11 7 2,100 2,600 1/1.23 8 2,400 3,400 1/1.41 9 2,700 4,500 1/1.66 10 3,000 5,800 1/1.93 11 3,300 7,500 1/2.27 12 3,600 9,800 1/2.72 13 3,900 13,000 1/3.33 14 4,200 17,000 1/4.04 15 4,500 22,000 1/4.88 16 4,800 28,000 1/5.83 17 5,100 36,000 1/7.05 18 5,400 47,000 1/8.70 19 5,700 61,000 1/10.70 20 6,000 80,000 1/13.33 The ratio means that an 11th lvl character gets 2.27 gp. for each XP he earns. This ratio will become important later on. It is important to know that as long as everyone fights other gladiators in their own league, everyone has about the same amount of gold for every point of XP, and balance is maintained. There are a number of things that upset this balance: 1. Monster Fights An ECL 6 gladiator fighting four ECL 2 monsters (= EL 6) will get 1800 XP (= four times the ECL 6 vs. ECL 2 XP award) and 2400 gp. (= four times the ECL 4 gold award). His buddy who fights a single ECL 6 monster gets 1,800 XP and 2000 gp. For an encounter of the same difficulty, the first gladiator gets 400 gp. more. 2. Quests Gladiator A (ECL 10) and gladiator B (ECL 6) go on an EL 8 quest together. After having defeated three ECL 8 encouters they divide the spoils. The ECL 10 gladiator gets 2250 XP (50% of 3 times ECL 8 opponent) and 5666 gp. (10/18 of 10,200 gp.). In comparison, an ECL 10 buddy of him fighting in the arena would only get 4350 gp. when earning the same amount XP. Gladiator A thus gets a bonus of 1300 gp. for doing an easy quest. His companion, gladiator B, is worse of. He gets 5400 XP and 4534 gp. If he had fought in the arena instead of questing he would have earned 6000 gp. with those 5400 XP. Gladiator B thus gets penalized by 1500 gp. by doing a more difficult quest. 3. Crafting & Spellcasting Gladiator A and B (both ECL 5) have equal XP and gold. Gladiator A crafts for 1500 XP in items. Then gladiator A fights another ECL 5 combat (gaining 1500 XP and 1600 gold). Now both gladiators have once again equal XP, but gladiator A has earned 1600 gold more than gladiator B. The same is true for casting spells with XP components. 4. Involuntary XP loss Gladiator A and B (both ECL 5) have equal XP and gold. Gladiator A loses his familiar, is level drained in a quest and then fights some matches, bringing his XP up to the level of gladiator B again. Gladiator A has now (thanks to the extra matches) a lot more gold than gladiator B. In these situations, balance is skewed, and some gladiators can afford relatively more equipment than their fellows, largely no thanks to any good actions of their own. Even worse, losing XP, doing easy quests, such things actually reward gladiators, it gives them an extra edge in the arena when facing a fellow gladiator in the same league. This is clearly unintended. The Solution Instead of totalling and accounting an extra stat called Virtual XP, which only solves problems 3 and 4, but not 1 and 2, why not consolidate the XP/GP table into one table, and use the ratio directly for gold calculations? With that I mean that any gold increase is directly related (and dependent on) and XP increase. Gladiators earn XP as normal, but then multiply the XP gained by the gold multiplier to find out how much gold they gained. Small example table: Your ------------------------------ Opponent's ECL/CR ------------------------------- ECL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1-3 300/300 600/600 900/900 1,350/1350 1,800/1,800 2,700/2,700 4 300/300 600/600 800/800 1,200/1,200 1,600/1,600 2,400/2,400 5 300/320 500/533 750/800 1,000/1,067 1,500/1,600 2,250/2,400 6 300/333 450/500 600/667 900/1,000 1,200/1,333 1,800/2,000 The XP for a certain encounter is followed by the gold gained behing the slash. This neatly solves the problems 1 and 2. It also does not require any extra calculations or new stat, and the most common fights (gladiator fights within the same league) will stay exactly as they always were. Also, with the new system you can now look in one table to find out all the rewards, no longer did you need to look at separate ones. Solving problems 3 and 4 is slightly more difficult, but not overly so. Those who craft or cast spells with an XP cost have to pay extra gold equal to the XP cost of the crafting/spellcasting equal to the ratio mentioned in the first table. So someone crafting for 500 XP at ECL 8 will have to pay an extra craft fee of 705 gp. (500 * 1.41) above and beyond the normal crafting XP, to ensure he does not benefit inadvertently from a better XP/gp. ratio. Permanent involuntary XP loss (like losing a familiar on a quest, or being level drained) really has no proper place in an arena like the CoCo, and should simply be abolished. Note that I thought up this solution over 6 months ago, but didn't suggest it because it seemed it was not really neccessary at that time. Even thought the problem exists, only a few issued complaints, so I saw no reason to bother anyone with new rules if it didn't solve a problem that a majority saw as urgent. If Cat has it in his mind to change the XP/gp. rules anyway to solve (potential) problems 3. and 4., let's do it right the first time, and not bother people with a conceptually difficult extra rule like Virtual XP.
Book5 05-18-06, 04:56 AM	I have lateral thinking down to a science. I have had to come to terms with the fact that I speak "over the head" of most people - but let me try and simplify.... :rolleyes: Hard to think of stuff is hard to think about. :rolleyes: It is hard to think about time relationships.. and it is harder to think about unconventional time relationships... as Wizard Magazine once said - "clones, **** clones, and time travel!" - the inability to cleary cognisize "what is happening" with the arena is part and parcell of why some.. like mitza - fail to appreciate why it is SO cool. :D You, Usurpator, fail to recognize it as a problem because you have no problem rationalizing the timing. Other people.... are not so savvy. "The biggest failing in highly intelligent people is they expect others to be equally intelligent.. and then fail to understand why they arnt." Let me digress You may have seen the words "Loreum Ipsom" somewhere... because it is the default text of a number of major industrial level software products. Why? Because thousands of highly paid professional buisness people were unable to look past the "placeholder text" that graphic designers were placing in their layout projects. I am so serious - I know these things. No I am totally serious - literally thousands of people could not grasp the concept of "placeholder text." They called Adobe to complain! The largest priducer of industrial graphics solutions (adobe) created the "lorem ipsum" text stuff because thousands of people were running into a "mental stop." Anything that causes a mental stop.. causes a mental stop. Once you hit a mental stop you cannot proceed without some sort of confusion. The reason I am suggesting my 3WC timing adjustment is so that people do not :banghead: against some sort of "mental stop" and then deny the whole system as "too complicated" without giving it a chance. Many people overlook these extreemly subtle vaugeries due to the fact they are not needing to :banghead: against them... that is why I think my proposal would be "good for coco" ... that clear it up? Oh! And I have mentioned it would completely negate the whole "guild and campaign" timing problems? I think I have :P @Mitza (you have double evil chomosones so...) You are not looking hard enough. This system is not more complicated than normal pitlording. It is slightly differnt. It is more complicated for the players.. not the pitlords. Thats all.
Caterane 05-18-06, 11:26 AM	@Usurpator: I have limited time and have to leave any second so I make it shorter this time. First of all, I want to say that I don't appreciate the way you portray me. If you check previous discussions you'll see that I always hear all arguments and always reply to them and that my initial proposal is always different from the end result due to community input. At one point in time I do have to make a decision though. If you think it's an easy to job to make it right for everyone, we should switch places for some weeks. Anyway. That's not our discussion. I agree that we should wait with the Virtual XP. One thing after another and apparently there are alternatives out there (like yours above, and Sauro just presented me with his Virtual XP 2.0). You should know that I also see your logic with the 3WC which is what Sauro's initial proposal was like (no 1/3 rule). I just think that we can reduce the nova situation from being available to all in week 1 to only a few who saved up spells in week 3. That's my reasoning; and it's not mere speculation but there's indeed an almost 90% chance that you will NOT have as many spells available on week 3 than on week 1. You ask that we do it without 1/3 rule first and then reinstitute it when the system proves to be unbalanced and unfair. I just want to say that it's easier to remove it later to do the 3WC without it than it is to re-implement it again when we realize was necessary. You can surely agree on that. But let's play it through and ignore the nova threat for the time being. I truly think you are deluding yourself if you think that this rule will in any way minimize player complaints or bad pitlording. Now you miss my point. I'm not saying it will minimize complaints. I said it won't give players additional reason to complain (here: you used too many spells). I didn't say it minimizes bad pitlording. I said it helps PL to have a limit on how much they can spend if tactics break down. I am not a bad pitlord but I don't know if I should spend all PP to win the fight for a player or let him lose so that he has PP in later fights. And honestly, that isn't my job. The 1/3 rule gives me a limit on how much I can spend, and as a pitlord I am glad about that. This is a problem that can very well occur. You did read my suggestion right? Drop the 1/3 rule entirely from the 'outside-3WC-miniquest'. No reason to have it there as far as I can see other than adhering to tradition. You mean allow casters to spend all their spells in one fight? Manifesters can use all PP in one fight? Sorry, no and I surely don't have to comment on the why. The alternative would be to disallow Miniquests outside the 3WC, in effect, disallow Miniquests with an EL below your ECL. This becomes a problem the higher in EL you go. While three small spiders are a joke for an ECL 3 character, an ECL 10 PC has a hard time against most of the CR 10 monsters. Planetar vs ECL 14. Ouch. Well, better change the guild rules then! Because they are now having an impact upon how CoCo battles are fought, which was exactly what was not intented in the original concept of the Guilds. Just fight guild battles without any effect on XP/gp. and you are set! (which is probably what should be done anyway, if what you say about skewed odds is true, because otherwise guild battles would become easy levelling/gold gathering options). It doesn't matter if you earn xp/gp in operations or not. The fact remains that an operating wizard or psion who assaults a guild fighter blows the latter to pieces in 95% of all fights if he isn't restricted. We have hard proof for that from the classic coco. So there has to be a rule that governs the spell power which is the 1/3 rule. I don't even have an alternative for that problem. So there are problems that we couldn't solve in the last weeks if we do away with the 1/3 rule. Now add the nova threat and you have every right to ask why to do away with the 1/3 rule when it will easily fix all these issues all at once.
Ariel23 05-18-06, 03:13 PM	The XP for a certain encounter is followed by the gold gained behing the slash. This neatly solves the problems 1 and 2. It also does not require any extra calculations or new stat, and the most common fights (gladiator fights within the same league) will stay exactly as they always were. Also, with the new system you can now look in one table to find out all the rewards, no longer did you need to look at separate ones. Solving problems 3 and 4 is slightly more difficult, but not overly so. Those who craft or cast spells with an XP cost have to pay extra gold equal to the XP cost of the crafting/spellcasting equal to the ratio mentioned in the first table. So someone crafting for 500 XP at ECL 8 will have to pay an extra craft fee of 705 gp. (500 * 1.41) above and beyond the normal crafting XP, to ensure he does not benefit inadvertently from a better XP/gp. ratio. Permanent involuntary XP loss (like losing a familiar on a quest, or being level drained) really has no proper place in an arena like the CoCo, and should simply be abolished. This system makes sense. Unless I'm missing something, this solves almost all of the problems, and every character will have earned the same GP rewards throught their career. It doesn't account for the disparity between base cost and market cost for magic/mundane crafters, or discount hagglers. [Whether or not that is a problem, I don't know.] And I would still say no XP loss for crafting/spells/familiars. Its more intuitive than "My familiar died, now I have to pay 1200 gp, too." Either is fine with me (Usurpator's or mine), one is just lazier. I haven't seen Sauro's Virtual XP 2.0 yet. The only exploit I have seen from Cat which explains the pressing need for Virtual XP was casting XP spells over and over to "level down." My system (No XP costs for spells or crafting or familiar/level loss...ever) mistakenly did not take into account quests. In that regard, I feel the need to distinguish quests from monster fights in the context of "Leveling Down" exploits. We do not choose when to have monster fights. It is a "gift" from the Pairings gods. Even if it's a monster fight too hard to win, that will generally mean better loser rewards. You might have 3 or 4 monster fights in your career or you might have none. But you can't choose to do 8 monster fights in a row. I.e., they don't apply to the XP exploits inherent to CoCo. Familiar loss may be "involuntary" but it would be quite easy to get them killed if one so desired. I don't know anything about the guilds. I think the core rules (fighting/questing) should be the priority; the guild system can be reworked once the new rules are in place and functioning properly.
Ariel23 05-18-06, 03:14 PM	You should know that I also see your logic with the 3WC which is what Sauro's initial proposal was like (no 1/3 rule). Bah. Replacing the 1/3 rule with self-management of SP/PP/daily uses was why I loved the 3WC. I didn't notice that we were not using what SauroGrenom had been posting. This is not a knock on anyone, just that I'm stupid. Well on to the 3WC with 1/3 rule: I can see some good points, but not enough good points to justify implementing the change as-is. Usurpator is right in that we are dictating what the participants may commit to their fights, rather than leaving it up to the PL and the player. Cat is right that there will be more arguing. IMHO add a new section to the character sheet: I don't care how much the PL uses, I just want to win. If I don't have enough SP left in Fight 3, I will alter my tactics accordingly. Don't use expendables if a spell is available that will work instead. or Try not to use more than 1/3 of my available spells and no more than 400 gp of expendables. And if the player doesn't give the PL guidelines, the PL has 100% freedom to do what he/she wants.
barrel_master 05-18-06, 04:21 PM	Wait Steve! Before you leave, we do it your way. Let me immideately delete that rule. And Barrel wants the Classic Coco back, and someone else wanted the 1/3 rule scrapped or he leaves so I'm going to do that too. But wait, if I do that, other guys leave. Ah I know we roll the dice!! 1 is John has to leave and 2 is Frank has to go. Let's just do away with ALL rules because that's cool and simple and no one can complain anymore and if we don't I'll quit! Because I hate rules and want a pure roleplaying board. Just let me make 10 accounts like Greezer so that I'm ready for the community poll. [/sarcasm] ______________ Seriously guys, I'm a bit fed up with all this complaining. The Rules of Gladius consist of 80% House Rules as do most rules on other boards but in case you didn't notice, these are necessary to run a board. No House Rules, no CoCo, no Guild House, not even the Castle of Fun runs without houserules. That said, there will always be those who like certain rules which others don't like and some even hate them while they on the other hand love the ones the others hate. It is impossible to make it right for everyone and if you think there's a rule that so kicks you in the face that you cannot participate anymore, then it's probably time to leave. I just cannot make it right for everyone. Every new rule is discussed in the council for weeks and it's always different from the original proposal, modified by the input of the community. You won't find that anywhere else on the boards. Ha ha... I thought I should answer this here instead of on the fights board as I think it's pertinent to Council discussion. I guess it's my own fault. I've generaly only posted when I've been against something. Now I'm not looking to bring back the 'classic' arena, although I liked it, I understand it's something people don't want so I'm okay with not having it. I'm also a fan of the 1/3 rule... it's a little artificial but I think it's neccessary to keep casters from winning everytime past lvl 4 (even then lvl 4 spell caster guys are still pretty tough). Now, we're not against house rules... we want house rules... we just disagree as to what is or is not a good house rule. And sure, it's nearly impossible for everyone to be happy with the rules... we understand that and that's okay we can all peacefully disagree can't we?
SauroGrenom 05-18-06, 04:22 PM	After spending a day pondering the attitudes and perceptions of the council members right now, I think that I may have an idea of the fundamental undercurrent driving the disagreements, confusions and differences of perspective that are now being voiced. That is that each of us has slightly different tenants that we use to approach our common game. This represents a problem because what one member may want their game to be like can be very different from what another member desires for their game. Should the vision of either player ever be fully realized it would alienate the other players. At each turn most players will have hopes and desires that are not realized while the hopes and desires of another player come to be. This is not a problem that is unique to CoCo. However it is magnified dramatically by the size of our community and the amount of effort and time it takes to develop a character here. People become heavily invested in their characters and in the game as a whole. This alone is a fine thing, however it can be turned to evil will as well. If a person’s efforts are not rewarded, or the fruits of their labors are damaged by another player’s actions, then having a partly emotional (and some times counterproductive) response is natural. Most (if not all) of us have played this game in smaller groups with a face to face interaction. Once you remove the immediate face to face interaction and all its non verbal cues, it then becomes easier to misunderstand someone or read a “tone” that is offensive and unintended. Also increasing the number of people from 5 to 25 causes a dramatic increase in the number of people “at the table” in the game together. Accompanied is an increase (20fold) in the possibility for argument and disagreement between players since the number of pairs of people increases from 15 to 325. So in all the point is that it is much much harder to get 25 people to work together with a common goal through an online forum then it is to get 5 people at a game table to all be in agreement about the vision or direction of the development of their game. Those differing opinions about the desired direction of CoCo’s development are possibly the source of all the current actual disagreements. Some of the posts in the last couple days have been actual confusions about rules and those have been clarified. However if you are not yet satisfied it may be because the underlying question you have is “Why make this rule in this way?” Asking that question suggests that you would do things differently if you have the choice. When multiple equally intelligent and reasonable people make differing decisions to cope with the same problems, then it suggests to me that each individual has a different set of values and goals that guide their decision making. So long as those are all different, we continue to have heated discussions, arguments and people becoming emotionally wounded and leaving the community as a result. This will set a rather small upper limit on the number of us who can get along. The community will not be able to grow much if at all beyond the number currently active. Getting everyone on the same page with regards to goals and vision for CoCo is not an insurmountable difficulty. There are many examples of communities that have faced similar difficulties. For us it may be useful to develop and approve a Charter that is used to guide the development of the rules and setting of CoCo. Developing such a document would be a very hard thing to do. Evidence the writing of a Constitution in Iraq. Our Charter would not need to be so complicated, contentious or gravely important as the Constitution of a nation. But it may help us all have a common vision for what CoCo should be like. It should then be obvious to everyone what (if any) rule changes need to be made and why any such changes will be made. Such a document will also make clear to any and all current members and newcomers what the nature and vision of our community is like. Then it can be quickly and easily be determined if the newcomer would enjoy participating here. Any future add-ons or rules changes can be considered in light of the ideals and goals laid out in the Charter. Writing such a document would be a process potentially slow and argumentative. But perhaps it would be worth it for all the future argument and confusion that will be avoided. Also the process of writing this would be deceptively democratic until the end. Our GM Caterane has absolute authority over the board, and his final decision cannot be overruled by any number of players. This is not to say that Cat rules with an iron fist either, he is in fact very open to the thoughts and desires of us (the players). More often than not Cat accepts the suggestions of players. I only mention Cat’s authority so that everyone recognizes it at the outset and so that there can be no confusion in the future. In some sense we are all playing a large game where each of us serves as a GM or player for one or another small adventure under the guidance of a GM who monitors the entire campaign and meta-plot. Also in some sense a Charter would serve as a way for our GM to give us a clear idea of his vision for the game we all play. I know Cat has as of yet incomplete ideas about how to make CoCo more interesting and fun in the future. Perhaps if he were to lay out a roadmap of his vision for CoCo, and if he were to ask for and heed our comments on how to shape CoCo, and if that vision were made available for everyone in CoCo to read, then many of these contentious arguments would no longer take place. New players would know immediately if they like the direction and style of our board. Old players would know immediately if the board’s development will lead in an undesired direction. A Charter of this sort could serve as a way to bring everyone to the same frame of mind and the same set of goals when we address proposals to change or not change CoCo. Perhaps carrying out this idea will be far too much work. Perhaps not. I don’t know. Perhaps this idea will solve no problem and only create more. Perhaps not. Would Mitza & Macbrea, Usurpator, Vath, TheMagister, Sindorin, Caterane, Pittbull, NiQil, Book5, Stormwind, Ariel23, Soulord, Mindwanderer, Zevox, Barrel_Master and everyone else I fail to mention all be willing to clearly describe your vision for CoCo and compromise in the name of achieving a common vision that establishes a framework within which we and all future players can enjoy the game? If so, perhaps we and all CoCo players can look forward to a CoCo which is less contentious and more fun to play.
barrel_master 05-18-06, 04:29 PM	Would Mitza & Macbrea, Usurpator, Vath, TheMagister, Sindorin, Caterane, Pittbull, NiQil, Book5, Stormwind, Ariel23, Soulord, Mindwanderer, Zevox, Barrel_Master and everyone else I fail to mention all be willing to clearly describe your vision for CoCo and compromise in the name of achieving a common vision that establishes a framework within which we and all future players can enjoy the game? Ha ha! Very nice Sauro... I've always enjoyed the 'let us all hug' posts. To answer your question, I'd like to see a CoCo where everything is more or less streamlined for fun. Some of the rules seem to be a little extreme and in my opinion make things too confusing. I'd liek to see things simplified more so that we need not be too concerned with making sure we got all the rules pat and more focus can be had on the fun. That's all... but even then it's not like things are terrible now... we still have fun, I just think we'll have more fun with a few rule changes/removals.
Usurpator 05-18-06, 04:34 PM	@Usurpator: I have limited time and have to leave any second so I make it shorter this time. First of all, I want to say that I don't appreciate the way you portray me. If you check previous discussions you'll see that I always hear all arguments and always reply to them and that my initial proposal is always different from the end result due to community input. I agree, but that I never said that you didn't. I tried to explain many times how the way you discuss issues often comes across to me, and how it makes me feel. Your style of leadership when discussing and implementing new rules or other non-pressing issues just doesn't fit well with me, that's why we cross swords so often. My aggravation has usually nothing to do with the content of the rules or your arguments. In any case, I will stop bringing up issues for now, I feel most opinions on either side are fairly clear and discussing it further will not help. You ask that we do it without 1/3 rule first and then reinstitute it when the system proves to be unbalanced and unfair. I just want to say that it's easier to remove it later to do the 3WC without it than it is to re-implement it again when we realize was necessary. You can surely agree on that. On the contrary, if you implement the 1/3 rule you will never know if it will be a problem without it. An anology: you are putting extra security locks on your home, claiming it will be burgled otherwise. When your home isn't burgled after you install it, it doesn't prove that the extra locks were the cause of that. You simply don't know. You might not have been burgled without the locks as well. Besides, people are naturally resistant to changes unless there is a pressing need. I don't see a pressing need appear to remove the 1/3 rule once it is present. That is precisely why we should only institute a 1/3 rule if it proves to be neccessary. We seem to have a few misunderstanding still left judging from your later comments, but I will not bring these up anymore, I think we have had enough debate for a while.
MindWandererB 05-18-06, 05:02 PM	A noble thought. Cat, even if you don't think an actual "charter" would be a good idea, this will at least allow each of us to contribute our values to a discussion, and you can take any common themes as things for you to strive for as GM. I'm sure you'll agree with this statement: the GM may be a benevolent dictator, but they're also a public servant. If you try to make your vision as compatible as possible to ours (keeping in mind that, as SauroG said, each of our visions will be different), you'll probably make something fun for future players as well. Here are my key points: 1) Easy to begin. The CoCo rules are rather overwhelming. I watched the proceedings for about a week before I even decided to post a character. I think the reduction of the minimum amount of rules necessary to play is a highly important goal. Optional rules, like Forgery, the Guilds, non-class allies, quests, etc. can be complicated, but the things you can't avoid as a basic player should be as basic, and as close to P&P D&D as possible while still maintaining a balanced environment and a fun game. In sum: House rules that cannot be avoided should be limited to the minimum necessary for the game to function. 2) Faithful to the rules of D&D. House rules come in two varieties: ones that add to the D&D rules and ones that replace them. Additions are fine, as long as they adhere to rule #1, above. Replacements are bad. For those who have been reading the discussions about the maps, I constantly argue for the maps to follow the printed rules. For instance, the rules about running on rooftops are currently different from the rules in the DMG, for no apparent reason. One of the reasons I play in the CoCo is to practice; I can't gain experience with the rules when they're all different. (For the record, I'm also against the CoCo listening rules for this reason. In normal D&D, a Listen check that wins by 19 or less gets the result, "you hear someone in that general direction," where a success by 20 gets you "you hear them standing in that square." Our rule makes it so that you never know when you get a pinpoint, which changes things a lot.) In sum: House rules should augment, never change, the rules as written. 3) Living Gladius. I'm all for Cat's vision of a game that works in as much as possible. But I think the way to do that it to increase the breadth of challenges, not the arena options. Are Open Lock and Search not being used? Encourage people to participate in campaigns and multiplayer quests. It's that simple. Single-player quests are a problem because they eat up pitlords at 1:1. But if a quest has two players, it's suddenly the same as an arena fight (1:2), and if it has three players, it's actually more efficient. Campaigns are similar--I understand that the credit cost is there to discourage people from starting and quitting a campaign, but it's the campaigns and multiplayer quests that transform Gladius from a deathmatch arena into a campaign setting. I think everyone should be encouraged to participate in these endeavors, and if that means cutting or eliminating credit costs in some situations, I think it's worth it. In sum: The credit system should encourage, not discourage, multiplayer quests and campaigns. I'll add more items if I think of them, but I think those encapsulate my own vision of the CoCo.
Pittbull 05-18-06, 05:36 PM	My vision of the CoCo is a place to have fun and experience great tactics and builds. When I was a rookie here, I was surprised how weak my knowledge of the simple SRD-rules was, but that improved from week to week, still haven't reached a master-level. I disliked many of the rule-changes, but always kept the attitude of wait and see. Most of the time Cat was right, therefor I fully trust his ideas and always kept my fun here around. Believe me, it has been pretty frustrating when I found a new trick and then Cat or Jindl told that it won't work or invented new rules. But this has been always reasonable. I think, the 3WC will give us great option to make the fights more balanced, which I apreciate. Things I dislike: - The decreasing number of stories written for fights! - I'm not a great story-teller and my English isn't the best too (translation-programms are crap), but if you read the stories of Huan and Cat and many other, you know what I mean. - After-fight discussions! - I strongly ask for increased loser-rewards, it also helps to increase the levelling-speed. Gaining levels makes fun, which was a main factor in the old CoCo (@b_m: ;) ). - Builds with masses of allies! - Sorry Cat, I always liked characters who rely on their own power more than on their alies'. But everyone should be free to build his character as he wants. Allies in pre-buffs was the right step. - The tone of some members here! - I always try to stay polite and nice, even if someone makes me really angry. Sometimes when I tell my girl-friend what or who bothers me in the CoCo, she says, I should be mean too, but I think, regardless what the issue is, a gentleman behaviour should be the highest goal here. We might have seen a picture of other members, but to be honest, we don't know each other other very well. Things I like: - Hey, I love the CoCo, it's a big hobby for me. - The efford many members put into this community. I would like do more myself but RL kepts me away doing this. What Sauro has done over the last month is great, Huan and King Uther are RP-gods for me, NiQil running unselfishly the prison, Dracazar with his codings, Usurpator who steadily points out house-rule-issues and last but not least our GM Cat. Sorry when I miss somebody, it was not intended. Oh, yeah, Soul_Lord please go on with your summaries, they are so important to keep on track. I can only say thank you very much!
SoulLord 05-18-06, 07:58 PM	I've been thinking hard that perhaps we should be pointing the other way in a trend I have seen rise over the recent months. Instead of Nerfing wizards what can we do to empower the other classes so they won't be losing as often to wizards at higher levels. Or is it that at lvl 10 the full fighter will always lose to the wizard no matter how bad it's nerfed? I was thinking about the wealth by level chart non wizards use much more expendables in their fights so perhaps the wealth could be reset after each level increase. after all we are testing how our different builds fare against each other so a fighter could have a whole different set of equipment from 5th to 6th level. or what other Ideas to empower warriors can you think of?
SoulLord 05-18-06, 08:06 PM	Solved Topics * Allies Solved allies must be pre-buffed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8958435&postcount=241) affective april 19 * Ban the Magic Domain Solved Won't happen (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8910242&postcount=205) * Polymorph Solved effective april 19th (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8908815&postcount=189) * Metamorphosis Solved uses same ruling as polymorph (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8964735&postcount=246) effective april 19th * Guild: Covert Operations Solved Changed (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9025958&postcount=266) * Challenge matches Solved you can set special circumstances if both parties agree (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9029941&postcount=274) effective may 3rd * Wild Shape SolvedWildshape (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9029941&postcount=274) is excluded from all rules affecting polymorph except for size stacking effective may 3rd * Equipment at Home Solved Equipment need not be prebuffed with but anything not listed in a special "At Home" section will be brought into the fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9049135&postcount=282) Unconcluded Topics * Reliance on expendables * Belt Slots * Allow scrolls to be bought only up to Caster level +2 * Nerf Vigor * Nerf Dissolving weapon * Balance purchased Potions/Tattoos/Wands with Scrolls/Powerstones. Make them all limited to the handbook tables or minimum levels. Or leave levels open for all characters. * rules for inter-league matches * Frozen Characters (I know it's not up to date I'll update it tomorrow)
Book5 05-18-06, 09:50 PM	however it can be turned to evil will as well. :rolleyes: :eek: :D hehe I might have gone off a little loud with that intelligent crack - I am not calling mitza not smart insomuch as would call einstien stupid... when you was missing the obvious. Like I said - when your smart you have a hard time understand why your arnt sometimes. Usually an emotional thing. Let me speak for someone else (lazy ;) real quick. I just would like things to stabalize.. it used to be so much simpler.. well not simpler (I have to do guildmaster stuff) but the same. Its not gonna be the same very shortly and it might not work and of course I am sure its gonna work out. but I wish it would just stay the same. something like that ;) Now me! Really is this that hard to read? I have so much work to do. Im KISSing myself! :D simple. ok Im think I just have to write it as if it was real. That will be simpler. Once every three weeks the Arena of Gladius opens its doors to invite any and all to see the mighty Gladiators test that might! Hot Magic vs Cold Steal... or a cold Psion Mind. Throughout the week Gladiators enjoy the hospitality of the Guild Houses! Some Gladiators perform missions and special tasks for the guilds between tournaments, and thanks to the power of the Nimbus you may just get lucky enough to see Gladiators in a grudge match outside the arena! The guilds cover all the costs of ressurection - if your a Gladiator. A gladiator can enter the arena at any time, and if they are willing to be pitted against the others in the arena .. the officials themselves will provide their room and board. The outer chambers of the arena are mostly normal, but once you attempt to enter into the arena floor you have entered into the nimbus itself. Here a pitlord can make the arena anything. On tourney day the avatars of greater gods, simple archmages, hero dieties, or just plain demon princes - the pitlords flock to the Arena and the Gladiators enter as well. Then the arena floor that seemed small explodes. The pitlords know what you want to see. The fights you want are delivered to your feet, everyone has a front row seat. Not only do you see Gladiators on the always accomodating Arena; the Pitlords have created special terrain maps. With more rigorus enviroments than than the arena - you might see pits of lava, terrible monsters, even travellers from far off lands - all summoned to test the strength and wit of the Gladiators! COme one COme all to the The COre COliseum of Gladius! In order to emulate this environment there are some experience and timing conventions that are necessary. Please Review the Following Procedures, Experience from arena battles accumulates at the end of the three week processing cycle (3WC). All arena fights occure on the same day. The first week of the cycle is the Morning Fight, the second is the Afternoon Fight, and the final week is the Night Fight. No adjustments to your character can be made other than spent equipment, status changes, and fight results lists may be changed. The quipment you have in the morning is the equipment you have at end of the day, unless you run back to the hotel between fights. [See: Pre-Fight Actions] (suggestion.. I mean 6 hours? cmon I could get from the arena and back on a horse in 6 hours.) You are encuraged to quest, champaign, craft, or miniquest if you might level midday, if you gain enough experience to level from a mornning or afternoon fight you will not be able to level until you sleep.. iow - after your last fight; the night fight or if you "bow out." You may "bow out" of an afternoon or night fight. If you want to "bow out" of an afternoon fight you must also bow out of the night fight, and you do not gain rewards of any kind. Simply send tactics with the words "bow" and your character can level. Guilds recieve the rewards from the arena battles at the end of the last week. And for RP purposes none of the fights have occured. If someone referes to a fight as having already happened in an RP thread - you should tell him the Arena Officials will fine you for using divinations on the results of fights. ;) Non-Arena rewards and all Guild actions are taken weekly as usual - however characters signed up to participate in the arena cannot be used for guild operations. "The officials will not allow the possibility of one of their contestant being unavialable for their schedualed fight." To prevent the so called "Nova" effect use of powers, spells, and special abilities are restricted by the "1/3rd Rule." Exhaustable abilites to one third capacity durring the first fight, 2/3rd potential in the second fight of the day, and Night Fights have no power usage limit. You can enter the tournament by adding "Ready for afternoon/night Month XX" in at any point durring the one day, but to be fair you will suffer the same 1/3rd-2/3rd rule that the other contestants have. Thusly, if you enter the tourney on the Night Fight you will potentially face a "Nova" capable caster with only 1/3rd of your own casting potential available. "Any attempt to breach the 1/3rd rule - will be rewound by the pitlords." There is a little more, but before I go on is that legible?
Usurpator 05-19-06, 04:37 AM	I have lateral thinking down to a science. I don't mind the lateral thinking, it's the lateral communication that's hard for me. :P Anyway, let me rephrase your points: 1. It's easier for many people to understand and remember new rules if they make sense. 2. People have an easier time making sense of things if they can imagine them, that is, if they can draw real world parallels. 3. The current discontinuity between real time and virtual time imposed by the 3WC rules doesn't make sense: it is primarily a rules-vehicle. Hence it will be difficult for many people to get a good grasp of the rules. 4. We should think of a very good RP-explanation that puts the 3WC in some real-world perspective. That way we make it easier for people to understand and work with the rules, and prevent them from hitting a "mental stop" and possibly dismissing the rules out of hand. Right?
MitzaVolchenko 05-19-06, 05:00 AM	I have a proposal sparked by Mindwanderer's points about quests, etc. Why not institute a new type of fight which is more like an MQ or monster/mini-dungeon crawl? Say a random three man team versus a completely flexible environment and a potentially unknown enemy. I am thinking something like the monster fights but with obstacles. For instance Lady Blatherhead pays the arena for the services of three gladiators to clean out her wine cellar. Her porter gives a description of something truly terrible inhabiting the cellar...check gladiators sheets for knowldege to determine how much of the info they get on what has taken over the cellar. Gladiators decend into the cellar and have to deal with things like trap detection...those darned duergar have sawed away the stair supports...terrain navigation, they have knocked over the wine racks to make baricades...light conditions...naughty dark dwarves have taken all of the torches AND the sconces...and finally erradicate the menace...kill the unwashed buggers. Rewards are the same as for a monster fight. It still provides for plenty of action, but one pitlord can knock out an interesting fight for three people testing each skillset and providing a more interesting scenario than I buff and hide to wait for my enemies to kill each other then step out and kill the remaining opponent as is the case in the FFA's. This brings value to all of the miscellaneous skills without tying someone to a three week quest or charging them credits.
MitzaVolchenko 05-19-06, 05:36 AM	You, Usurpator, fail to recognize it as a problem because you have no problem rationalizing the timing. Other people.... are not so savvy. "The biggest failing in highly intelligent people is they expect others to be equally intelligent.. and then fail to understand why they arnt." @Mitza (you have double evil chomosones so...) You are not looking hard enough. This system is not more complicated than normal pitlording. It is slightly differnt. It is more complicated for the players.. not the pitlords. Thats all. hehe I might have gone off a little loud with that intelligent crack - I am not calling mitza not smart insomuch as would call einstien stupid... when you was missing the obvious. Like I said - when your smart you have a hard time understand why your arnt sometimes. Usually an emotional thing. I have read through this sequence about a dozen times and decided to skip being insulted and ticked at the patronizing nature of it and address only the point. I have no trouble envisioning the proposed change. I have issues with what it actually means. You want to install some wonky RP reason for why it is so? Fine. You want me to agree that this is not more work for pitlords? Sorry, not going to happen. Is it supposed to be the players' responsibility to properly update? Yes. Is that reliable? No. Is it the PL's job to make sure that the characters are legal? Yes. How do we do that? We check their sheets. If we have to pop back through their 3WC to see if they are legal for that fight, will it take more time? Yes. A point perhaps being missed...PL's mostly run multiple characters. That is why many PL. 90% of why I PL is because it needs to be done. That I get credits to buy nifty new characters with which to rp is a nice benefit. I could as easily send Scribelords half of the Gladius based stories I have wirtten and never touch another fight again (after editing for language and some adult situational content...there are minors running around here). There have been many weeks when my characters went without shopping or real thought being put into their level ups just to make sure that they got into play for the week either because of my PL load or the late posting of others who, like myself, carry heavy fight loads. Do you think that the new extra tracking for the extra characters that PL's do their job to support is going to make it easier or harder on PL's? I can plot out the A to Z if I need to. I do think with what most people call intuitive leaps. Rather than simply plodding A to Z, marking each letter down, I look at the variables and see Z. Can I be wrong? Yes. Is it likely that the fall out from the new cycle would eventually settle down and become routine? Yes. Do I think that this in any way adds fun, needed balance, addresses a real problem, or is in any other way the best solution to the issues real or imagined? Not really. Will I give it a try? Sure. I will try it from a fully questing player's point of view. I won't touch pitlording for at least a couple of cycles, if I do so then. I have the credits, even after buying my new dragon, to keep my characters out on the quest or campaign trail for a good long while to come. On a different note, I am intrigued by Usurp's suggestion. I need to look at it again and sleep a bit before I add any comments on it. It is interesting though...
Caterane 05-19-06, 09:27 AM	On the contrary, if you implement the 1/3 rule you will never know if it will be a problem without it. An anology: you are putting extra security locks on your home, claiming it will be burgled otherwise. When your home isn't burgled after you install it, it doesn't prove that the extra locks were the cause of that. You simply don't know. You might not have been burgled without the locks as well. Besides, people are naturally resistant to changes unless there is a pressing need. I don't see a pressing need appear to remove the 1/3 rule once it is present. That is precisely why we should only institute a 1/3 rule if it proves to be neccessary. Alright, you say I can only speculate. I can clearly say how I will react if we remove the 1/3 rule. I will always use up all my spells, all my Powerpoints, all my ressources in a fight before conceding a loss. I will never ever ever never ever accept a loss in light of saving spells or PP for later use. What that means is that any fighter who faces me in week 1 will be confronted with the full power a spellcaster or manifester can muster. He will be utterly chanceless. It will be a frustrating experience for this warrior and it doesn't help him that I have now less spells available in week 2 and 3. The same mechanism works for most fights in Week 2. We would be back at the unbalanced and unfair Classic CoCo if we do not restrict spellcasting use. The reversed nova argument applies only to a few who saved up opposed to everyone who has his full potential available in the first week. Next to that stand the two problems of lower EL miniquests and guild operations which just don't work without the 1/3 rule. You all should know that I don't like the 1/3 rule myself. It is an artificial rule, a house rule, but it so helped us to even the gap between warriors and wizards somewhat. Classic Coco just utterly failed in that and produced ridiculous results but LivingGladius runs at an acceptable level - thanks to the 1/3 rule. So we should not condem it but accept it as something that improved our beloved board tremendously. Still, I don't see it as an irreversible commandment. The CoCo is a construction site since we began with the Living Gladius Edition in January 2005. It is on its way from a simple board that had many many leaks and holes with an unfair and very restricted enviroment (Classic CoCo) to something that provides fun to everyone on all levels of D&D (not just combat) towards a final end that not even I can foresee. We'll soon get random maps which help underdog builds in shining, maybe in the future we'll have a way to create a real market with varying prices and an ever-changing supply and demand (perhaps with software) that makes the Cap on Expendables superfluous. Perhaps we'll have a complete social layer where you can interact with your build outside combat so that we can do away with the artificial skill uses we have now. And maybe we'll also find a better solution to the 1/3 rule. For now, it serves its purpose. The changes we make are minor. What is different is that you have to mark off spells and plan a bit ahead ressource-wise; if you like check your opponent's sheet. The pitlord's only extra work is to list the used up spells (in addition to used up expendables). We're hardly complicating things but if something doesn't work out, I promise we will discuss and fix it. I also want to encourage Pitlords who run 3WC matches post their experience in the FotW thread so that those with reservations see that there's really no extra work involved; infact, Sauro has even pointed out that it's a bit easier than now. Just give it a chance. PS: Since I don't want to burden you with too many rules changes at once and also due to the apparent alternative solutions suggested for the XP Loss problem, we will not implement Virtual XP but postpone it indefinately until we have discussed this issue.
Macbrea 05-19-06, 10:01 AM	Well, you want an opinion, I will give you my view point. I am fine with setting a three week ruling on the way spells and expendables are kept, except for one simiple fact. It will result in some really strange was of play. Example: Because, I don't particularly care how Isumi's win loss record looks in the end. I am probably going to play her with the following path in mind. Fight 1: play lax possibly to win Fight 2: don't use any expendables don't worry about winning Fight 3: Play to win If at any time I run across someone that she only has 50/50 win chance against. The Pitlord is very likely going to get tactics from me that say: Wield Kasari-gama in two hands run toward opponent hit opponent with weapon til either one of us is dead. I am not likely to surrender with her unless my opponent can fly. Then I am likely to just send a surrender notice. As you notice, I am no longer really trying to win my fights. I also removed Mektos (druid 3/sorceror 3) because I didn't feel like keeping track of that much paperwork each week. That and the fact I would have to sell off half his scrolls that he scribed himself. Yup, he had over the limit of expendables and all those expendables were created by him. So, yes, changing the rules specificly to nerf caster types seems a good idea and will result in empowering the fighter types in the end. I am going to guess after about 4 months we will be down to 1/4 the casters that we previously had. Each change kills off classes. Please, look at the number of rogues throughout the whole of CoCo. No game would survive long with this ratio. So, making coco appear to reflect RL games is nice and all. But all it appears to be is show that the damage dealers win. CoCo best I can figure is about building the most optimized one round killer in existance assuming you want to actually have a winning record. Those that build flavor characters are pretty much doing so for the questing and roleplaying aspect of the game. Now, is this bad? No, if one approaches it with that mindset you will be very successful in CoCo. If one approaches it with the concept of building an actual character. You will have a low to poor record. Things I like: Community: I like the community of CoCo and the way people work with each other. It is a great concept. Testing: I like to be able to test my rules knowledge and ideas how to build optimal builds. Ideas: I think there are some really fresh ideas out there for character concepts. Things I dislike: Win or Annoy attitude: Recently there has been a trend that has resulted in more then one person quitting or quitting pitlording. Players have the 'I must win or I will annoy the living hell out of everyone attitude'. Why exactly would a player argunig for five to six writes of a scene? The fight was run and the rules were applied. If they were applied wrong you can ask nicely to have them changed. Once is plenty of times to ask something of any person running a fight for you. Arguing that, I wouldn't have done that because there was a much better path to take is stupid. The pitlords job is to run the fight as close to the flavor of your tactics as possible. Unless you write tactics to me that says follow X no matter what. I will run them as the flavor of the tactics are written based on the visible scene that I have. Causing people to quit over bad arguing is a horrid way to keep people. Pokimon wins: Yes, I agree. I am getting annoyed with the I bring 3 allies and then summons 4 critters builds. Also, what this really ends up is can your gladiator beat my pokimon. Must have 100 members to open higher levels theory: Why? Honest, assuming that a person can only activate one or two characters. If the upper leagues where opened less people would be forced to run low level characters. There would less level 3 fights and more level 10 fights. I could be wrong but I don't think it would make a bit of difference in the end. This is what this weeks fighters look like: LEVEL 3 CHARACTERS (LOW) 17 active LEVEL 4 CHARACTERS (LOW) 9 active LEVEL 5 CHARACTERS (LOW) 11 active LEVEL 6 CHARACTERS (LOW) 8 active LEVEL 7 CHARACTERS (MID) 10 active LEVEL 8 CHARACTERS (MID) 5 active LEVEL 9 CHARACTERS (MID) 8 active LEVEL 10 CHARACTERS (MID) [FROZEN] 2 active Combining leagues probably would help if they were in blocks of 2. Plenty of people to fight. Now, my thoughts on guilds: Guilds seem to be this odd effect where they will never actually work the way they are suppose to: Psi should wipe out it's neighbors witout a problem. But one of the best characters for doing that within Psi is Mer-man. Played by the guildmaster of CEF. The guild that is doing the best. So, Psi itself cannot use one of it's best assets to war with the largest guild. This seems to be rife throughout the whole of the guild system. With players having character in multiple guilds. They will not try and destroy the work of their other character. Three of the guilds should have collapsed long ago. But events have propped them up. If it appears that one guild is going to get ahead the rules are changed to prevent that. It seems to be an odd paperwork task for a few players to appear to have a roleplaying enviroment. The main roleplaying thread dissappeared long ago because people didn't want to keep it up with thier characters. The tavern is actually a rules thread discussion and not a roleplaying thread. :P Just my personal opinions,
Usurpator 05-19-06, 12:34 PM	Alright, you say I can only speculate. I can clearly say how I will react if we remove the 1/3 rule. I will always use up all my spells, all my Powerpoints, all my ressources in a fight before conceding a loss. I will never ever ever never ever accept a loss in light of saving spells or PP for later use. What that means is that any fighter who faces me in week 1 will be confronted with the full power a spellcaster or manifester can muster. He will be utterly chanceless. It will be a frustrating experience for this warrior and it doesn't help him that I have now less spells available in week 2 and 3. The same mechanism works for most fights in Week 2. We would be back at the unbalanced and unfair Classic CoCo if we do not restrict spellcasting use. That is well within your right. And I believe you, your tactics in the past regularly show lines as "avoid losing at all costs, use any resources neccessary to do so..." But I predict you that if your spellcaster characters face the prototypical 'regular' fighter you are talking about: A. It is my estimation your character will only need 1/3 or less of that spellcasting/manifesting power to avoid a loss. So I don't think that will make any difference anyway. B. If by some miracle your character does use up more than 1/3 of those abilities, some gladiators, who might not have had good odds against your character before, now get a fighting chance in week 2 or week 3. So that's all good. C. Said fighter will be blasted regardless, because many of you characters are powered by 1/day abilities (as you pointed out previously) and expendables, so restricting the spellcasting/manifesting power to 1/3 doesn't prevent you from 'going nova' in that way. And you just said yourself that you will do that every time, so even wwhen using the 1/3 rule I'd hate to be the prototypical fighter who faces one of your characters in week 1. D. Looking at your win record, I don't think said fighter has good odds against your characters anyway, 1/3 rule or not, nova in first week or not, so it really doesn't matter that much what your tactics are against that prototypical fighter, he will likely lose. Personally, without the 1/3 rule, I will try to balance my resources as well as possible. I will look at my opponent, and at other opponents in/around my league, and estimate which ones are the most dangerous. I will try to conserve resources against a less dangerous opponent, and use more resources against a more dangerous opponent. I will not spend all of my resources if needed to avoid a loss, never have, never will. I will spend enough resources to try and get decent odds of victory, and let the dice and Pitlord decide the rest. Bottom line: there are several arguments for and against removing the 1/3 rule, both which make sense. As community leader it is up to you to decide what to do, and I will accept any decision you make concerning it.
Book5 05-19-06, 11:40 PM	You want to install some wonky RP reason for why it is so? Fine. I have a hard time typing except the way I talk. The lost emphasis -and over use thereof- must be the thing. Usurpator gleaned the primary objective, but double X you got it backwards. :tiphat: I am supportive of the rules for the results as stated by Caterane, we thing alot the same about this place. Why I like my proposal is because it makes the mouthful easier to taste. Rules I mean, the mouthful of rules. I guess the metaphores are slightly "Mr. Fantastic" :blink: :D Mostly I am thinking if the children mam, and gents, the lot uh'ya. Newbies! I scare/annoy people in text as much as easily.. as I seem to befriend them accross a tabletop. Meetings and appearences are important to me - thusly it is of these things I think. And I think new people will be more encouraged to participate if the whole thing makes sense!!! ..... :thinks: !~! now what could that! smilie be!
King Uther 05-20-06, 03:59 PM	Being back and reading some proposed changes, I have some thoughts on the matters: 1. Obviously, the 1/3 rule cannot be changed, at least at the moment. 2. 3WC, from the way I play my characters, is bad. What if I fight two weeks and want to quest? Or I don't want to finish the third fight because win or lose I am Frozen and still need to craft stuff? Virgo always fought twice then quested. It was a good balance of roleplay and arena. That kind of play would either be prohibited or provide a loophole advantage(from a win-loss perspective) for those who did it. Also, what if I fight three fights, but then decide to craft? I lose out on 2 weeks of arena fights for it? 3. Limiting expendables=good idea. It's a pain in the butt for casters at low levels, but it will definitely limit the absolute power that Magic Domain clerics have. That is an issue for me, because after playing the original Balbanes, when I was thinking of what to level up in the idea of a Magic Domain Cleric is always the best idea for any melee character. It gives you a wealth of defensive and offensive options, as well as healing wands. 4. MQ arena fights=awesome. I love the idea of giving out a MQ for 2-3 gladiators vs a random monster. It enhances roleplay, and in many respects easier than PLing a fight. Person vs Monster promotes even more community, and while defeating each other is a good way to test builds, true D&D characters have to test builds vs monsters, which are oftentimes significantly more difficult. It's funny, but despite the fact I am one of the most competitive people here I would be totally in favor of changing the system currently in place with one to promote team-play and community. The win-loss system would dissipate, and we wouldn't lose any players that way. Maybe it wouldn't work, but I would gladly pilot such an idea with a small amount of gladiators to test it.
MindWandererB 05-20-06, 04:05 PM	Also, what if I fight three fights, but then decide to craft? I lose out on 2 weeks of arena fights for it?I'll just clarify this: No. Between cycles, you can do as much or as little non-cycle activity as you like. You can fight three fights, then craft one week, then fight three more times. Any of those individual fights can be an MQ of at least your EL. Also remember that Frozen characters can still craft, so that shouldn't be a concern.
Usurpator 05-20-06, 06:21 PM	I'll just clarify this: No. Between cycles, you can do as much or as little non-cycle activity as you like. You can fight three fights, then craft one week, then fight three more times. Any of those individual fights can be an MQ of at least your EL. Also, Cycles are not consecutive. You can jump in at any time. You can get a gladiator who is in week 2 as your opponent while you are still in week 1. There are no actual weeks 1,2 and 3. (just to clarify in case it was needed).
TheMagister 05-20-06, 10:47 PM	Someone asked earlier for CoCo vision input from various participants. I'm honored (and surprised) to be included in the list! I would like most to see the CoCo as a fun and interactive forum in which I can test character builds before playing them in a tabletop game. It benefits my group of friends when I can bring an effective character to the table, and yields fun dividends for everyone involved (including the DM). I've built (so far) a ranger-thrower (unsuccessful), a TWF fighter/barbarian (mildly successful...I'd play her tabletop), and a paladin/rogue UMD-monkey (unsuccessful so far, but he's hitting his stride as I learn how to play such a character). My goal here isn't to win, but to feel out concepts. So far it's been a blast with an incredible learning curve. It's improved my games at home 200% (in particular I LOVE the spot/listen house rules). So far, since I have only run non-magic-using characters in the CoCo I have found myself "burned" by pure casters and those who have dipped into caster classes for the benefit of expendable use. It seems good to me that those involved in the evolution of the CoCo see the trend and are willing to devote time, effort, and emotion in an attempt at levelling out the playing field. While I can read and respect the opinions of those in opposition to the 3WC, I have to cast my "vote" (figuratively speaking) in favor of trying ANYTHING that MIGHT help melee characters more accurately reflect their roles in a "normal" tabletop game. I confess I feel this way because of my earlier vision of how I use the CoCo to playtest character designs. Thanks for the opportunity to disclose my thoughts! TM
MitzaVolchenko 05-21-06, 01:07 PM	I have been asked to share my vision...tough to do in some respects. I see the CoCo as a seperate game all unto itself with a nice benfit of giving you a good chance to try build notions out and see how they measure up. I think that the living Gladius is a great idea. I play my characters from that perspective. I rp with the guild threads and fight in the arena more or less only to earn my guilds' cash and the occasional bragging rights. My only non-guild built character is Sliver, the undefeated twink buggy who is really only fun to play because I write stories about her (she doesn't actually qualify to join a guild...though she might meet TAO requirements, now). My impression was that the living Gladius was to steer away from the artificiality of the arena system and build something that allowed for a fully functional world to play in. I am fairly certain that there are other NWN veterans around here. My comparison would be the Arena as one of the unrestricted (more or less) PvP servers versus the living Gladius as a PW server with all the benefits and comforts of home. I prefer the latter. I think part of the problem with the newer rules has been all the same theme...the idea that everything must be useable and balanced and fair in the arena. The fact is that the arena is designed to try to make characters that are as unfair to their opponents as possible in the arena setting. Burglary really has nothing to do with an arena fight, but in a real game, you really should have a pet burglar. Taken from a table top perspective, the low level mage gets slaughtered, the high level mage rules the world. That is how it is supposed to work. In the beginning the fighters all protect their mage while he is able to be useful perhaps a quarter of the time. Later the mage buffs the fighters and deals out the massive damage needed to deal with say, a hydra. I see the CoCo as a chance to blend build optimization with roleplay and community. On my Bartles I am massively Social, followed by Explorer, Achiever, and finally a whopping 12% Killer. What does that say I am here to do? What do I like about the CoCo? I like the people that I have met and gotten to know and swap ideas, stories, and witticisms with. I like building characters with interesting stories and unusual tactics and outlooks on the world. I like the creativity and open exchange of ideas. What do I not like about the CoCo? The landslide of new tweaks in an attempt to create a falsely fair environment. The amount of builds that would simply drop dead in ten minutes in a real table top game. The lack of courtesy shown by a lot of people (myself included at times). The overuling of the sense of community. The amount of grief and stress that is created by a basic "I win or else" contentiousness. The only 'or else' that I have placed out there for myself, is that I will have fun or else I will find more entertaining things to do with my time. Honestly, and this is for the umpteenth time, I think that the imposition of rules for the sake of more rules and making the world into something that it isn't, which is to say fair, is not a good thing. I would rather see the time spent on additions to the living Gladius rather than trying to fix something that I have yet to see anyone prove is broken.
TheMagister 05-21-06, 06:47 PM	Wow...you saw all that? {looks shamefully at his post} :raincloud
Caterane 05-22-06, 06:48 AM	I think it will lessen the confusion if we rename it to 3-Fight-Cycle, or 3FC, as suggested by Ariel. I will replace the name week in the rules later. I'd like to write my vision of the coco down so that you understand better what my intentions are. This needs a bit of explanation. D&D is made for Tabletop (TT) Roleplaying Games (RPG). It works well within that enviroment because there is an unlimited number of options of what may happen to your character. The options are unlimited in the way fights may occur as well in the way your character is confronted socially. This endlessness of variations and options within the system makes sure that all characters are overly balanced. And the fine-tuner is the Dungeon Master who picks encounters (combat and social) based on the abilities of the group. The CoCo uses only a tiny fraction of what a TT Game does. The first restriction is that we're Core Only which makes some classes here less desirable. There's for example no Barbarian or Druid Prestige Class or no feats designed for Bards; something the various additions normally take care of. The next huge restriction is that the way the coco is set up. One arena with mostly 1 vs 1 fights. This in on itself shifts the balance to certain classes on the back of others (Wizard <-> Rogue comes to mind). Imagine the main focus of the CoCo would be to break into trapped buildings unseen and silently by using a phletora of skills to get through and suddenly the rogue shines while the wizard has little chance. Or imagine the coco would be a 10x10 small arena. Now the fighters dominate the board. You see, it is all about the way we set up the enviroment. Additionally, we have no DM but a pre-set number of enviroments that are very clear. We still have only one arena map, mainly one type of fight (1vs1), and no social interaction. That means you can specifically build a character based on this fixed and clear setting. Your orc fighter with no skills has no risk in getting into trouble because he cannot even buy a bread in a town. All that means that the shift in balance is caused by the board setting, and it is our constant duty to even the imbalance out that we created by inventing the Core Coliseum. This means concretely: Skills, Feats, Abilities that are useful in a TT Game must also have a function here. For now, some of these functions are artificially created enviroments like most Free Activities for Skills but for me this is just a stepping stone until we have a more sophisticated solution; more later. It means that classes (and to some extend even races) must have an overly equal chance to thrive in this enviroment. It is not acceptable to dub the warrior classes a "challenge" while wizards are the "beginner" level (because they're much more powerful and easier to win with). I know some disagree with me here but this is one of the few things where I am not going to make a comprimise. It furthermore means that the options and enviroments your character can be confronted with needs to be widened to decrease the predicatability of the system. The more options, the more possible weaknesses you have to fix on your character and the closer it is to the game WotC designed for us. One great step are the seven random maps but they're definately not the end. A sub-goal that goes hand in hand with what I just explained is to make the board still functional and easy to understand. With most add-on's I've tried to give the chance for other players to ignore this add-on in order to begin with the basics and go from there, if desired. Build a human fighter and ignore the rest. It is acceptable if an add-on brushes against the basics once in a while, like when the simple fighter meets someone with allies. As long as the complexity of the CoCo works like an onion (with multiple layers of complexity) then there's no limit to the add-on's we can implement. At this point, I would like to pick up the Free Activities for Skills I mentioned above as a stepping stone. To what? The exact shape is not yet known to me but I would like to see a complete social system where social characters can play like combatants play in the arena. When I say 'play', I am not talking about writing "Free Activity Gather Information" into the headline but about a social enviroment with challenges. Even that may not be the end of the vision as there are always creative ideas out there to improve this board. A dynamic market with demand and supply that changes weekly, an economic system where people can buy structures and become investors. A title system that is governed by the Prestige of a character. And so on. I just want to give you a glimpse of a possible future of the coco. It is nothing we will see anytime soon; not even this year. I am sure that the 3FC will not be the final solution to the enviroment regarding spellcasters but it is an improvement to what he had before. Rome wasn't built in one day ...neither will the CoCo.
SauroGrenom 05-22-06, 12:31 PM	Personally I think we should strive to make CoCo an environment that allows the strengths of all types of characters to be revealed and rewarded with due success. Also CoCO should be a simple game to get started with. Finally CoCo should allow players to interact constructively. There have been many replies to my request for people to share their vision for CoCo. I've read all of them twice. Contained in those statements are some inherent and seemingly irreconcilable differences of opinion. Also there are several points of universal agreement. Generally everyone agrees that the rules should be such that it is easy to begin play as a player. Also everyone agrees that there should be “Living Gladius” activities that encourage players to participate in more group activities. Finally everyone agrees that the tone of the Rhetoric in the FoTW thread should be civil. This however is the limit to the complete agreement between all parties. There are differing opinions on the alteration of Core rules (Spot/Listen for example). Multiple members have expressed dissatisfaction with regard to the CoCo allies rules. We have heard several players describing how they would like the Arena environment to be more fair and balanced. A few have even suggested that this balance can be achieved by emulating the TT game environment. However we have also heard at least one member state that this approach is folly because such an emulation will never be accomplished completely. We have even heard a resistance to the idea that new rules should be made to impose greater fairness. Without a leader to make a final decision, we may never come to unanimous agreement on anything let alone an improvement or change to the rules. Without such a leader there would be no forward movement. Fortunately we have such a leader. My intention with this little exercise was to make clear the diversity of opinion on issues as inconcrete as “What’s your Vision of CoCo?” This is a topic about which argument would be entirely pointless since all positions are based on opinion. The moral is that each of us must be willing to at some times have the CoCo move in a direction contrary to your personal vision. Perhaps the thing to do at this point is for each of us to consider for his/herself on what issues are you willing to compromise? Perhaps we can keep that in our minds when further add-ons or rules changes are discussed.
SoulLord 05-22-06, 01:08 PM	I like the CoCo, I like my gladiators dulking it out in the arena and quests and I like roleplaying my characters, perhaps even more than I like them fighting. To have some background; I usually visited more the CoCo Optimization boards than this place contributing to builds who dealt obscene amounts of damage and were good on paper this of course intrigued me as to how good were this builds really?. Then I found the CoCo which had the premise of only using the core rules to build the best build one could, pitting it one on one against other builds. I found a rule that I didn't like ... the 1/3 rule and it had psionics which I personally would not allow in my Table top game, but I heard and reviewed all arguments for it that otherwise wizards would rule like in past versions of the coco and that psionics were nessesary to give diversity. I started with Heindal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6204381&postcount=279) befote the UMD and UPD were split and started pitlording as well; I increased my knowledage of the rules while pitlording and debated with players over trivial things that would not change the outcome of a match. Then living Gladius arrived. the premise was interesting a game within a game as it would not affect the activities of the CoCo characters. More and more house rules were added; some of which increased the complexity of the CoCo D&D is not an easy game and add to that rule after rule tends to increase the complexity of it and to deviate form the Core setting. I like all DM's use house rules, but when I do; I set them up at the begining of the campaign and don't introduce new ones until the next campaign. Perhaps as to make it easier on everyone new radical rule changes should be limited like let's say 4/ Year. But carring on I know wizards at later levels are very hard to beat but I would like to see that instead of continually adding rules to limit the wizard, that alternatives were searched to empower classes like the warrior or rogue. In the original proposal for the 3FC even though it delayed the rewards for the free activities I saw it as a good thing as it simpliefied the rules and backed it up. I opposed the change initially as I saw it as yet another rule to nerf wizards but after much discussion and review im begginning to accept it thanks in no small part to Sauros and Cateranes Passionate defense of it. So yes changes are good if it makes the game more fun. but let's try to not hit the board so often with them.
MindWandererB 05-22-06, 02:42 PM	I just want to harp on this for a moment: Skills, Feats, Abilities that are useful in a TT Game must also have a function here. For now, some of these functions are artificially created enviroments like most Free Activities for Skills but for me this is just a stepping stone until we have a more sophisticated solution; more later. It means that classes (and to some extend even races) must have an overly equal chance to thrive in this enviroment. It is not acceptable to dub the warrior classes a "challenge" while wizards are the "beginner" level (because they're much more powerful and easier to win with). I know some disagree with me here but this is one of the few things where I am not going to make a comprimise. As you clearly pointed out, the limited activities available in the CoCo simply make certain characters out-of-place. In a TT game, bards are great characters--their social skills, party enhancers, and versatility are useful in almost every situation. In the CoCo, they're not very useful at all, because one-on-one combat isn't what they're designed for. On the flip side, one-on-one battles, with a single battle per day, are the single best scenario for a Kineticist. Now, I agree that without some sort of limiting rule, wizards and psions will rule the day. Without some sort of rule like that, we don't have a game at all. But on the other hand, the more house rules we make, the more we diverge from TT D&D. For instance, say I make a ranger with favored enemy: magical beasts, skill points in hide, move silently, survival, search, knowledge (nature), knowledge (dungeoneering), spot, and listen, and the feats Weapon Focus: longbow and Point-Blank Shot. In a TT game, this would be a very useful character: a competent warrior, a great outdoorsman, and a fine scout. In the CoCo he'd get his butt kicked from here to November. Is that a limitation of the CoCo? Sort of; the CoCo is a dueling arena; characters who are built for functions other than that aren't going to succeed. (On the other hand, imagine playing a CoCo-designed ranger in a TT game. "What do you mean, you have no stealth, no tracking, and no knowledge? What kind of a ranger are you?" Hmm... I wonder how Belkar of OotS would do here....) A TT party has characters who fill several roles. At least one character's strength is in the long haul, durability over multiple battles. One's is the short run, destructive power in one to three fights. One is a stealthy scout. One is a healer. One is a buffer. One has social skills. One takes out traps and locks. And one has miscellaneous skills that solve a variety of random problems. A "typical" TT party covers all these tasks (fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric, cleric, rogue, rogue, wizard in the archetypal party). In a dueling environment, only two of those roles are needed: the first and the second. This means that characters who are optimized to fill one of the other roles simply don't belong here. I think of them as "virtual" party members: the CoCo character is the butt-kicker of the party, and, if they were in a TT game, they'd have other characters filling the other roles. That's why I don't think it's necessary to create an environment where every class can do well. They're not supposed to. If we create house rules such that a bard can beat a wizard or a fighter in a one-on-one duel, I think we've defeated the purpose. Our game no longer resembles D&D, because that should never happen. If the original purpose of the CoCo is to be able to test builds to see how good they are, then house rules should be applied to make character viability CoCo comparable to what it would be in a TT game. Take my druid, Aerryl, for an example. She just acquired a bat swarm as a Handle Animal ally. I imagine that's going to become a central component of her tactics, because they are immune to weapon attacks (see the Errata). Does victory by bat swarm tell me anything about how good she is in a TT game? No, because no DM in their right mind would give me a horde of five thousand trained bats at my beck and call. If someone loses to her in a duel because of those bats, does that player learn anything about whether they're better or worse than an elven archer-druid? No, because they weren't competing against a PC, they were competing against a bunch of bats. So some characters would get their butts kicked. I say let 'em. The CoCo doesn't exist to see who's better at social tasks, or who's better at disabling traps, or who's better at healing, or at solving any other kind of challenge. It exists to see who's better at fighting. Period. I guess it all boils down to one question: is the purpose of the CoCo: 1) To test builds to see how powerful they are in combat, or 2) To have a game that tells us little about how good a character would be in TT D&D, but is a fun and balanced game for a variety of character types. Obviously Cat agrees with #2. And since he's the DM, that's the way it's going to be, regardless of what the rest of us want. This means that if you are interested in option #1, suck it up and forget it. I do, and I realized in the process of typing this that it's not going to happen. My CoCo builds will tell me nothing about TT D&D. It will continue to be a fun game, and it will be more interesting as a game because it will allow a greater diversity of characters, but I will not be able to use it to predict how well my characters will do in TT. To accomplish that, we'd need a seperate league with different house rules and a different environment, or even a seperate forum altogether. Hope that helps.
Caterane 05-22-06, 03:06 PM	@MW: All your long text is defeated by one argument: who says that we won't expand so that 1 vs 1 combat isn't the only way to level up anymore? Imagine a social "arena" (whatever it may look like) where bards and your ranger build will shine. It may take years to get there but as long as we don't close our minds, only the sky is the limit.
SauroGrenom 05-22-06, 03:21 PM	Imagine a Arena where players are grouped into teams for almost every battle. Say that each team is 3 CoCo gladiators? Such an environment would allow the kind of group dynamics that are an intrinsic part of the balance of a TT game.
Zevox 05-22-06, 03:31 PM	Imagine a Arena where players are grouped into teams for almost every battle. Say that each team is 3 CoCo gladiators? Such an environment would allow the kind of group dynamics that are an intrinsic part of the balance of a TT game. Problem: that would create lots of player and pitlord headaches. Remember the complaints we had when Kitaya faced 3 ECL 3 characters from the 3-person team that coordinating thier time to write team tactics would be impossible? Doing that on a regular basis wouldn't help in that regard, and having each fight be a 3-on-3 would make for a lot of pitlord work (4 player fights are already a headache, I don't want to imagine a 6 player one). Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-22-06, 03:54 PM	I just had an idea that may help address the allies issues. Many of our members have pointed out that the number of allies on a character sheet some times overpowers the character's abilities. Also it creates a burden on the pitlord since there are more participants in the battle. So how about each ally on the sheet counts as an activated character. Then the pitlord get's extra credits for running the long battles with 3 allies. And the player of this character must choose to run extra characters or run characters with extra allies. It would be reasonable to exempt mounts and allies gained by class features or feats from this. But it would put a lid on the "pokimon" strategy of bringing 3 or 4 handle animal or diplomacy allies into each battle and overpowering your foes with sheer numbers.
MindWandererB 05-22-06, 03:58 PM	@MW: All your long text is defeated by one argument: who says that we won't expand so that 1 vs 1 combat isn't the only way to level up anymore? Imagine a social "arena" (whatever it may look like) where bards and your ranger build will shine. It may take years to get there but as long as we don't close our minds, only the sky is the limit.Actually, you make my own point, sort of. There are two ways to make, for example, a "social" character viable. One way is to grant their social skills arena functions, sich as Diplomacy allies. Another way is to create different kinds of challenges. We should not do both. That's sort of double-dipping, and allows "social" characters to not only excel in their own area of specialization, but to compete with the warriors on their own turf as well. That's not cool. Edit: @SauroG: That's a pretty steep price. I don't imagine many people will pay it. And it basically turns ally-monkey characters into mush. Poor Tan would cost 4 activations, and I certainly wouldn't want to do that to Book5. I would retire Aerryl on the spot; she's a good character but not worth two or three activations.
DSugui 05-22-06, 04:13 PM	I just had an idea that may help address the allies issues. Many of our members have pointed out that the number of allies on a character sheet some times overpowers the character's abilities. Also it creates a burden on the pitlord since there are more participants in the battle. So how about each ally on the sheet counts as an activated character. Then the pitlord get's extra credits for running the long battles with 3 allies. And the player of this character must choose to run extra characters or run characters with extra allies. It would be reasonable to exempt mounts and allies gained by class features or feats from this. But it would put a lid on the "pokimon" strategy of bringing 3 or 4 handle animal or diplomacy allies into each battle and overpowering your foes with sheer numbers. I don't think it's a good idea. For starters, it would throw more fire on the discussion about credits and advantages in battle. But I like the idea of giving pitlords more credits for fights with allies. They indeed require much more effort from the pitlord. If simply limiting the number/CR of allies is not a desirable option, what if the allies adjust your EL? For example: An ECL 3 gladiator with a CR1 ally would be effectively an ECL 4 character; an ECL 6 gladiator with two CR2 allies would be effectively and ECL 7 character. I don't know if it works, or if it would be much trouble to make it work, but it's an idea.
barrel_master 05-22-06, 04:24 PM	Since there are so many ideas out there I'm reluctant to re-introduce this idea but... how about we have completely random starting positions... not just the current 4 squares in the arena but anywhere, on top of rocks, right next to eachother, ect. I see this as being a fairly decent way of making things easier for fighters and rougues who need to close the gap while casters can buff away.
King Uther 05-22-06, 10:10 PM	@MW My ultimate goal is to aid this place in becoming the best it can be in that respect. Also, this place serves some other good functions other than preparing for battle: 1. Learning the Rules better (Read: Pitlording) 2. Build the basics of combat-oriented character building and strategy to aid you when creating a similar character outside of D&D (Read: Lose a Lot) 3. Fun and Community environment (Read: Fun and Community environment)
Zevox 05-22-06, 11:43 PM	I just had an idea that may help address the allies issues. Many of our members have pointed out that the number of allies on a character sheet some times overpowers the character's abilities. Also it creates a burden on the pitlord since there are more participants in the battle. So how about each ally on the sheet counts as an activated character. Then the pitlord get's extra credits for running the long battles with 3 allies. And the player of this character must choose to run extra characters or run characters with extra allies. It would be reasonable to exempt mounts and allies gained by class features or feats from this. But it would put a lid on the "pokimon" strategy of bringing 3 or 4 handle animal or diplomacy allies into each battle and overpowering your foes with sheer numbers. Definitely something I don't want to see happen. Having an ally count as another character activation is a very steep price. Allies do make things harder to pitlord, but I don't think a character should penalized for having them. Award the pitlord an additional credit for fights involving ally-users I'd call a good idea, but the use of allies in and of itself shouldn't be discouraged like that in my opinion. Zevox
Ariel23 05-23-06, 01:29 PM	I wanted to mention this idea before I forget it (it occured to me while sitting on an airplane). It relates to virtual XP which is really virtual GP which really arises from GP/XP ratio and maintaining a constant leveling rate. I think that money-related free activities should be more effective with a win and less effective with a loss. Money-making might as well be 1/3 value if you lose to keep it simple. Discount haggling could be X when you win and X/3 when you lose (would need a slight adjustment to current formula). This would only need to be done for activities that upset the gold/xp balance. Increase/decrease the final value of these activities according to allies and CR, as usual. Any rule that encourages defeat [crafting/profession] is a bad thing. Like all rules/changes, this is not a complete fix, it would be only one part of the solution. Item crafting would still need to be addressed, for example. Perhaps if you lose you can only craft 333 gp worth of items that week, rather than 1000 gp.
Iced 05-24-06, 09:33 PM	The application of the forgery skill is far too powerful! With a +10 modifier you can bring a very young white dragon into the arena for an EL3 fight? Where's the fairness in that? My opponent is a level three rogue with a crossbow, I won't be fighting him I'll be fighting his allies! The dragon has in excess of fifty hit points in an EL3 battle! Something's not right here!
Caterane 05-25-06, 05:24 AM	Something is indeed not right. The Forgery skill let's you bring in more allies, not more powerful ones! Example: Ixenthor (ECL 10) has a cohort (ECL 8). With his +10 forgery he could now let Enzoul be considered ECL 6 which frees 2 CAs for the Direbat. There's no way I could bring in a ECL 10 ally!!! The maximum CA must be kept! A very young white dragon has CR 3 which means you must be ECL 7 to have it on your sheet. Once you are ECL 7, the +10 Forgery skill let's you reduce the CR of the dragon by 2 to a Virtual CR of 1 for a very young white dragon. That frees up space for the ECL 7 character so that he can have additional allies. Not allowed is that he uses the Forgery skill to bring in a CR 5 dragon because that would be past his CA. The forgery description clearly says "more allies" and this is what it does. The CR 3 white dragon is an illegal ally for an ECL 3 PC. Besides, I really wonder how a level 3 rogue could defeat one in the miniquest.... EDIT: I've checked Rinzwind's sheet and it is full of mistakes regarding the allies. As said, he can in no way have a CR 3 ally before ECL 7. The Heavy Warhorse is likewise illegal because it's CR 2 which needs ECL 6. The dragon miniquest was EL 2 which is below the dragon's. Since when can I quest at EL 1 to obtain a Planetar ally (who has been captured by ...goblins?). Buffs and Prefight actions: Use forgery to take either Paris SKyle or heavy warhorse into the arena. I'll pm the pitlord to tell wich one. This is also illegal. You have to specify the ally or it is not available. This goes straight to prison.
Ariel23 05-25-06, 04:45 PM	When we are using the 3WC and 1/3 rule, if you use all of your PP do you lose your Psionic Focus in any week, or only in week 3?
MindWandererB 05-26-06, 02:47 AM	When we are using the 3WC and 1/3 rule, if you use all of your PP do you lose your Psionic Focus in any week, or only in week 3?I didn't even know about that rule! I suspect others don't, as well. Now that I see it, it's pretty clear--any time you have 0 PP, you have no focus. You would have to lose literally all your PP for this to happen, so unless you're a Wilder who blows all their PP in Enervation, or you have fewer than 3 PP total, you will never run out until week 3.
MindWandererB 05-27-06, 01:49 AM	Conversation continued from the tavern: Cognizance crystals are 99% useless under the current rules. You can't fill their capacity the day before (like you would in a normal D&D game), and if you fill them before a fight they count against your PP for that fight. The only use I can think of them is to protect against being totally drained by a psychic enervation. I call for a house rule for cognizance crystals, in that they can be prebuffed "the night before," and thus start a 3FC full, without counting against the owner's PP. This is more like TT D&D (it's pretty probable in a TT game that you would end the day with a few PP left over to store into the crystal), and is not terribly abusable under the new rules. A possible extension of the same rule would be for spell storing and power storing weapons, and rings of spell storing and counterspelling. They're not as badly nerfed by the new rule (especially not the counterspelling rings), but logically, if you can store PP in a crystal the night before, you could do the same with a spell. And again, I think with the 3FC, it's not unbalancing to allow this (you only get the spell once, after all). On the other hand, it's not very probably that you'd end the previous day with the spell you want to store. Just to head it off, I do think it would be a mistake to extend this to other things with a duration of more than 24 hours, like Dissolving Weapon or Goodberry. It's extremely unlikely that you'd end the previous day with a gazillion PP to put Dissolving weapon on your sword, your glaive, your spiked gauntlets, your armor spikes, your shield, and a dozen arrows, or to spend all your level 1 spell slots for six days to create 60d4 Goodberries. And that's pretty abusive, too. (Side note: with NiQil's new ruling about Dissolving Weapon, some prebuffs strategies are no longer valid--the item has to be held, which means that if it's not in your hand from the time you manifest the power to the time you discharge it, it ends.) Those are my thoughts--cognizance crystals definitely need a rule to make them useful, other "storing" items are more arguable. Discuss.
Pitlords 05-27-06, 05:02 PM	I've added a line to the Forgery description: As a Free Activity, a character can treat one of his allies as if that ally would be lower in ECL (or CR if no ECL available). The ECL (or CR) decreases by 'Forgery value divided by 5'. Note that the ally does not really lose a level; he'll just be treated that way. The character can now either bring additional allies in, or suffer less penalties to his rewards. In no way can the character bring in a more powerful ally than his maxCA allows!! @MW: We should have as few extra rules as possible. It's thin ice we're walking on to allow free PP for Cognize Crystals and disallow the same for other storing items, like a ring of counterspelling. Still, I can see how Cognize Crystals are now useless with the 3FC so we have to do something. Let's say they're full at the beginning of a cycle. I'll add it to the House Rules section. Cognize Crystals: These items start filled with the maximum on PP they can hold at the beginning of a 3-Fight-Cycle.
Caterane 05-27-06, 05:54 PM	Since we'll have some time till next pairings, we can use it to fix some problems. Imbalanced XP/GP Ratio This problem has been masterfully addressed by Usurpator who also provides us with an interesting solution. That way all characters would always have the same amount of money; something we now do not have. At the same time, it solves the issue with Virtual XP (which we can forget about). Here's his proposal again: Usurpator's Total XP/GP Ratio Solution This is a solution for gladiators who get less or more gp. than average for their level (and thus are less or more powerful for their level). The Problem Below is a list of XP and gold a gladiator gets when winning a fight in his own league (A loss is 1/3rd the listed amount). ECL/CR XP GOLD RATIO 1 300 300 1/1 2 600 600 1/1 3 900 900 1/1 4 1,200 1,200 1/1 5 1,500 1,600 1/1.06 6 1,800 2,000 1/1.11 7 2,100 2,600 1/1.23 8 2,400 3,400 1/1.41 9 2,700 4,500 1/1.66 10 3,000 5,800 1/1.93 11 3,300 7,500 1/2.27 12 3,600 9,800 1/2.72 13 3,900 13,000 1/3.33 14 4,200 17,000 1/4.04 15 4,500 22,000 1/4.88 16 4,800 28,000 1/5.83 17 5,100 36,000 1/7.05 18 5,400 47,000 1/8.70 19 5,700 61,000 1/10.70 20 6,000 80,000 1/13.33 The ratio means that an 11th lvl character gets 2.27 gp. for each XP he earns. This ratio will become important later on. It is important to know that as long as everyone fights other gladiators in their own league, everyone has about the same amount of gold for every point of XP, and balance is maintained. There are a number of things that upset this balance: 1. Monster Fights An ECL 6 gladiator fighting four ECL 2 monsters (= EL 6) will get 1800 XP (= four times the ECL 6 vs. ECL 2 XP award) and 2400 gp. (= four times the ECL 4 gold award). His buddy who fights a single ECL 6 monster gets 1,800 XP and 2000 gp. For an encounter of the same difficulty, the first gladiator gets 400 gp. more. 2. Quests Gladiator A (ECL 10) and gladiator B (ECL 6) go on an EL 8 quest together. After having defeated three ECL 8 encouters they divide the spoils. The ECL 10 gladiator gets 2250 XP (50% of 3 times ECL 8 opponent) and 5666 gp. (10/18 of 10,200 gp.). In comparison, an ECL 10 buddy of him fighting in the arena would only get 4350 gp. when earning the same amount XP. Gladiator A thus gets a bonus of 1300 gp. for doing an easy quest. His companion, gladiator B, is worse of. He gets 5400 XP and 4534 gp. If he had fought in the arena instead of questing he would have earned 6000 gp. with those 5400 XP. Gladiator B thus gets penalized by 1500 gp. by doing a more difficult quest. 3. Crafting & Spellcasting Gladiator A and B (both ECL 5) have equal XP and gold. Gladiator A crafts for 1500 XP in items. Then gladiator A fights another ECL 5 combat (gaining 1500 XP and 1600 gold). Now both gladiators have once again equal XP, but gladiator A has earned 1600 gold more than gladiator B. The same is true for casting spells with XP components. 4. Involuntary XP loss Gladiator A and B (both ECL 5) have equal XP and gold. Gladiator A loses his familiar, is level drained in a quest and then fights some matches, bringing his XP up to the level of gladiator B again. Gladiator A has now (thanks to the extra matches) a lot more gold than gladiator B. In these situations, balance is skewed, and some gladiators can afford relatively more equipment than their fellows, largely no thanks to any good actions of their own. Even worse, losing XP, doing easy quests, such things actually reward gladiators, it gives them an extra edge in the arena when facing a fellow gladiator in the same league. This is clearly unintended. The Solution Instead of totalling and accounting an extra stat called Virtual XP, which only solves problems 3 and 4, but not 1 and 2, why not consolidate the XP/GP table into one table, and use the ratio directly for gold calculations? With that I mean that any gold increase is directly related (and dependent on) and XP increase. Gladiators earn XP as normal, but then multiply the XP gained by the gold multiplier to find out how much gold they gained. Small example table: Your ------------------------------ Opponent's ECL/CR ------------------------------- ECL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1-3 300/300 600/600 900/900 1,350/1350 1,800/1,800 2,700/2,700 4 300/300 600/600 800/800 1,200/1,200 1,600/1,600 2,400/2,400 5 300/320 500/533 750/800 1,000/1,067 1,500/1,600 2,250/2,400 6 300/333 450/500 600/667 900/1,000 1,200/1,333 1,800/2,000 The XP for a certain encounter is followed by the gold gained behing the slash. This neatly solves the problems 1 and 2. It also does not require any extra calculations or new stat, and the most common fights (gladiator fights within the same league) will stay exactly as they always were. Also, with the new system you can now look in one table to find out all the rewards, no longer did you need to look at separate ones. Solving problems 3 and 4 is slightly more difficult, but not overly so. Those who craft or cast spells with an XP cost have to pay extra gold equal to the XP cost of the crafting/spellcasting equal to the ratio mentioned in the first table. So someone crafting for 500 XP at ECL 8 will have to pay an extra craft fee of 705 gp. (500 * 1.41) above and beyond the normal crafting XP, to ensure he does not benefit inadvertently from a better XP/gp. ratio. Permanent involuntary XP loss (like losing a familiar on a quest, or being level drained) really has no proper place in an arena like the CoCo, and should simply be abolished. Note that I thought up this solution over 6 months ago, but didn't suggest it because it seemed it was not really neccessary at that time. Even thought the problem exists, only a few issued complaints, so I saw no reason to bother anyone with new rules if it didn't solve a problem that a majority saw as urgent. If Cat has it in his mind to change the XP/gp. rules anyway to solve (potential) problems 3. and 4., let's do it right the first time, and not bother people with a conceptually difficult extra rule like Virtual XP. We cannot go back and require from all current characters to pay fees but the ratio will stop to be unbalanced the moment we implement this. As always, I'd like to hear your comments on it first. Inter-League Fights: I have mentioned it several times by now and it's time to make progress; especially since this is needed for the Iron Man Tournament. The DMG says that CR+CR = CR+2. That means two lvl 5 characters could be paired against a single lvl 7 character. Before we test this in the Iron Man Tournament where you can win a Custom Avatar, we should better check it now how well it works or if the lvls need to be adjusted. Comments? Thaumaturg's Improved Ally ability: (1) Diplomacy and Allies: A thaumaturg can make a diplomacy check to half the price he has to pay. He has to bring the attitude of the ally to helpful. The PHB lists the categories on p72. But how can we make it work? Proposal: You can prebuff with the Planar Ally spell. - If the creature shares your alignment, it is friendly. - If the creature's alignment is one step away from yours, it is indifferent. - If the creature's alignment is two steps away from yours, it is Unfriendly. (Note that it must always share at least one aspect of your alignment) You take 10 on the diplomacy check and if you pass the indicated DC, you succeed. (2) Requesting the Ally: Normally, the ally is determined randomly by the god but you can request for a specific individual. To reflect that in the coco, you must have a knowledge Planes value twice as high as the creatures HD (after all, you need to know the name; not merely identify the species). (3) Spell Cost: The price for this spell is insanely high. Normally, the cost is divided among the group members (normally 4-6 PCs) but in the coco, a single character has to pay the whole price. We could therefore say that the Nimbus always counts as non-hazardous task which means the price is halved in any case, and quartered with a successful diplomacy check for thaumaturgs. Examples for a task of 1 hour/CL Strength Normal Halved Thauma 6 HD Ally: 3000 1500 750 12HD Ally: 6000 3000 1500 18HD Ally: 9000 4500 2250 Additionally to that price, you would have to pay Usurpator's XP/GP Ratio in gold, if we use that method. And since its a prebuffed ally, it counts against your maxCA.
MindWandererB 05-28-06, 12:23 AM	I mostly agree with the proposed system for XP costs, but there is one issue: additional GP costs would be dependent on when you lost the XP. This would require a fair bit of bookkeeping, as you'd have to keep track of when you made each item. When implementing the rule, I recommend keeping the long explanation "behind the curtain," as it's kind of a lot to deal with. All players and pitlords have to know is: 1) there's a new table for XP/GP gains, which is exactly the same as the old one for same-ECL battles, 2) there's a GP cost associated with item crafting and other voluntary XP loss, for which there will also be a table, and 3) involuntary XP loss through level drain or familiar death is gone. I still think we should allow interleague challenge matches credit-free as an incentive to test out the balance. The upcoming hiatus is also a good opportunity for that, at least in theory--it didn't happen last time, but that's no reason it necessarily won't this time.
Ariel23 05-28-06, 03:32 PM	Just to head it off, I do think it would be a mistake to extend this to other things with a duration of more than 24 hours, like Dissolving Weapon or Goodberry. It's extremely unlikely that you'd end the previous day with a gazillion PP to put Dissolving weapon on your sword, your glaive, your spiked gauntlets, your armor spikes, your shield, and a dozen arrows, or to spend all your level 1 spell slots for six days to create 60d4 Goodberries. And that's pretty abusive, too. I had assumed you would be limited to 1/3 for pre-pre-buffs. I don't really want to make an exception for CC but it seems to me that making it work more or less like TT D&D isn't making an exception. Anyway, even though I own one, I don't care. I can spend the money elsewhere. I'd rather have less rules than more. (Side note: with NiQil's new ruling about Dissolving Weapon, some prebuffs strategies are no longer valid--the item has to be held, which means that if it's not in your hand from the time you manifest the power to the time you discharge it, it ends.)An elegant solution. I presume, then, that I can prebuff one weapon? This raises an issue with prebuffing Gauntlets, something Evaine used to do all the time (never used once :P ). I would say that eventually you'll touch something with your hand and it would just wear off. Not a big stretch...stick with the one weapon rule. [Again, can this single/held weapon be done as a pre-pre-buff?] Also, does this mean that if it's put on a throwing weapon, it dissipates immediately upon being thrown? Those are my thoughts--cognizance crystals definitely need a rule to make them useful, other "storing" items are more arguable. Discuss.I don't need crystals to be useful, they are such a small part of the SRD. If you banned CC and PoP (except for Quest/Campaign/RP etc) that would also solve the issues. But, as you pointed out, this is basically the same situation as spell-storing items and so forth. Outside the box/brainstorming/probably not a good idea: This would be crazy bookkeeping, but you could count pre-pre-buffs (i.e, something you can always pre-activate at no cost) as expendables. Treat them all as scrolls or stones that are being brought in. Cognizance crystals would count as a one-shot power of maximum augmentation and manifester level. [Permanency would not count but the spell it is cast on would.] Same for the spell stored in a spell-storing item. Shocking Grasp CL 1 would be much cheaper than Ghoul Touch CL 5.
Ariel23 05-28-06, 04:02 PM	XP/GP Ratio I loved Usurpator's idea when I first saw it. Is it an "issue" with self-crafting items? Special materials savings can be in the range of thousands of GP per item. Magic Items = infinite. If not, then it seems like Usurpator's idea solves everything. Of course, people with Item Crafting feats will still have a XP/GP advantage simply because their magic items were cheaper. For every 500 GP in savings they pay an extra 80 GP penalty at around ECL 10. So if they enchant a suit of armor to +1 (1000 GP) instead of having an extra 500 GP over their opponent, they will have 420. If they enchant 5 items (all at ECL 10), that could be 2000 GP more than their opponent. I presume this is balanced by the fact that the opponent will have more feats than the item creation PC. Many people would rather have a feat than 2000 GP. I'm not sure that's the case for a dwarf cleric with mwk tools and a 12 INT. He only needs to put 10 skill points total into craft skills to have all adamantine/mithral equipment at a 50% discount. At ECL 10, that's only 1 SP/level. Thaumaturgist A) How do we determine what ally the player gets? It's supposed to be up to the DM. B) I don't know offhand if this is a rule in CoCo, but I would say that you need to take Diplomacy penalties if you don't share a common language [-5 penalty] and if you don't have the appropriate Knowledge skill to understand their culture [-5, +1 per rank of Knowledge up to -0]. I would never let someone without Knowledge (Planes) and no common language use Diplomacy at full effect. This is really a question for all DIP allies, not just Planar ones.
Zevox 05-29-06, 12:54 AM	Query - how do crafting free activities work with the 3FC? I.e. does the crafter get the crafted item after the fight it is crafted in, or does (s)he need to wait until the end of his/her 3rd fight to be able to use them? I'm guessing you don't get them until after the 3rd, since otherwise its a hole in the "can't buy items" purpose of the rule, but I want to be sure since I can't seem to find reference to this in the rules thread. Zevox
Caterane 05-29-06, 05:09 AM	After 3FC is complete.
TelinArtho 05-30-06, 12:07 PM	In order for me to have a firm grasp on the implications of the planar ally - I figure a case example will be useful: At level 8, Kraegin the summoner will add his first level of thaumaturgist. He wants to be able to "prebuff" with a bearded devil for his 3 week cycle: 1) He has to memorize the spell and have the money/xp available to cast it. The money is interesting: a) if Kraegin wants the bearded devil for 1 min/level (1 fight) - the cost would be 100 divided by 2 (nonhazardous) times 6 (HD) divided by 2 again (Thau special ability) = 150gp. b) if Kraegin wants the devil for 1 hour/level (prebuff - 9 hours (8+1 for evil domain)) - the cost would be 500/2*6/2 = 750gp. c) in both cases, Kraegin would spend 100xp - which under the proposed xp/gp rule, means he has to pay another 141gp. d) the last halving requires a "successful diplomacy check" - is this going to be rolled - or is the usual take 10 rule under effect here? 2) Kraegin must have enough diplomacy to move the disposition from indifferent (1 step on alignment) to friendly. I don't have access to the disposition table - so it would be helpful to know just how much would be needed to do this. Since the casting time of the spell is 10 minutes, casting the spell in a fight isn't reasonable - so the cheap option isn't available in any case. Since the ally is subject to the maxCA - this is another issue. The bearded devil is CR5 - so in order for Kraegin to bring one in, he'd need to be ECL9. Here's a list of the allies that can be brought in with Lesser Planar Ally (if I've missed any - let me know): 1 HD (125gp/250gp for Thaumaturgist/Other) Aasimar (1HD, planetouched, CR 1/2) any good Formian Worker (1HD, formian, CR 1/2) LN Tiefling (1HD, planetouched, CR 1/2) any evil Lantern Archon (1HD, archon, CR2) LG Vargouille (1HD, CR2) NE 2 HD (250gp/500gp) Lemure (2HD, devil, CR1) LE Elemental, Small (2HD, elemental, CR1) N Azer (2HD, CR2) LN Dretch (2HD, demon, CR2) CE Magmin (2HD, CR3) CN 3 HD (375gp/750gp) Imp (3HD, devil, CR2) LE Quasit (3HD, demon, CR2) CE Thoqqua (3HD, CR2) N Triton (3HD, CR2) NG Juvenile Arrowhawk (3HD, arrowhawk, CR3) N Juvenile Tojanida (3HD, Tojanida, CR3) N Mephits (all) (3HD, CR3) N Minor Xorn (3HD, xorn, CR3) N Yeth Hound (3HD, CR3) NE Ravid (3HD, CR5) N 4 HD (500gp/1000gp) Elemental, Medium (4HD, elemental, CR3) N Formian Warrior (4HD, formian, CR3) LN Flamebrother Salamander (4HD, salamander, CR3), any evil Hell Hound (4HD, CR3) LE Rast (4HD, CR5) N Shadow Mastiff (4HD, CR5), NE 5 HD (625gp/1250gp) Xill (5HD, CR6) LE 6 HD (750gp/1500gp) Crysmal (6HD, psionic monster, CR3) any lawful Howler (6HD, CR3) CE Barghest (6HD, CR4) LE Hound Archon (6HD, archon, CR4) LG Janni (6HD, genie, CR4) N Achaierai (6HD, CR5) LE Bearded Devil (6HD, devil, CR5) LE Nightmare (6HD, CR5) NE Bralani (6HD, CR6) CG Formian Taskmaster (6HD, formian, CR7) LN Succubus (6HD, demon, CR7) CE When compared with the cost of mercenaries, they are somewhat close: 1HD/1st level - 125gp vs 100gp 2HD/2nd level - 250gp vs 200gp 3HD/3rd level - 375gp vs 300gp 4HD/4th level - 500gp vs 400gp 5HD/5th level - 625gp vs 533gp 6HD/6th level - 750gp vs 666gp However, since HD is not level - the breakdown isn't so clear. A 6HD, CR3 Howler will cost 750gp vs the 300gp of a level 3 merc. On the other side of the equation, a 3HD, CR5 Ravid will cost 375gp vs 533gp of a level 5 merc. Of course, if you are not a thaumaturgist - the prices are simply out of the question.
MindWandererB 05-30-06, 02:50 PM	@Telin: For one, the disposition table is in the SRD, with the Diplomacy skill. Indifferent to Friendly is DC 15, but the Thaumaturgist ability requires an attitude of Helpful (DC 30 from Indifferent, or DC 20 from Friendly). Take 10 always applies to skill checks made outside of combat. I don't know if the Thaumaturgist's 1/2 cost ability stacks with the 1/2 "nonhazardous task" modifier (which should apply to fighting in the Nimbus). Also, bear in mind that your deity gets to choose the ally you get from the spell. That means that if Denth isn't Lawful Evil, he's probably not going to send you devils, and he certainly won't send you both devils and demons. Edit: Forgot that Cat discussed these things, above.
TelinArtho 05-30-06, 03:08 PM	Thanks for pointing out the diplomacy thing... I didn't even think to look there... As to the half price for the thaumaturgist - I'm just going by what Cat listed above - I'm not creating anything here. Regardless, for a non-thaumaturgist, the price is unreasonable to work with in most cases (6hd = 1500gp for 1-3 fights...). As to the diety choosing the ally - I completely recognize that. The list I had provided was a list of all the allies possible in the SRD that I saw. Denth is Neutral with Evil tendencies (not quite Neutral Evil in my opinion). In my opinion then, devils and demons would both be appropriate and reasonable. Anything with a good alignment is probably out of the question (especially since Kraegin wouldn't be able to cast the spell due to having evil as a domain...) for most Denthians (my diplomat might be an exception here - but even then - rare...). Cat had pretty much limited the step as within 1-2 alignment steps - and I'd probably limit myself to 1 in most cases. And while the diety chooses the ally - that's going to have to be controlled by the player in this case. I would not use the spell if it was a random chance of getting a lemure as a bearded devil (as a for instance).
TelinArtho 05-30-06, 05:39 PM	I suppose another thing I should add to the list above is the possibility of templated allies - Celestial, Half-Celestial, Fiendish, Half-Fiendish... This would help to give a nice variety of possible allies to choose from. As it is right now, my neutral evil cleric has a choice of 4 creatures within his alignment (and with a chance to have enough diplomacy to have as an ally). Since the planar ally spell has to be used up (either in scroll or memorized form) - the character is paying a significant amount to get an ally that could be from a very small set of creatures. This would also help differentiate the planar ally spell from those who have diplomacy allies through the CoCo house rules. Also, the more I think about it - the more I think the price needs to be adjusted further. For a non-thaumaturgist - planar ally in any form is pretty much useless. I can pay 1000gp to have a medium air elemental for 1-3 fights. If I am neutral in alignment and speak auran, I can do this as long as my diplomacy is at least +10. If I am not neutral - I need at least a +20, possibly +30. On the other side, I can miniquest for a medium air elemental as long as I am within 2 steps of true neutral, speak auran and have at least a diplomacy of +14. Obviously, this is a much better route since there is no cost associated and I don't need as much diplomacy (or at least potentially - I don't need as much). In fact, the only area that planar ally fills a need for are outsiders/elementals who would have an intelligence greater than 6. If you look at it in comparison with mercenaries, mercs don't have near the requirement as a diplomacy ally (no need for the diplomacy skill for instance), but cost money. In the comparison in my previous post - I show that, in most cases, the ally from Planar Ally will be more expensive than an equivalent CR merc. So, in summation, not only is a planar ally more expensive than an equivalent merc (and that's even including the class benefit of the thaumaturgist...), it also has more stringent requirements than diplomacy allies. Okay - so how do we go about fixing this problem: a) Take the cost for a non-thaumaturgist and halve it. So a 6hd ally would be 750gp. Thaumaturgists would get half of this price (375gp). While pretty cheap - it is also one of the main benefits of the thaumaturgist... b) Use the cost of mercenaries for planar allies (6hd = 666gp). Thaumaturgists would get half of this price (333gp). I don't like this as much. c) Use the cost of mercenaries for planar allies and base it off of CR instead of HD. Thaumaturgists pay the price of the spell (100xp/gp ratio), but nothing more. This method appeals to me - but only because of the existence of the diplomacy allies outside of the planar ally spell. Frankly, I think most of the issue comes from having so many options for allies. Diplomacy allies make access to outsiders pretty easy, while mercenaries satisfy a different niche of needs. Another option would be to give thaumaturgists access to diplomacy allies with an intelligence greater than 6 instead of using the planar ally spells. The allies would still need a miniquest - and the thaumaturgist would still get a significant benefit out of his class ability above the house rule we have. A last option would be to remove diplomacy allies altogether, price in the Planar ally spells to a reasonable factor and leave it at that. Just trying to brainstorm.
Caterane 05-30-06, 06:21 PM	We cannot allow templates on allies. Creatures like a Half-Celestial Legendary Bear with a CR of 11 and 20 HD worth of celestial abilities, Fly 100 and whatnot would allow for insane combos, making allies even more powerful than they're now. For a mere +2 CR you can boost any animal by 500%; animals tend to have many HD and low CR which grants them high phrenic abilities at a low cost. Speaking of allies, I've heard it more often lately that allies are still too powerful. Banning them is not an option. There was the suggestion to have those with allies fight in higher leagues, for example (brainstorming alert) if the CR of your ally is at least half your ECL, you fight a league higher. Alternatively, we can make the investment higher. Currently, a few points in one skill are enough to get access to your desired ally. Even that can be circumvented by buying item that grant skill boni. Suggestion: What about making an additional requirement to have allies: - You must have the correct Knowledge type (eg Nature for Animals). Value = Ally HD - You must speak their native language (eg orcish for orc even though he can speak common) That makes it a bit harder to get an ally. And another nerf: If your ally dies in a fight during the 3-Fight Cycle, you do not regain it before the cycle is complete. So if you lose your pegasus in week 1, you don't have it in week 2 and 3.
TelinArtho 05-30-06, 06:29 PM	Ummm... Cat - diplomacy allies already require speaking the ally's language in order to get. Knowledge would be fine, I would suppose. As to the templates - I can understand that for sure. I was just fleshing out options - that way concrete guidelines are set. As to allies being powerful - well that has mostly to do with the great access people have to them. Mercs - though powerful and useful - cost too much to use regularly (hence why there aren't lines waiting for the mercs to be used). However, animal allies from non-druid/rangers are very common. With the diplomacy allies - even more have been made - heck I made a few characters to take advantage of them. Diplomacy allies are often "better" than animal ones since the possibility of full communication exists. Then we get into the options where some classes might be investing heavily in - but aren't because of the already open rules on allies. Why would you use planar ally - when 10 points in diplomacy and 2 points in speak language will get you access to a nice variety? Personally, I don't agree that allies are too powerful. For sure - there are some who are powerful when used in certain combinations of players - but that is often as much the fault of the victim of that plan as the planner. Anyway - I just wanted to get the ball rolling. And while we're here - no sense in leaving planar cohort by the wayside either (level 5 thau ability).
MindWandererB 05-30-06, 06:45 PM	I definitely do agree that allies are too powerful. I was going through the Great Reknown characters not long ago, looking for common themes, and a whole lot of them have diplomacy allies, cohorts, etc. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the fact that a huge proportion of the GR characters are Cat's, and he loves allies. I think fighting in a higher leagues is a step in the right direction. You effectively have a higher EL, so your league should go up as well. And your rewards should be calculated appropriately--you and your ally beat an opponent together, so your XP is halved (but based on a higher-CR opponent). Class allies shouldn't count, of course.
TheMagister 05-30-06, 06:57 PM	I have a small problem with Planar Allies impacting your XP/GP earned. It's a spell, just like SMII. Why should it impact your earnings? TM
MindWandererB 05-30-06, 07:21 PM	I have a small problem with Planar Allies impacting your XP/GP earned. It's a spell, just like SMII. Why should it impact your earnings?Yeah, didn't mean them, either. Diplomacy and Handle Animal allies are the ones I have the biggest beef with. Leadership is pretty powerful, too, but at least it costs you a precious feat. Skill points are a lot easier to come by.
Caterane 05-30-06, 07:54 PM	@Telin: You merely have to be able to communicate. I meant that you have to speak the native tongue of the ally. You also have to keep in mind that allies are additional firepower, and the drawback (xp/gp reduction) has no impact on the fight. @MW: The problem with the higher league is that it is impossible to roll pairings with that. The pairingsmaker program doesn't recognize what the title line says. I also cannot put PCs with allies there permanently because they can freely decide to use them or not. Although a nice idea, I see no way to implement it. @TM: If they do not count against your CA you can prebuff with 5 such spells and overrun anyone. So we're left with making it a bit more difficult to get an ally. Native language of the ally plus knowledge requirement plus ally that dies is not available until 3FC is complete seems to be a step into the right direction. If it's not enough we can assess the situation again. @all: Are there any volunteers for Inter-League fights? I'd like to try out (ECL+ECL vs. ECL+2). Pitlords who run such a fight gain credits normally for a multiplayer fight (2°) and I'd allow players to decide wether the fight counts or not. Any guinea pigs?
TheMagister 05-30-06, 08:34 PM	@TM: If they do not count against your CA you can prebuff with 5 such spells and overrun anyone. So the spell itself is too powerful (in the tradition of Gate, for example)? I have a real problem with "double-charging" a caster for casting a spell with an xp and gp component. Also, lesser planar ally being a 4th level spell pretty much eliminates there being more than two of them being summoned at once. Maybe limit them to one such casting (and I'm even dubious about that!) per battle? I know you'll do what you have to to prevent abuse. I just have a fundamental disagreement with penalizing a caster for casting a certain spell that already comes with its own penalty. I'd rather you ban the spell entirely. TM
bluemage55 05-30-06, 08:42 PM	@all: Are there any volunteers for Inter-League fights? I'd like to try out (ECL+ECL vs. ECL+2). Pitlords who run such a fight gain credits normally for a multiplayer fight (2°) and I'd allow players to decide wether the fight counts or not. Any guinea pigs? I would like to volunteer. The concept sounds much like fighting a BBEG in a TT game from the perspective of the weaker gladiators (which my only character would have to be one because he is ECL 3), and should prove both interesting and fun.
MindWandererB 05-30-06, 08:50 PM	I'm game, as well--especially considering there's no deadline during the hiatus (except for the end of the hiatus). I can both run and participate in them--and I would still very much like to have Sunstroke be in a PSI vs. EYE match. Re: allies: If it were my call, I would simply say that if you have an ally of high enough level, it bumps up your ECL even if you don't bring it. Skill points are not, in my mind, an adequate cost. Semipermanent death is only a cost sometimes, and it needs to be a cost always.
Salrantol 05-30-06, 10:02 PM	Enoch or Meinrad would be more than happy to be in an interleague fight. Especially Meinrad, since he tried to take them on himself for a while.
TelinArtho 05-30-06, 10:09 PM	@TM: If they do not count against your CA you can prebuff with 5 such spells and overrun anyone. So we're left with making it a bit more difficult to get an ally. Native language of the ally plus knowledge requirement plus ally that dies is not available until 3FC is complete seems to be a step into the right direction. If it's not enough we can assess the situation again. You know - the more I think about the spell, the less I like it costing anything for a thaumaturge - as long as diplomacy allies are available. First of all, I definitely think it should count against your MaxCA - of that I'm sure. If someone wants to try to take advantage of it - the worst they can do is get several lesser allies - which won't be terribly useful until later - and at that point - they are mostly just cannon-fodder - PLUS - you end up using more exp/gp than you are gaining PLUS you are using all your level 4 spells PLUS you are using some of your allotted spell slots for the week. Take this for example: ECL8 Cleric 7/Thau 1 casts LPA for a Med. Elemental. The spell costs him 100xp/141gp (for the ratio), one memorized 4th level slot and 4 SL out of, say, 18 for his first week fight. ECL8 Cleric 7/Thau 1 casts LPA 3 times for 3 Small Elementals. The spell costs him 300xp/423gp, 3 memorized 4th level slots and 12 SL out of 18. Compared with: ECL8 Cleric 7/Thau 1 with +14 diplomacy who went on a MQ to get a Med. Elemental. It cost him nothing and he has all of his 4th level slots and 18/18 SL. and ECL8 Cleric 7/Thau 1 with a +12 diplomacy who went on a few MQ to get 3 sm. Elementals. It cost him nothing ... etc etc. You get my point. Lesser Planar Ally - while strong - pales in comparison to the potential benefits of the diplomacy allies. Skill points and a language are no limitation.
Traevanon 05-30-06, 10:16 PM	I would like to volunteer Khabil Barukh (ECL3, #780) for use in such a fight. I am also making an ECL6 Centaur (no class levels) that can be ready to use if needed. Also I can pitlord one of those matches, but I think the problem will be finding players rather than Pitlords. I propose that the expendables in such a fight be limited to what the standard losing GP reward would be if the fight were real. Just let me know. Maybe you should set a time and concoct some way for volunteer players and pitlords to make themselves available.
NiQil 05-30-06, 10:51 PM	I thought of a couple of things that I don't think have been touched on with the 3FC, but are things that should be addressed. How are 0-level spells handled? Currently, cantrips and orisons do not count for spell levels, and you may cast all of your 0-level spells in a single fight, if you so choose. With the 3FC, how will this be adjucated? Will it continue to be the same as before, or will you now also need to split your 0-level spells in thirds? Will they still be non-level spells, or will they now add in to your overall spell level total? Also...how will an uneven amount of spell levels be handled? As an example, say somone has 11 total spell levels available to them. This would either give them A. 3 spells for each fight with 2 levels never being used (plus rollover of unused levels) B. 4 levels for 2 fights and 3 levels for 1 fight (plus rollover of unused levels C. If we round like we do currently, it could give 4 levels for each fight, which would give this person more spell levels in a 3FC than they actually have available to them (plus rollover of unused levels) The second questions regarding uneven levels is a pretty common occurance...so it is probably something we should iron out now. The same is also true for power points...odd numbers of power points will have the same problem.
Zevox 05-30-06, 11:15 PM	Re: Inter-league fights - Count me in on that too. Eraca Moralta (ECL 5) would be glad to test out either as an opponent for 2 ECL 3s or one of two opponents for an ECL 7. Maybe also Archdevil Asran (ECL 7), Istima Telarc (ECL 4), or Sir Alboreth (ECL 5), though those last two only during the freeze since I'm deactivating them for a while. I'd be willing to pitlord one or two as well both during the freeze and in regular pairings. Re: Allies - I agree with Telin that I don't believe they're overpowered as a whole. Certain ones are definitely, such as diplomacy-obtained Dragons (see Balbanes), or overly customized ones (again, Balbanes), but as a whole I don't think they're a problem, certainly not enough to warrant putting those using any in higher leagues (would you put Destra Stormwind in a higher league for her two Wolves when they can hardly do more than act as roadblocks vs anyone with a decent AC? Or Tan for his Dog trio that are in that same boat?) or cut thier winnings further (isn't the percentile loss already enough?). Frankly, aside from Cat's proposals (which I'd be fine with), it seems to me like the proposals are to try to discourage any ally use, which I don't think should be done. They already require skill points or a feat, must be quested for, must be prebuffed and cannot be left out after they have been prebuffed, must be trained if they're animals (which takes about 2-3 weeks of free actions to get just one the essentials), and take a chunk out of your winnings - quite a lot of drawbacks if you ask me (okay, the quest isn't really a drawback, but is an added prerequisite to most allies). Adding another set of skills you must have and specifying the language from any they speak to thier native one specifically seems fine to me (that makes quite a lot of skills you need to spend to get something like a Dragon, or an advanced HD ally), and I actually had thought the dead ally = no return until next cycle thing would already be happening, but some of the other proposals just seem like overkill to me. Actually, now that I think about it, everyone seems to agree that its diplomacy allies in particular that are a problem, yes? So why make a sweeping change to all allies rather than simply do something to counter the diplomacy allies problem? Perhaps switch them using ECL when they have one (bye-bye low CR Dragons) or something. Thats one thing I feel we should watch out for - reprecussions to things that aren't a problem caused by changes to nerf something that is. Zevox
Ravashack 05-31-06, 12:21 AM	I would volunteer Perius Cat, although I have a sneaky feeling that he's really more of an ECL 5 character in terms of effectiveness. He would probably need to buy a powerstone with Energy Adaptation and Freedom of Movement to stand a chance...
Zevox 05-31-06, 01:25 AM	How are 0-level spells handled? Currently, cantrips and orisons do not count for spell levels, and you may cast all of your 0-level spells in a single fight, if you so choose. With the 3FC, how will this be adjucated? Will it continue to be the same as before, or will you now also need to split your 0-level spells in thirds? Will they still be non-level spells, or will they now add in to your overall spell level total? I'd guess they still count as nothing. Its up to the player to decide to whether to use all in a single match, to space them out, or not to use them at all. They are pretty weak spells after all, so it seems they'd be fine staying like this to me. Also...how will an uneven amount of spell levels be handled? As an example, say somone has 11 total spell levels available to them. This would either give them A. 3 spells for each fight with 2 levels never being used (plus rollover of unused levels) B. 4 levels for 2 fights and 3 levels for 1 fight (plus rollover of unused levels C. If we round like we do currently, it could give 4 levels for each fight, which would give this person more spell levels in a 3FC than they actually have available to them (plus rollover of unused levels) The same is also true for power points...odd numbers of power points will have the same problem. I'd presume this too stays as is now: you get 1/3 your spell levels available, round up, then in week 2 get likewise plus any levels not used in week 1 (in your example, say this 11 SL wizard uses 3 of his 4 in week 1: he then can use 5 in week 2), then gets whatevers left in week 3 (say the previous wizard uses all 5 of his levels in week 2: he now 3 left, probably in the form of one 2nd-level spell and a 1st level spell or 3 1st level spells). The same for pp. Why is this a problem? C isn't even an option, since the spells they use are crossed off thier character sheet's list each week (or the spells per day are marked down for those that cast as a sorcerer or the pp is remaining is listed for manifesters), and they'd thus have nothing to use any "extra spell levels" with. Zevox
King Uther 05-31-06, 02:04 AM	I would like to take the time to pose a problem with Forgery. My examples range in effectiveness, with it being ridulously powerful sometimes. Example 1: As a level 3 human rogue, with custom items and feats I can have a +15 forgery and +19 Diplomacy(18 until you earn 900gp), giving me access to these creatures: 1. 9HD Worg 25 STR, Large Size; 90hp 2. 9HD Griffon Flying Grappler(+21 with Improved Grapple) 3. 9HD Young White Dragon Unbeatable speed and # of attacks 4. 8HD Krenshar A lot tougher than you think Example 2: Another Rogue, grey elf, maximized for INT. He has a +35 forgery, +45 if he spends 15000 on a profane bonus to forgery. At a +45 and an HA item, he produces the following ridiculous results: 1. Roc + HellWasp Swarm(no PC can defeat this and a UMD rogue except a few builds like a ghost) 2. Legendary Tiger(305hp) + Huge Air Elemental 3. Purple Worm + 10HD Griffon 4. Greater Shadow + Gorgon 5. Any CR9 + CR8 Usually I make a PC toexlpoit rules like this in hopes of changing them. However, as you can see it would only lead to strife if I were to bring these combos into the arena. Please give me some feedback and see what we come up with. I suggest changing forgery altogether. Perhaps it gives you income like profession, but you can have both at the same time unlike other similar skills. Anything better? Because what we have now is a monster waiting to be unleashed.
MindWandererB 05-31-06, 02:16 AM	@KU: For the third time in a week, let it be said: Forgery does not allow you to exceed your maximum CR/ECL for a single ally. ECL 3-5 characters can still have allies of only CR/ECL 1, not matter how much forgery they have. The best they could do would be to have multiple CR/ECL 1 allies (an ECL 3 character could go from one such ally to two with forgery, and an ECL 5 character could go from three to four). The danger now is with higher-level characters: an ECL 8 character could have a +20 Forgery, and thus could potentially have two CR 4 allies and a CR 2 one. Not the world's biggest problem, but it could still be nasty, especially with dragons (two young white dragons and a wyrmling, not bad).
King Uther 05-31-06, 02:47 AM	Good call. That's what I get without reading the complete verbiage. However, that only saves people in low EL leagues. You could pull off some ridiculous options in the mid levels. 13ranks+7INT+5feats+10competence+10profa ne and we have ourselves a problem.
Caterane 05-31-06, 04:15 AM	It also only works on one ally. The amount by which the Forgery skill lowers the CR is the power of the extra ally. So with +20 Forgery, you can bring in an additional CR 4 monster if you're ECL 8+. And it's of course a Free Activity. However, that only saves people in low EL leagues. You could pull off some ridiculous options in the mid levels. 13ranks+7INT+5feats+10competence+10profa ne and we have ourselves a problem. Let's see how you can get this. - Forgery is a class skill for the rogue only so in order to get 13 ranks you have to be a straight rogue or a multiclass rogue. Cross-class ranks cost 26 skills. - Getting +7 intelligence is a huge investment for rogue builds. You'd surely need a +4 int item for 16000. - +10 competence to forgery costs another 10,000 and credits. - Like you cannot get +2 profane Strength gloves or a +1 sacred bonus on your sword next to the enhancement bonus, skills always use competence boni. The different bonus superscript on DMG p285 applies to saves and AC only. So it's not possible. If it would, the price would be at 20,000. So your rogue has invested many ability points into intelligence, skill points in forgery (perhaps even cross-class) and payed about 46,000 gold and around 20° which leaves not much on the rogue. Because of the high price this tactic is not possible before level 10 or more (the earlier you get this, the less equipment you'll have). A fresh ECL 10 character has 51,000 gp available. A PC played up to 10 has even less because he spent expendables. So at best, you'd have 6,000 gold left before you have a single item on your sheet. And what would you get from it? An extra CR 8 ally who fights in your stead, and such an ally is not that much of a problem for high level characters. Keep in mind that we're talking about the extremest case here with illegal profane items. @NiQil: See Zevox' post. See it as a tolerance that gives the player a bitmore freedom in spending his spells.
SauroGrenom 05-31-06, 01:34 PM	Forgery: By my read of the Forgery rules as written I see that it will not allow you to bring allies of a higher CR into any battle. Rather it will lower the CA that a single ally counts as with regard to the fight rewards and the total CA for that fight. This may allow you to bring in an additional ally of low CR. However it will not allow you to bring allies of higher CR into the battle. Diplomacy Allies: It is clear that those characters who use diplomacy allies are more successfull than their rivals who do not use those allies. The penalty to xp and gp is not in any way a disencentive to those players that are patient and willing to fight a couple extra battles on the way to the next level. In many ways it is a reward to them if they are able to win more often. A character with an average record will level every 5 battles. If a character takes on an ally and wins 2/3 of the time instead of 1/2 of the time (a conservative estimate of the potency of allies), then they will level every 4.5 battles or so considering the penalty of the xp. If the character chooses very powerfull allies (dragons and advanced monsters) and wins more often than 2/3 (more typical) then the character will be able to level with fewer battles than his average rival. As such he will be able to increase in levels with fewer battles and an associated decreased use of expendibles considered as (gp used)/(gp earned). So by looking at the win records it becomes clear that allies are very powerfull, and by thinking about how this effects leveling we can see that allies will gradually make those characters who use them even more powerfull. Limiting the potency or diversity of allies a character can acquire with skills would brobably be a good idea. Firstly, it's not clear to me how the DC's were generated for the lists of handle animal and diplomacy allies. Perhaps changing the DC's is a good idea. I'd also like to point out the difference between allies acquired by skills and those acquired by gold. If an ECL8 character sacrifices 8500gp to buy a combat trained griffon, then they have invested a large portion of their wealth into that ally. Also they must still have ride or handle animal skills to command that ally in combat. Finally they are rather limited as to what they can command the creature to do and they must use actions in combat to direct the creature (unless using it as a mount). Also you cannot just abandon this ally (and the invested gold) when the ECL increases to ECL12 and this ally is no longer as powerfull. A rival of this character could spend that money on usefull items or enhancements to a weapon. None of these sacrifices are made by a character who acquires a diplomacy ally. So what to do? Firstly identifying the problem is probably a good idea. It looks like Diplomacy allies are much more potent than Handle Animal allies due to the need to use actions in combat to direct a handle animal ally to act. Also you must train handle animal allies so that they can be "handled". However both of these kind of allies are more vastly potent than purchased allies due to the lack of gp investment. To even the playing field I suggest that for both handle animal and diplomacy allies we introduce a one time gp cost to acquire them (list them on your sheet) and a continuing gp cost for each battle they participate in. We can easily rationalize this from an RP perspective. It will take gems and gold to persuade a white dragon to work with you, and that dragon will require a share of the winnings in any battle he participates in. Also if you travel into the northern wastes and capture a Remoraz, then it will take some startup cash to build a good place to keep the creature and there is transport costs to bring it back to gladius then you must feed the beast each week you keep it around. The "purchase price" for these allies should be reasonable considering the ECL where they are powerfull. In other words a CR4 ally should cost about 25-40% of the total wealth of a character at ECL8. The upkeep for animals should be lower than that for Diplomacy allies (makes sense as well as compensating for the additional tactical potency of diplomacy allies who do not need to be "handled"). The 25-40% cost is about the same as a powerfull magical item at the appropreat level. The upkeep for animal allies should be fixed by the monster's CR (a Remoraz will eat the same each week regardless of how much you win or loose in the arena). Upkeep for diplomacy allies should be determined as a fraction of the fight's winnings using a relationship between a character's ECL and the monster's CR (the intelligent ally is usefull but also argues for a fraction of the winnings determined by his contribution to the battle). We can use some pre-provided examples in the SRD as a good starting place. The pseudo dragon is an intelligent ally and does not need to be trained. This is simular to a diplomacy ally. While all the other purchased allies are simular to handle animal allies in that they must be trained and handled as animals. Perhaps a pricing structure can be developed from that basis. These changes will effect current strategies as follows: Firstly with a gp investment in your allies, you cannot just quest for 4 different ones and dump them when your ECL increases beyond their usefullness then quest for new allies all at no gp cost. Secondly you can make allies comparable to powerfull items in the investment required to get them. Thirdly you make the use of allies cost wealth to use in each battle (much like expendibles) instead of only costing time required to level. Lastly you creat parity between sacrifices made to gain allies aquired by gp investment compared to allies gained by skill use. Keep in mind that skill aquired allies will still be very usefull. The skills provide a wider diversity of allies than are available for purchase. We can later determine if the rewards penalties are still necessary.
Ariel23 05-31-06, 04:52 PM	To even the playing field I suggest that for both handle animal and diplomacy allies we introduce a one time gp cost to acquire them (list them on your sheet) and a continuing gp cost for each battle they participate in. The 25-40% cost is about the same as a powerfull magical item at the appropreat level. I am okay with discussing this idea, I agree that allies need to be looked at. But using magic items does not impose an XP and GP penalty, so this is not really the equivalent of a magic item. Don't get me wrong--I understand that an ally will likely help you win a lot more than any given magic item. As proposed, we will end up charging for HA/Dip allies to make them the same as magic items, but they won't be. We will also be charging for allies obtained from class skills but not allies obtained from class abilities, as well as giving GP and XP penalties for one but not the other. I'm not sure that this solution (as-is) equalizes Magic Items vs. HA allies vs. Dip allies vs. Class allies. Obviously it is still an early proposal and hopefully might lead to an equitable solution. IMO, if you have an ally that is not a class feature, it should raise your Encounter Level (expressed as ECL) as in the RAW. I assume there is some mathematical flaw with dividing GP and XP the way it works in TT. Also, if there were a way to Intimidate INT 2 creatures, then there would be a major check and balance already in place. As it is currently, Intimidate is largely worthless at low levels--exactly when allies are the most valuable. Compare: ECL 7 vs ECL 7 + CR 3 ally ECL 3 vs ECL 3 + CR 1 ally The ECL 7 would be in a much better position to cope with the added danger. [This does not take into account maximum allies or Forgery. I'm not sure anyone is prepared to cope with that.] I have also mentioned previously that Forgery cannot possibly be free. It's true, it won't cost 1000 gp, butForgery requires writing materials appropriate to the document being forged,
Caterane 05-31-06, 09:42 PM	Hmmm, long Sauro-posts in the Council... I love that sight :) A very good assessment although the solutions are too drastic. There already is a reward share for the ally which is the penalty you get by using them so no need for additional upkeep cost. The dragon ally is as satisfied with his share as any fellow player character. It took us a long time to come up with a good solution to the share and the one we have is completely sufficient. The DCs for Handle Animal allies are taken from the PHB and we assume the PC Takes 10. For non-animals, the PHB suggests a +5 modifier to the DC. That's what we did. So since the PHB grants options to get allies through skills, what is it that prevents TT PCs from getting the desired ally. Easy answer: the DM. You cannot just 'miniquest' for a young dragon in your TT campaign but here, it's like they're available on the market square. My favorite solution to this would be to simulate the availability of allies. Here is what we have so far: You have to quest/miniquest [the adventure on how you get the ally] You can only miniquest/quest once per level [time constraints in the campaign] You have to have the required skill value (diplomacy/HA) [the ability to persuade the ally to follow you] You have to have the required knowledge value [knowledge where you can get the desired species] You have to speak the the native language of the ally (intelligent allies only) [Communicate with the ally on his terms] You spend ressources in the miniquest [ressources to acquire the ally] So the list has almost everything that a real adventure would have. The question is wether the efforts are enough or if we have to enforce a higher investment. One thing that can be broken down is the last point. The ressouces you spend in the miniquest can be seen as the equivalent of ressources to free the ally, ie the actual fight. There can be another differentiation as to the traveling to the location of the to-be ally, ie Ship passage, Gather info money, Citygate fees, Living costs, etc. This would be what Sauro suggested as the initial price to 'buy' the right to quest for an ally. However, the suggested price is way too high. Another difference is that the ally can die. In my group we've given up naming our animals because they have a half-life period of three fights lol So your awkwardly acquired phrenic half-celestial direboar might be dead after a few weeks. Btw, with the +33% bonus for quests gone, we should probably expand the Nimbus to quests and campaigns too.
SauroGrenom 06-01-06, 12:04 AM	Let me form an example of how Diplomacy allies can be so very broaken.... Say that I take Raskos and switch around a few skill points to gain a nice diplomacy ally at ECL9. With crafting a new cloak of charisma +4 and without dropping any necessary or combat related skills, Raskos can get a diplomacy score of about +14 to +16 (diplomacy is not even a class skill for him). This will be sufficient for Raskos to aquire an advanced Gargoyle ally with the elite ability array. He could advance his ally by 5HD and buy the elite array for a monster of CR5. This ally will be fighting in ECL9 fights and he will have 9HD, Large size, about 90hp, fly speed, a couple extra feats, the ability to wield weapons, damage resistance and a vicious full attack sequence. If this creature were a character fighting in the arena it would be ECL14. The very fact that Raskos can possibly be ECL9 and gain an ally who is ECL14 is vastly imbalancing. If he were to spend one of his few feats to gain a cohort, then it wold be limited to ECL7 and it would cost him more (I consider feats to be more valuable for this character than skill points). Clearly the diplomacy allies are more potent than cohorts, and they are vastly more potent if we allow advanced diplomacy allies. Both Cat and Ariel23 have mentioned the idea that our current system costs a player something when they bring an ally into battle, but this is simply not true. Success in CoCo is largely a function of a character's gp/xp ratio. The more wealth you command at each ECL directly translates into more combat prowess. I'll take that as an accepted fact, but I can substantiate it if needed. So any "cost" that does not penalise the xp/gp ratio is not a true cost at all. Our current system penalizes a character xp and gp winnings in the proportion of winnings at that ECL. As such it will never penalize a character's wealth at their ECL. It will only cost time to level the character. If you are patient this is no cost at all. In my last post I even described how it is possible for a character to gain allies and win more often and even level faster than a character without allies who has an average record. The very idea that the current "penalty" is any meaningfull penalty is a false idea. The only cost is time. Nothing more and possibly less. Perhaps the best approach is to make all allies have comparable "cost". The idea of penalties to xp and gp rewards may need to be scrapped. Rather make each ally aquired by skills have a gp only cost associated with the ally. Also the potency of allies need to be limited in some direct way. For example the Leadership feat is a great system which includes limits in it that are balanced. A character can spend a feat and must increase a "leadership score" to attract a powerfull cohort. There can be only one cohort and its ECL is limited to 2 below the character. Also the Cohort must be equiped by the character (after the beginning as ECL increases the equipment comes out of your character's treasure share). The character must invest money and abilitiy points into having a high charisma score to attract a potent cohort. This system has inherent limits that make the ally potent, but not overpowering. Our diplomacy and handle animal allies do not have those limits. When a character spends skill points to aquire an ally they should be able to aquire allies of a potency associated with their investment. A feat is worth about +3 unamed bonus on any skill and worth a Leadership feat. Alone the leadership feat only buys you a single ally between 2 and 6 ECL below your own (ignoring special modifiers that are common). So considering that fact we may be inclined to believe that 3 skill points is worth an ally on average 4 or so ECL below your own. Since we lack a DM who arbitrates in each individual case, this is too much to give for such a small investment if we only require 3 skill points. I would also like to draw attention back to the gp/xp ratio of a character. This is the only meaningfull place where a character can sacrifice for success. We are familiare with this because of the discussion of the "costs" of expendibles. If a character earns barely enough gp to cover the cost of expendibles in a victorious fight then they are actually falling behind an average foe who does not use expendables but looses the same fight. A few levels later the character who used many expendibles will pay the price of his spending habits. This is an excelent check on the use of expendibles over long terms. However it is not at all present in our current system including the cost of allies in combat. Since penalties are applied to both xp and gp, those penalties loose there potency as a "penalty" at all. If the council has any desire to require a sacrifice for potent allies who aid you in combat, then ally penalties must be applied in a way that that damages the xp/gp ratio. There must be a gp cost that exceeds the xp cost. Perhaps the best way is to change penalties so that characters only suffer a gp cost with no xp cost. Another way is to drop the "penalties" but institute a "purchase price" for allies aquired by diplomacy and HA. A third way is to create a gp "cost" for each battle that an ally participates in. I hope the point is driven home that allies are a very very powerfull advantage and that our current system has "penalties" to not carry any meaningfull dissadvantage. I think we need to both limit the potency of skill aquired allies and institute a cost to having such allies that damages a character's xp/gp ratio. To limit the potency of diplomacy allies it may be necessary to always calculate them with an ECL and set the max ECL equal to the character's ECL-2. This would limit dragons and advanced allies that have an ECL far above CR+4. Also I consider it unfair that one character can aquire and use in combat an combat trained griffon advanced 5HD (huge size) for 13500gp (35% of this character's total wealth) at ECL9 while a second character can acquire this ally at ECL 9 with a +17 Diplomacy check modifier and no cost in money and a third who takes a leadership feat can get the same griffon cohort at ECL17!!! Obviously something is wrong. The ally is the same in all cases. But the investment required to get that ally in three different ways is vastly different. Also the level at which the various investments can be achieved is different. If we want to solve the overpowered ally problem, then these three ways of acquiring the same ally should become available at about the same time and they should have comparable costs.
barrel_master 06-01-06, 12:09 PM	Agreed, the reductions in both XP and gold make having allies hardly any penalty at all. Idealy, the 'virtual XP' think will 'fix' this problem... unfortunately I'm lothe to introduce a bunch of new rules without first simplifying existing ones.
Caterane 06-01-06, 12:40 PM	I agree with everything Sauro said. Problem 1: Upkeep This can be easily solved by applying the penalty to gold alone, instead of both gold and xp. The formula we have is great; we just have to drop the xp penalty. Also I consider it unfair that one character can aquire and use in combat an combat trained griffon advanced 5HD (huge size) for 13500gp (35% of this character's total wealth) at ECL9 while a second character can acquire this ally at ECL 9 with a +17 Diplomacy check modifier and no cost in money and a third who takes a leadership feat can get the same griffon cohort at ECL17!!! This is more difficult. Some Diplomacy allies have an ECL, some only CR. Since those without a given LA are no less effective than those with LA, it would be unfair if we have two different shoes for the same ally category. It would also make ECL diplomacy allies useless: who wants to have a Hill Giant for ECL 12 (CR 7) when he can just pick another (equally strong) CR 7 monster without LA. Assigning a price for such allies is not our aim. We don't want to expand the list of purchased allies on the cost of the whole diplomacy ally list so we should rather tighten the requirements to obtain a diplomacy ally. Also, as you can see with purchased allies, they applied several different prices for monster HD so apparently the designers came up with prices for monsters individually. No formula. Unfortunately all that creates some weird situations, like with the griffon example above (diplomacy/bought vs leadership). To balance that out, there must be something on leadership allies that is better than on diplomacy allies. The diplomacy hill giant (CA 7) should be not as good as the leadership hill giant (CA 12). Perhaps leadership allies come with equipment? Perhaps they use a higher point-buy? Or we can add the "handle" equivalent to diplomacy allies: since the bond between master and ally is not as strong with diplomacy as it is with leadership, diplomacy allies must be "handled" with a Diplomacy check (and the associated action; move/fullround) to do anything? They're generally not overly bright anyway. That, and the steeper requirements could be enough to keep diplomacy allies in check. Advanced Allies Problem: You can assign a number of HD without increasing the CR. Just add one below the next threshhold for CR increase. We can do two things: increase the credit cost and secondly, let the CR increase begin when assigning the first HD above the threshhold. Example (eg Elemental: +1 per 4 HD added) Now: 2-5 HD = CR 1; 6-9 HD = CR 2; 10 HD = CR 3 New: 2 HD = CR 1; 3-6 HD = CR 2; 7-10 HD = CR 3 Would be a houserule. A non-houserule approach would be to say, when you advance an ally, you have to add as many HD so that it gains a CR increase. That would limit the customization but solve the problem. Actually, the MM only consists of such monsters.
TelinArtho 06-01-06, 02:07 PM	First off - we're trying to get through several issues with allies here that are pretty well intertwined. If you don't mind while I take a moment to get situated: 1. All non-class feature allies should have some cost associated with them when brought into a fight. Currently you cost yourself a portion of xp/gp. I like the idea of just making it gp - so it is actually a penalty. This excludes class feature allies. 2. Not all allies are the same. To make matters worse, not all of the rules are uniform even within the Core rules, so let's take a look: Class Feature Allies: Druid/Ranger Animal Companion - handle animal is "needed" Sorcerer/Wizard Familiar - 100gp investment Paladin/Blackguard special mount - levels in class Thaumaturgist Planar Companion - 1000gp/HD and diplomacy and means to communicate - uses ECL for maxCA calculation and also can't have more HD than the PC. If the PC has a leadership cohort already - this cohort trumps the old one. Non-class feature: Handled Animal - Handle animal skill of appropriate level, training time (neg.) Purchased Animal - Handle animal is "needed" - GP investment Other Purchased Ally - Greater GP investment, specific training (neg) Diplomacy Ally - Diplomacy needed, specific language needed (2 skill points) Leadership cohort - Leadership feat and means to communicate - uses ECL for maxCA calculation Lesser Planar Ally/Planar Binding spell - 250gp/HD and means to communicate and alignment restrictions and 4th level spell slot and lasts only 1-3 fights(GP cost takes into account "non-hazourdous work" discount) Thaumaturgist Improved ally - 125gp/HD and means to communicate and alignment restrictions and high diplomacy and 4th level spell slot and lasts only 1-3 fights. I know I have missed some options here - but clearly these are not even. Only 2 options count on ECL for the maxCA calculation - leadership cohorts and the planar cohort. The planar ally/planar binding spells are quite frankly the most costly and make the least amount of sense. While people have said that we don't want to make it too cheap - look at the diplomacy allies and we see that we already have them cheap: A small air elemental will cost a person casting lesser planar ally 250gp over an above the cost within the fight. The spell will last for 1-3 fights and takes up a 4th level slot - per casting. The caster also needs a method to communicate (probably through speak language: Auran). If the caster is a thaumaturge - he can take half the price by investing enough in diplomacy to get a +20 (if he's neutral), +30 (1 step away eg: if he's neutral good) or +40 (2 steps away eg: if he's lawful good). Compare this to the character who gets the small air elemental through diplomacy. This will cost him enough to get a +12 in diplomacy and he'll need to have the elemental's native language. Let's review: +20-40 diplomacy +125gp/1-3 fights + communication method (probably a common language) vs +12 diplomacy + native language In fact - the more I get into this - the less I like having diplomacy allies at all - when the option for planar ally exists. Yes - it means that most people can't have random allies. However - the cost to gain the diplomacy allies is so small - that everyone can take great advantage of them. However, if we are going to keep diplomacy allies as an option - they should have a recurring cost that is greater or equal to the Planar Ally/Planar Binding cost for 1-3 fights in addition. Don't forget that the person casting the spell has to sacrifice a 4th level slot and spell levels (or a scroll @ 1200gp purchased, 350gp scribed). Lesser Planar Binding is 5th level - so it is an even greater cost... Handled animals/purchased animals are less of an issue because the degree of control on them is less (both in terms of training and intelligence), but it is still an issue. I realize I am voting for huge changes in terms of allies - but without them - I think we're in a bad place. And if you disagree - what will you think when Kraegin starts gaining all the allies that he wants since he can't get them reasonably through Lesser Planar Ally? (not meant to be taken as a threat... just saying that Kraegin is going to WANT to have planar allies. If he can't get them reasonably through the class features he gets - he will have to take advantage of the rules already set forth).
MindWandererB 06-01-06, 03:06 PM	This is more difficult. Some Diplomacy allies have an ECL, some only CR. Since those without a given LA are no less effective than those with LA, it would be unfair if we have two different shoes for the same ally category. It would also make ECL diplomacy allies useless: who wants to have a Hill Giant for ECL 12 (CR 7) when he can just pick another (equally strong) CR 7 monster without LA. Let's take a look at this. The MM has LA's listed for creatures it considers to be reasonable Leadership cohorts. I would suggest that Diplomacy allies are basically the same as cohorts. That means that if we allow allies without an LA, we're doing something the designers didn't want us to do. I would also posit that CR is not appropriate for party members. CR assumes that they don't have a full range of equipment, that their tactics will be limited by their intelligence, and that they will be participating in only one fight per day. That's why ECL is usually higher than CR. Let me take a look at the Diplomacy allies that have no LA: ∙Choker ∙Crysmal2 ∙Displacer Beast Pack Lord3 ∙Elementals (all)2 ∙Formian Worker1 ∙Gibbering Mouther2 ∙Grick1 ∙Otyugh ∙Rast1 ∙Remorhaz1 ∙Tendriculos1 ∙Thoqqua1 ∙Udoroot1 ∙Vargouille ∙Wyvern2 1 Does not speak or understand language; is ineligible under the proposed rules because there is no way to communicate with it. 2 Understands speech but either does not speak itself or does so very rarely. 3 Has no LA because its ECL would be over 20. Technically, this is just an advanced displacer beast, and thus has an LA of +4. So we have a whopping three creatures that speak normally but still have no LA for some reason. That's not a huge problem--either take them off the list, come up with an LA for them, or treat their LA as zero. If we continue to allow the creatures marked as 2, that's another four creatures. Unfortunately, elementals and some outsiders are on the list, and they need to apply to MaxCA for Thaumaturgists, if for no other reason. I would personally suggest nixing that entire list--the developers made a deliberate choice to not provide an LA, even a cohort LA, for those creatures, which means they would not be appropriate henchmen in a TT game. To balance that out, there must be something on leadership allies that is better than on diplomacy allies. The diplomacy hill giant (CA 7) should be not as good as the leadership hill giant (CA 12). Perhaps leadership allies come with equipment? Perhaps they use a higher point-buy? Or we can add the "handle" equivalent to diplomacy allies: since the bond between master and ally is not as strong with diplomacy as it is with leadership, diplomacy allies must be "handled" with a Diplomacy check (and the associated action; move/fullround) to do anything? They're generally not overly bright anyway. That, and the steeper requirements could be enough to keep diplomacy allies in check.I think all of the above should apply. Leadership allies should come with gear based on the ECL you get them at, although you have to pay for their upgrades from then on. The elite array, or a comparable point-buy, should be used as well (come on, the PCs are 36 points! That's more than the designers intended--cohorts should get a trickle-down boost). And they should be "handled" as well--with a maximum Int of 6, their natural instinct is going to be fight or flight, unless they have another tactic described in the MM. It should always be a move action, though--they don't need tricks, and thus they never have to be "pushed." In addition, I'd provide a fourth incentive to leadership allies: they can have customized feats and skill points for free. It costs you a feat, after all, and if we're already customizing their ability scores, we might as well go all the way. We can do two things: increase the credit cost and secondly, let the CR increase begin when assigning the first HD above the threshhold.... Would be a houserule. A non-houserule approach would be to say, when you advance an ally, you have to add as many HD so that it gains a CR increase. That would limit the customization but solve the problem. Actually, the MM only consists of such monsters.I vote for the latter. The less houseruling the better. Edit: For what it's worth, I am against Diplomacy allies in general. As a DM, I would personally never allow them--if you use your Diplomacy skill to get an ally, they count as a party member for all purposes, which means, among other things, that the EL goes up. Handle Animal allies would also result in an increased EL, but not by a whole lot, due to their limited intelligence and inability to improve along with the party. At least Handle Animal is prescribed in the RAW for anything with an Int of 1 or 2 (but not with an Int of --, like vermin, which we do allow). Of course, I'm also in favor of as few house rules as possible in general--if we want Diplomacy to be a useful skill, I say we should create new challenges, not create combat advantages for it. But this is an old argument.
SauroGrenom 06-01-06, 03:44 PM	I think the advanced allies problem and the discrepancy between the power of our CoCo allies and the core system allies are both symptoms of the same underlying problem. CR is not a good measure of a creature's power as an ally. ECL is a much more accurate measure of this. There are many many examples of how you can build a creature with a very high ECL and relatively low CR. My gargoyle example is one case. We could do something simular with an advanced griffon who has 21HD and is ECL24 with only CR 8. So long as we base allies on CR, we will always have this problem. ECL scales smootly as character's level. CR does not. It takes 3 extra HD to increase CR by one. That is an increase of 3 ECL. As long as advanced allies are allowed to advance by CR there will never be a good system to balance the potency of diplomacy allies vs cohorts or class allies. So I looked at the diplomacy ally list and counted those that do not have any LA listed. There are 14 of them (I lumped all the elementals together). Many of them (7) are actually abberations and elementals. Honestly I have a bit of trouble understanding how you persuade an elemental to leave the plane of existance he favors to follow you around and fight in arena battles for you, but that isn't the issue here. The same goes for abberations, you would need to be a very twisted sort of person to even try and persuade an Otyugh or Grick into following you around. Perhaps we should reconsider allowing some of these creatures to be allies of any kind (especially those that are of a vastly different type than the character like a plant). Anyway it shouldn't be hard for us to create a "Cohort LA" for each of those 7-14 types of creatures we will allow and that do not already have a LA listed. Most of those creatures without an LA are simular to another creature with a listed LA (tendriculious is simular to a shambling mound). Using a ECL for all allies will make it easy for us to allow allies of the appropreat power at each level. For handle animal we can make simular kinds of limitations since LA is not provided for any of these creatures. Perhaps the thing to have a formula for "Cohort LA" that is equal to CR+4+1 for each Advanced HD. Or some such (that was just off the top of my head). We can also borrow a page from the Leadership feat book. Specificially I suggest that we build a table for Handle Animal and Diplomacy skills simular to that listed in the Leadership feat. This new table can list the number and ECL of the various allies gained by these methods. Also we can have an easy Handle Animal or Diplomacy score simular to the leadership score. As you level an increased score will allow you to have more or more powerfull allies. So you may have a Diplomacy Score of 15 at ECL8, and you level up so you put a point into the skill and your new Score is 16. With the new higher score you can have an additional ally or perhaps a more potent ally as determined by the chart. Perhaps we can even allow players to choose a particular diplomacy or HA ally that will actually "level" with the character and the creature will advance by its own racial HD as the character advances (much like a cohort). I'm not suggesting we make diplomacy allies precisely the same as leadership allies, but the ECL of allies aquired in either way need to be comparable. I cannot think of any reasonable way to make a CR7 Diplomacy Hill Giant (fighting in ECL11) equivalent to a ECL12 (leadership cohort fighting in ECL14) Hill Giant ally. The total benefits given to the Hill giant would need to be very large to make the cohort just as effective at ECL14 as the diplomay ally is at ECL11. Trying to force that would be a complicated mess. Relying solely on ECL would at least make sure that allies aquired in the various methods are of simular potency in battle. So the dipomacy hill giant is the same as the leadership hill giant.
SauroGrenom 06-01-06, 03:50 PM	Mindwanderer, We already have an LA for the Bodak, Mummy and Shadow. They are listed as playable races.
MindWandererB 06-01-06, 04:05 PM	Righy you are. That makes 15 monsters total on the list (counting the Displacer Beast Pack Lord, which doesn't really count), of which 3 speak normally, an additional 4 speak reluctantly, and 7 do not speak or understand language at all.
Caterane 06-01-06, 06:54 PM	I want to see a ban as the very last option. We're already restricted to core only so the more we ban the less we have. Especially in case of allies we will lose quite some 'color' so let's try looking for other solutions first. What is it with the diplomacy allies. Normally in a TT game, you would use diplomacy on creatures with an INT of 7+ because these are creatures with which you can really interact. Then why did we restrict it to INT 3-6? The situation was that we wanted to have more options. We saw the same allies all over again, especially animals (Int 1-2). So the line of thought was to expand the list up to Int 6. I chose 6 because 7 would include PC races like orcs, creatures without racial HD which would be problematic since you can level diplomacy allies only by race. We needed a regulator for it and diplomacy was the most appropriate; especially since it didn't have a function here anyway (not acceptable for one of the best skills in the game). So Diplomacy allies are too cheap to get. Okay. Then we just create steeper requirements and there are already suggestions out there. One thing that does not work here is to remove the CR measurement for allies from the coco. Animals, animated undead, and many others only have a CR listed. We can neither assign them a LA (completely arbitrary) nor can we ban them. So the CR has to stay. Ok, so the griffon and the hill giant and some others have a LA listed. Contrary to what Sauro says about the gap being too big to close, I think we can do that. Let's take the Hill Giant A diplomacy giant has the standard ability array (10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11) whereas the leadership giant has 25 pt-buy which is even better than Elite array. A diplomacy giant can only advance by racial HD while the leadership giant can gain class levels which are much more powerful. This closes the gap somewhat although it is not enough. But let's see what we can add to the diplomacy requirements: - Move action to "handle", Fullround action to "push" - Same alignment or Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per step - Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per additional diplomacy ally for all allies - You have to have the required knowledge value - Must speak the creatures native language I think at this point, you can clearly see the benefits of the hill giant cohort who "just" requires a feat. All proposed add-on requirements are logical and limit the abuse of diplomacy allies in all directions. The investment is now much greater. If we increase that even further we'll make cohorts too cheap. On a side note, we should mark those which Mindwanderer marked as 1 (no speech) but they stay in the list in case someone has telepathy.
MindWandererB 06-01-06, 07:10 PM	- Move action to "handle", Fullround action to "push"Please clarify this one. The only difference between a "handle" and a "push" is whether or not the animal in question knows the trick. Creatures with an Int of 3+ don't use tricks. This means you use the same type of action, probably a move action, no matter what.
Caterane 06-01-06, 07:24 PM	The default reaction is to "heel" the master. Any simple command (based on HA tricks) is a move action to "explain" and a DC 10 Diplomacy check to "persuade" the ally. Anything more complicated as well as anything not belonging to the normal behaviour of said ally, requires longer persuation in form of a full-round action and a DC 25 diplomacy check. The command must still fall into the range of a 6 second explanation. Anything requireing a longer explanation or something really complicated cannot be performed by the ally.
MindWandererB 06-01-06, 07:36 PM	Could you see having the default action be "heel and defend?" Animals automatically use "defend" to attack anyone who attacks their master; diplomacy allies should do the same.
Book5 06-01-06, 08:51 PM	On a side note, we should mark those which Mindwanderer marked as 1 (no speech) but they stay in the list in case someone has telepathy. I would certainly hope so! Actually, if you have telepathy you should compleatly negate the "shared language" requirment. Mind speak is quite a trick. Almost a "special power" I would say. For these purposes anyhow. - Move action to "handle", Fullround action to "push" - Same alignment or Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per step - Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per additional diplomacy ally for all allies - You have to have the required knowledge value - Must speak the creatures native language I disagree with the "command actions" thats really making a rule. A more rigourously balanced table would be preferable to me. I see nothing wrong with the DC bump with additional allies (thats more a rip from teh leadership feat than anything else). Ditto with the alignment penalty. Knowledge and Language... seeing as "getting an ally" is all an RP thing - Those seem perfect to make that process automatic. The same presumtions are made that underly the use of knowledge with monster fights.. and I would consider a means of communication as a paramount concern. Trying to track tricks and not tricks of creatures with intelligence is simply onerous. Defining the limits of what directions an intelligent creature will be able to comply with ... also a headache and a half that will be suffered by the writers and readers of tactics.
Book5 06-01-06, 10:03 PM	Anything requireing a longer explanation or something really complicated cannot be performed by the ally. But how does this come into play as far as "intelligent descisions" made on the behalf of the ally. as in - the ally is "helpful" so he will "help" to the "best of his ability" and understanding. Thats why I figure the command actions don't need to be there, but! Since I hacve played around with this I will make a full scale suggestion. After more than three and four TT test of similar systems - this is my suggestion for "command actions" First we have to discuss what we are discussing - that being the act of discussion. You have an initial conceptual debate as to whether Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidation is the relavent skill to be employed for this purpose. This is a very sticky situation. Bluff This skill is a combat skill and one that revolves around "motivating" a character. Bluffing is not lying (in that lying is always bluffing, but a bluff does not need to be untru). What we have is the skill that tacitly seems to do exactly what we are talking about doing - communicating a directive to another character and rolling to see the efficacy of the attempt. This comes complete with massive modifiers and tierd results, and a limiter based around self preservation. Diplomacy This is the skill that makes people your ally - but is not a "combat skill." The fact is diplomacy applys a -10 penalty to any combat use of the skill. Intimidation Again we have a combat ready skill and one that also seems to revolve around the idea of getting people to do what you want them to do. Also in our cases we have a very underused skill in the case of Intimidation. I suggest that intimidation and Bluff are proper to use for this purpose, but diplomacy is not. Diplomacy should be retained as the skill the determines your ally potential, but not the skill you use to "command" characters in combat. Now to the command actions. Handle... Push... Demand: A function of the intimidate skill. You may only make demands of characters with an intelligence score of 3 or greater. You must be able to speak the language of the target, and you must be able to treat the target as friendly. Demanding is a free action that can be taken inconjuction with any move, attack, or retrieval action. You may demand as a standard action to gain a +4 bonus on your check. The base DC for a demand is 10+the Targets Charisma Modifier. Persuade: A function of the bluff skill. You may only attempt to persuade a character with an intelligence score of 7 or higher. You must also be able to speak the language of the target. Normal bluff modifiers apply, and you may attempt to persuade any character that is non-hostile towards you. Persuading is a move equivalent action that can be taken as a free action in conjuction with a normal move. The DC to persuade is modified by normal bluff modifiers and based on the target's attitude towards you: Hostile: Impossible, Unfriendly: 25, Nuetral: 20, Freindly: 15, Helpful: 5. and for fun - Fanatic "Less than one" (that is serious DC that appeares in the SRD btw "less than one). Now, We are at the real problem. You thought that part up there was stringy check this out. How do you penalize a failed roll while retaining the "skills are not charm spells" problem. Right now were are fine (and could be perfectly fine) with saying that all the diplomacy and command actions are not applicable to the PC, but its not really fair. Plus that denys the consenuality of the system. The rules should work.. all the time. So! What happens when a one character succeeds at their persuade check (notice the stable DCs)? Only two thing: The target will suffer a penalty equal to the commanding character's charisma score on any and all actions other than the one directed by the commander. Two: Commands provoke concentration checks with a DC equal to the commander's result - when appropriate. Trust me - ask vath - use this system - and you'll have people yelling at each other all over the place. People will point charisma, and buy intimidation. Use it too. now for an example... ..... ..... .... ......... .......................... ............ .. ..... ..... .... ......... --> BOOO! I have honestly wrapped these "command" concepts around a pole and back. I really have. This is no off the cuff thing - particularly the action requirements. Intimidate should be easier to use (under simpler circumstances) - but also result in the "backlash" problem -> reputation! ~) The only thing about that there sblocked content - is it is written as a rule varient - not totally formatted to the coco. Again - these are ideas that have seen playtesting in multiple forms with multiple groups of people. I call this "the light version" "Medium" requires completely rewritting the intimidation, bluff, and diplomacy skills... actually rewritting in Handle Animal for a few streamlining reasons as well. "Heavy" .. don't ask.. you might "cry" but it boils down to adding an additional HP Pool .. after lethal and nonlethal. Call it laughable damage... if you will. Taking Laughable damage requires you to laugh to get rid of that damage. Laughing can be a free action (healing 1d4) a move action (1d6), and standard action (1d8), a full action (1d10), or a full turn action (1d12). If you are laughing with allies you all heal each other in addition to healing yourselves.
Caterane 06-02-06, 06:54 AM	The Diplomacy commands are not unreasonable. First we have to see that there are no concrete rules in the book for the application of social skills since this is the realm of roleplaying. We just have to simulate this and put it into rules. Call it house rule; I call it the social interaction written down. Intelligence 3-6 allies are dumb enough to be swayed by sooth words without the ability to object (requires more intelligence) so it is a reasonable application of a social skill. Still, they are not cohorts and need to be 'reminded' again and again that they are doing what they want themselves. This is especially true for situations when the ally risks his life. This is what the diplomacy "handle" check is for. It is - again - a very reasonable application of a social skill. Back to the ally's intelligence. Int 3-6 is nothing you will find in a lecture room. They are more or less based on instincts (the lower the int the more) and it takes a command to tell them that they should do something specific. And that is...good application, you know. It is the absolutely same thing what a DM would do. And as Book5 has mentioned, handling a diplomacy ally in combat (quick commands) suffers a -10 penalty and is a full-round action. The DCs I proposed are Dc10 (move) and Dc25 (full) which can be done anytime in the fight the ally is not engaged in combat, ie under attack or attacking. If he is, the -10 penalty applies and even simple Dc10 commands become a full-round action (try to head off an ongoing fight of your dumb ally). --------- Idea: Maybe we can use this method for all Int 3-6 allies, including cohorts and what's out there. After all, int 3-6 allies ARE not as capable as brighter ones. The MM even gives us similar examples, like in case of a INT 5 griffon who still needs Handle Animal! The benefit of having a hill giant cohort is that you can dump 2-3 points into intelligence so that he has an intelligence of 7 and can be handled normally. Good? --------- But Book-theGreat-5 has given me another idea. With the mentioned changes, Int 3-6 diplomacy allies are finally balanced against cohorts and the whole board. So what about finding a way to get Int 7+ allies? I just think that we are already very limited in our material so we should make use of as much as possible. Here's my proposal (keep in mind that I am merely trying to apply social skills according to the PHB, and put them into basic rules): Since Int7+ creatures are more capable of social interaction, they need a bit more than just 'simple' diplomacy. Situations (grief, horror, effusiveness, recklessness, etc etc etc) arise where you also have to Bluff or Intimidate your new friend. In effect: your social skills must be much greater. The rule can be that you use the lowest of bluff, intimidate, diplomacy to determine your value, or you use the sum of it, or whatever... how the formula looks like is of secondary interest for now. What matters is that you need more social capabilities for such brighter allies. Like Diplomacy allies, Int7+ creatures normally level by racial HD. For those who have no racial HD (like an orc) you level him always by favored class. Abilities are applied as they appear in the MM (Standard or Non-Standard Array). We also add the same restrictions we have for diplomacy allies: - Move action to "handle", Fullround action to "push" - Same alignment or Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per step - Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per additional diplomacy ally for all allies - You have to have the required knowledge value - Must speak the creatures native language and *zack* we have a complete new list with allies. Again: the formulas are up to us. We just make sure they are equally balanced. Since these allies sometimes possess special abilities, we have to go by CR, not ECL. EDIT: I've compiled a list with possible Int7+ allies. I just list some examples so that you can see what is encompassed. Intelligence 7-12 Achaierai [CR 5] Hound Archon [CR 4] Arrowhawks [CR 3, 5, 8] Athach [CR 8] Azer [CR 2] Behir [CR 8] Blink dog [CR 2] Bugbear [CR 2] [Rogue] Centaur [CR 3] Chaos beast [CR 7] Chuul [CR 7] Demon: Quasit [CR 2] Derro [CR 3] Destrachan [CR 8] Devil: Barbed devil [CR 11] Devil: Hellcat [CR 7] Devil: Imp [CR 2] Dragon, Black: Wyrmling [CR 3] Dragon, Black: Very Young [CR 4] Dragon, Black: Young [CR 5] Dragon, Black: Juvenile [CR 7] Dragon, Black: Young adult [CR 9] Dragon, Black: Adult [CR 11] The following allies have a higher intelligence. Might need additional requirements to get them or we leave them out. I just list a few examples. Intelligence 13-15 Aboleth [CR 7] Aranea [CR 4] Barghest [CR 4] Gauth [CR 6] Cloaker [CR 5] Delver [CR 9] Demon: Babau [CR 6] Demon: Bebilith [CR 10] Demon: Hezrou [CR 11] Demon: Vrock [CR 9] Devil: Bone Devil [CR 9] Devil: Erinyes [CR 8] Devil: Horned Devil [CR 16] Doppelganger [CR 3] [Rogue] Dragon, Black: Mature Adult [CR 14] Dragon, Black: Old [CR 16] Dragon, Black: Very Old [CR too high]
DSugui 06-02-06, 09:09 AM	Just a note on dragons: they are very, very arrogant. IMO, they would never ever obey, or even ally themselves to, someone with INT lower than theirs. I would even say INT, WIS and CHA lower than theirs. Maybe we could extend this to all intelligent allies. At least, to the evil ones...
TelinArtho 06-02-06, 11:54 AM	In all frankness Cat - I'm not liking this at all. I'm looking at the options available for my cleric and the more options that are opened up to the regular folks - by way of having a few skill points allocated - Planar Ally and later on the planar cohort just won't be worth getting. Why? Because he'll need skill points allocated (probably more skill points I might add) AND he'll have to pay a significant chunk of change. Before we go ahead and open MORE possibilities for allies - I'd like there to be a nod to making the thaumaturgists' class abilities semi-useful. Yes a planar ally would have a 25pt buy and come, maybe, with some equipment, but when compared to a leadership cohort - he'll still have to have a large diplomacy AND 1000gp/HD. And this should extend down to the cleric's Planar Ally spell and the wizard's Planar Binding spell. Extraplanar creatures should not be taken lightly!
Ariel23 06-02-06, 05:33 PM	So much to talk about! I have to leave work, so here is what I have for now. I also cannot put PCs with allies there permanently because they can freely decide to use them or not. Although a nice idea, I see no way to implement it. Make it so you have to prebuff with your allies for the entire 3WC. Then they would be assigned to an ECL only once during the cycle. It is already like that now for people who are about to level. Would be a houserule. A non-houserule approach would be to say, when you advance an ally, you have to add as many HD so that it gains a CR increase. That would limit the customization but solve the problem. Actually, the MM only consists of such monsters.ECL 2 animals can be advanced 2 HD but not 3 HD (1 CR). The same is true of some other ECL/MM entries. You would either have to let them do the 2 HD for "free" or let them add 1 HD to the monster entry to make it +3 HD. Both Cat and Ariel23 have mentioned the idea that our current system costs a player something when they bring an ally into battle, but this is simply not true.Aside: technically, I didn't say that. But it does cost you something: leveling speed. Theoretically... If you win 16.67% more with the ally but are being charged 8.25%, you're still advancing faster than without the ally. Which is often the case. So we're both right! Also I consider it unfair that one character can aquire and use in combat an combat trained griffon advanced 5HD (huge size) for 13500gp (35% of this character's total wealth) at ECL9 while a second character can acquire this ally at ECL 9 with a +17 Diplomacy check modifier and no cost in money and a third who takes a leadership feat can get the same griffon cohort at ECL17!!!Evaine has one at ECL 7 with no special skills or heavy saving of GP. [Figurine] See also Bag of Tricks. On the plus side, X/week now has meaning in the 3WC. I have a small problem with Planar Allies impacting your XP/GP earned. It's a spell, just like SMII. Why should it impact your earnings?SMII does not cost XP and GP...that's RAW, not a CoCo houserule. Summon Planar Ally "chosen by deity" IMO the Thaumaturgist should get to choose his allies as a benefit of the class. That's the whole point. But the standard divine caster should not according to the RAW. I realize that having PLs do this is difficult and there's no handy random table provided, which makes this particularly annoying. [Then again, how many times would this have to be done across all fights?] Thus, I can definitely see house-ruling this as "PC choice" but that may be counter to the RAI as well as the RAW, whatever that is, and it might be making the spell over-powered. In TT D&D that XP penalty is a bad thing, in CoCo it is either good or neutral. So we would be removing 2 of the balancing drawbacks of the spell.
SauroGrenom 06-02-06, 06:01 PM	-Move action to "handle", Fullround action to "push" - Same alignment or Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per step - Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per additional diplomacy ally for all allies - You have to have the required knowledge value - Must speak the creatures native language All these suggestions by Cat are reasonable from a logical perspective, but they must also be considered in context of the game and how it is played. I like several of them and I’ll borrow them in building my version of the diplomacy skill allies. But some of them may become hard to implement. My suggestion is to start from a basis provided by the leadership feat. I hope to use the guidelines there as a basis to determine the potency and number of allies allowed by this skill. Of course these ideas below will not replace the CA rules, they only govern what you can get with this skill alone. Diplomacy Allies: A character may use the diplomacy skill to gain allies. The number and potency of those allies is determined by the character’s Diplomacy Coefficient. The Diplomacy Coefficient is equal to the character’s modifier on Diplomacy checks. The maximum number of diplomacy allies a character can have is equal to the character’s Charisma modifier. Any Diplomacy ally has a Diplomacy Cost. This cost is equal to 5+ #HD+CR(or ECL whichever is higher) and then further modified by any of the modifiers below. Diplomacy Cost modifiers: +2 Cost for each alignment step that character is different from ally after the 1st +2 Cost if character has another ally or familiar due to class feature, feat or skill +2 Cost if creature’s MM Organization entry lists nothing except Solitary -2 Cost if character is of the same type as the ally (plant or outsider…) -2 Cost if creatures MM Organization entry does not list Solitary -2 Cost if Character has Cha, Wis and Int scores higher than ally For example a Griffon has a Diplomacy Cost of 11=7HD+4CR. A character can acquire a Griffon as a Diplomacy ally if they have means to communicate with the Griffon and they have a +1 Charisma modifier and they have at least a +11 Diplomacy Coefficient. If a character wishes to acquire an advanced Griffon ally with 12HD then this creature as a Diplomacy Cost of 18=12HD+6CR. If a character has multiple allies the total Diplomacy Cost must not exceed the Diplomacy Coefficient, and the total number of allies must not exceed the Cha modifier of the character. As a character increases in ECL, his diplomacy allies do not advance automatically. (But we may want to introduce a special kind of quest where you can advance your allies as the guest goal.) Handle Animal Allies: A character may use the handle animal skill to gain allies. The number and potency of those allies is determined by the character’s Handle Animal Coefficient. This is equal to the character’s modifier on Handle Animal checks. The maximum number of allies a character can have is equal to the character’s Charisma modifier + Wisdom Modifier. Any Handle Animal ally has a Handle Animal Cost. This cost is equal to one half the number of hit dice plus the CR on the creature and then further modified by any of the modifiers below. Handle Animal Cost modifiers: +2 Cost if character has another ally or familiar due to class feature, feat or skill* +2 Cost if creature’s MM Organization entry lists nothing except Solitary +4 Cost for each size the creature is larger than you -2 Cost if character is of the same type as the ally (plant or outsider…) -2 Cost if creatures MM Organization entry does not list Solitary -2 Cost for each size the creature is smaller than you *if the creature entry lists the creature as having “pack” organization, then you can have multiple individual creatures without this penalty counting in the Cost of those creatures. For example if you wish to have a pack of 5 Wolves as Handle Animal Allies and you are medium in size, it would have a HA Cost of 10=5*((2/2)+1). Also your Charisma modifier and Wisdom modifier must sum to at least 5. If you were to add a cheetah as another ally it would increase the cost of each wolf by 2 for a total HA Cost of 20 for the pack and 5 for the cheetah. Questing for Allies: Any character who wishes to acquire an ally must mini-quest for the ally. The ECL of the mini-quest must be at least equal to the character’s own ECL (regardless of the ally’s ECL). On completing this mini-quest the character does not receive typical GP rewards. They receive the ally in place of gp rewards and receive normal xp rewards for the encounter. Optional Advanced Allies: Characters may quest to advance there Diplomacy or Handle Animal Allies by racial HD only. If the creature is fully advanced or cannot advance, you cannot advance your ally any further. A full quest is performed and the character may pay a cost of 1000xCR to advance the creature by 1HD. Multiple HD can be advanced in a single quest, but the cost is calculated as CR increases with increased HD. So the 4th HD will be calculated with an increased CR in the equation above. The gp cost to advance your ally is deducted from your gp reserves at the end of the quest after quest gp is awarded. Comparisons: So my idea is not a part of the line of thinking that we should create an action to “handle” diplomacy allies. Although that’s not necessarily a bad idea, I think it will be a mess to pitlord with that in place (too much grey area). Also writing tactics as to how to “handle” your allies can be messy as well. For example can you “Pre-Buff” to tell your Griffon to grapple when he gets into combat? He should have about the same intelligence as a child or perhaps some one with a Downs Syndrome. The Griffon can understand speech and can follow directions and observe his surroundings, so he should start grappling once he is in battle. However like any child he may also continue to directly follow instructions when it is not appropriate to do so any longer (Such as grappling the Barbarian with Spiked Armor instead of the Wizard casting spells a few feet away). Since speech is a free action, it should be simple to instruct your griffon to “grapple the one in robes” as soon as you spot the enemies without spending a move action. That is a simple instruction a child could understand. So placing limits on commanding a semi-intelligent ally is a foggy grey area in my mind. I think we will easily make some rules that don’t make sense. I think it is far easier to simply place costs and limits for acquiring allies with skills. Those limits and costs should be nicely scalable and the resulting allies should be comparable to allies gained by class features and Leadership. With my proposal you can get allies of a slightly higher ECL with diplomacy than you can get with Leadership at the same ECL of the character. However you get to level your Cohort for free, and your cohort has 25 point buy and you can fully customize the cohort’s feats. I suggest that we do not allow diplomacy and HA allies to be customized with the elite ability array or chosen feats or skills. If a character really wants to have a Griffon with Improved Grapple, then he can either buy one as a purchased ally or he can get a Diplomacy ally and advance the creature to take the feat at 9HD. This prohibition is necessary because we are currently giving these valuable and powerful benefits away for free to diplomacy and HA allies.
Book5 06-02-06, 09:41 PM	Well, what I am saying is that the confusion is the key. You can yell while running, attacking, jumping, or getting stuff out of your backpack. And! as we all know... YELLING can be distracting. Also "does the -10 for using diplomacy in combat apply to that diplomacy check?" well probably not but, nonetheless - why wouldn't it? Because! In the grand course of the CoCo we have determined there is simply no other way to consistantly adjucate the vageries of "Varies" enteries in the SRD (i.e. Bluff, "Action:"), we have set forth to make new rules.. for talking. How about this: Intimidating in combat "Yelling" : The "Handle" and "Push" actions from the Handle Animal skill can be used against allies and opponents of intelligence 3-12, however you must use your Intimidation ranks in place of Handle Animal ranks when determining your bonus. Handle rules are used for NPC's with Helpful, Friendly, and Nuetral (Ally) Attitudes towards you. Push rules are used for NPC's with Hostile, Friendly, and Nuetral (Opponent) Attitudes toward you. Handling or Pushing a target innapropriatly (of incorrect attitude) applies a +5 penalty to the DC. An opponent forced to act freindly by a non-combat intimidation check is still considered Hostile for this purpose. and then, Bluffing in combat "Talking" : You may communicate a message to another character via bluff as a free action in combat. You can Bluff all allies allies and opponents capable of hearing your voice. This Bluff is used to convey messages between two parties. This message can be overt or covert. A covert message must be "received" by the listeners via a Sense Motive check (see: Bluff, "Deliver a Secret Message:"), but an overt message needs simply succeed at a DC 10 to be understood by any listeners that can understand the language you are speaking. Before you can recieve an overt or covert message you must be certain you can hear and understand what is being said. To check your hearing you make a Listen check at a DC 10+Distance. If you heard the words clearly enough to understand them, you then check your known languages. If you can hear them clearly and you know the language they are speaking you recieve an overt message. As noted above you must make an additional Sense Motive check to correctly recieve a covert message. For Diplomacy we have a "free activity" ; Planning: Two or more characters of intelligence 7 or greater may participate in a "plan" - characters participating in a plan may communicate via Bluff at a reduced difficulty. The DC to Bluff information between characters involved in a plan is reduced by 5. Blah blah the plan thing is knda lame actually SO! I am going to pause right here, Cat - "No the diplomacy actions are not fine" - they are not core actions and should therefore be rigoursly and seriously defined. "Use skill for skill when xxx" is core. Using Bluff as a form of combat communication is core. Using Diplomacy "like handle animal" ..in combat and not applying the -10 modifier - I cannot more stongly discourage. It is counter-intuitive as well. Take a second walk with me. Open your eyes and see what I see. Me silly. :D @Sauro and Cat - The tables for the allies is looking good though. In diplomacy's defense - it is quick and it is easy to use that rule - it is however (rule of threes) not in alignment with the way the skill is used otherwise. So to speak "it ain't elegant." Diplomacy is the skill of "conversation" not command. The skill of "Public Speaking" even more than Perform (Oratory) .. Really, all Perform (Oratory) is ever gonna get you is a paltry amount of money! Diplomacy to the crowd however.... thats how armies get moving.. but not your party members.. not if they are in combat... Diplomacy is how you attract those who will be followers, settle legal battles, and reach complicated compromises, but when you speak shortly (speaking quickly - using blurts, bleets, and bluster) with one another you are using the Bluff and the Intimidate and the Performancy.. Fascinating(Sa)... Diplomancy only has functions for "large and complicated" almost performance-esqu behavior. Diplomacy has a "Minimum" 1 full round action requirment. "If you take less than a full minute you suffer -10 to the roll" the idea here is that you don't have time to be doing that kind of talking in combat. Bluff: Delivering a secret message? Nothing - no action at all. It is a not action. Feint - standard action. Demoralize - standard, distract to hide - move! .... can't you see?! Bluff has a "message" action listed already! "Secret message" just backspin that (reduce the DC) and you can have a "Not-Secret Message" action or da dah da'daAah! "Talking" Intimidate then comes in with the "Treating people like animals" that kinda "communication" that requires real deep breaths, "yelling," um.. insults, jokes (actually - diplomacy, intimidate, and perform (comedy) for telling jokes) and the like. Intimidation is intended to be used with "heated Discussions" and "terse directions" - the kind of wordings¬ you use when people's lives are on the line and you don't care about anyone "feelings" .... ALSO - and this is a big one Cat, You overestimate the ability of Int 7 minus have to "be persuaded." We are not talking about fascinate here - music does tame the savage beast.. Were not talking about any strong blooded human being in this room.. AND we don't have allot of Gorrilons to talk to about this either, IRL there are no Int3-7s. Now I wanna see you "diplomacy" a binobo gorrila (Int 3/4?) into doing what you say - in six seconds. Go! "...er..." Stop! Not much time is it? Don't know where to begin do you? Kinda complicated conceptually. Intimidate - Go! "Raaaaarrrr Shoo!" - Simple and totally within 6 seconds. With a "slow target" you have to "speak slower" you have to "use small words" and really - its the memory issue that drags you down to intimidation. DO IT! Just do it. You don't have to understand ... just do what I say! There is only so much you can say to a target that doesnt "get it" - because! you are resorting to diplomacy and intimidation. Nope I really think that this is so. Take for example a mentally deficient human. Int 5/6 or so. You cannot really "talk to these people" why? "they don't get it" you have to make them feel happy about you (diplomacy) then "push them" (intimidate or sometimes grapple) into an action that they may then enact with spite.. and there is the key - you know you just used Intimidation (instead of bluff or diplomacy..) when people get mad "at the way your speaking" - like the way drill sargents speak.. the way cops yell at criminals. In real life Intimidation is the "easy diplomacy" because the results are simpler and, most importantly, fast enough to do in the middle of a fight. Doing a Diplomacy skilll action should require you to take your time, and it does. Thats where the -10 comes into play. Diplomacy should not be handled.. the same as controlling animals. It is, if anything, conceptually the opposite. Man, stupid work - what can no one use a computer today or what? Havent had more than a minute to spare at any one time. Yeesh! Talk about distractions. Right so - I really don't think we should be adding these actions... no seriously - too much core cracking. If we look to the RAW we find two totally unsed skill action already in place waiting patiently to be used ... for just this purpose. Listen - its a DC 10+distance to "comprehend" the spoken word. For some character that means they have to lean in to hear what you are saying at all. There is your "did you catch that" dice roll. At worst you need to add a "Yelling" -10 to the listen DC modifier. Concentration: - Totally not used enough. Basically any action that provokes an attack of opportunity can be "distracted" - including shooting arrows. Retreiving certain items from you storage..... and the source of the distraction need not be spell, or attack alone! No! "...whenever you might potentially be distracted..." I include "yelling" in that category. Assuming anyone can hear you scream. :D
MindWandererB 06-03-06, 01:35 AM	If the goal is to have allies, and the rules surrounding them, fundamentally overshadow the PCs themselves, then we're going in the right direction here. What we have here is the combination of two things: 1) A benefit with no substantial cost. Skill points are a small cost at best. Questing is a non-cost. Making allies weaker is not a cost. Making other allies better does not create a cost. Languages are a negligible cost. Anything that maintains the XP/GP ratio is not a cost. Diplomacy allies are still nearly free. 2) An extremely complex system that will turn away all but the most dedicated players. The more house rules we add, the more daunting it is, and the fewer players will take advantage of it. These two things, put together, basically mean that only the players who are willing to put time and energy into mastering the ally rules will get a fair chance to win. What's more, allies make it exponentially more difficult to write tactics against, as well as more difficult to pitlord. No wonder all of Cat's Great Renown characters make full use of these allies--it's simply and purely to your detriment not to. When a feat, skill use, spell, or whatever in a D&D book is published that is so good, everyone will want to choose it, we have a word for it: broken. That's what we have here with the Diplomacy allies. Unless there are equally powerful options that you can choose for the same cost, it's too good. Right now, there is simply nothing better to do with your skill points than Diplomacy. Handle Animal is getting there--and with the "handle ally" rule, they'll be pretty comparable--but no other skill is as useful and as powerful. Even cross-class ranks in diplomacy can get you a fairly potent ally, eventually. And this is without allowing, say, a CR 4 Hound Archon. This is besides the fact that Diplomacy allies are perhaps the most artificial component of the CoCo aside from the guilds (which don't affect combat). The 1/3 rule is less artificial, since it's intended to emulate the real flow of a game. The magical all-terrain arena is less artificial, because it "summarizes" all the possible land terrains in a real game. Diplomacy allies don't have any parallel in a TT game, and don't seem to have any purpose other than to give the Diplomacy skill a function. I've argued before, and I'll say it again: if you want to make more skills useful, create new challenges, not new combat applications. You'll stay more true to the game that way, and have less risk of imbalance.
SauroGrenom 06-03-06, 11:09 AM	Book5, Perhaps it's just me, but I have always had some trouble understanding your posts. I can usually gather the main point, but your use of idioms, dependant clauses and branching lines of argument confuses me some times. So if I missunderstand you please forgive. It seams that your line of thought leads to creating a whole new set of rules that governs how a player and pitlord controls allies. To my mind this line of thought is folly. It complicates writing tactics and pitlording. Those are two things we want to avoid at all costs. So I think we should abandon the idea of creating new rules that describe in combat actions. Mindwanderer, I think your post is right-on in nearly every word. My suggestion a few posts back does address the major balance concernes you express without complicating combat in any way. It includes simple rules to govern how many, how powerfull and how expensive an ally should be. Furthermore it brings the potency of those allies in line with what you can get using leadership. Therefore it should be more balanced that what we use now. The HA and Diplomacy ally rules are a complete CoCo invention that diverges from the TT use of those skills. However we can make the potency and cost of the alllies gained in this way simular to the potency and cost of allies gain in other ways, and that should leave us with an artificial but balanced use of these skills. Also Cat did mention a while back that we should probably drop the xp penalty associated with allies. That will introduce a "cost" to having allies since it will distort the xp/gp ratio.
MindWandererB 06-03-06, 03:02 PM	Sauro, Sorry, I had to read your second-to-last post a couple of times to get the gist. My first take on it was that it was a massively complicated system, which is why I reacted the way I did. On second look, it's really no more complicated than what we currently use. Let me address this, though:However we can make the potency and cost of the alllies gained in this way simular to the potency and cost of allies gain in other ways,This is, unfortunately, impossible. There's no way to balance character creation costs (class levels, feats, etc.) with GP. The closest we can come is with an aproximation, probably a loose one at best. That's why allies are best dealt with by increasing EL--they function much like LA that way, which is a character creation cost. I think any solution that involved GP costs will take a long time in perfecting, and still ultimately be a bit clunky.
Book5 06-03-06, 05:35 PM	Book5, Perhaps it's just me, but I have always had some trouble understanding your posts. ... It complicates writing tactics and pitlording. Those are two things we want to avoid at all costs. So I think we should abandon the idea of creating new rules that describe in combat actions. In this case Sauro - read the sblock at the bottom for the "big reveal" :rolleyes: Me again with my flipmode style. I am being speculative - I am good at "making rules" - I nevertheless am unanimously in agreement with yourself and B... in that - there should not be additional rules for "commanding" allies in combat. It is not core - but Cat brought it up :P like the beltslots. AND Like the beltslots to allows me to highlight this fact. Listen DC to understand communication is 10+Distance ... Allot of the gladiators and NPCs that are running around here actually couldnt hear you talking from the distances in question. I remember one in particular (uhhh promethia? or the other one) One of Telins characters had a "direct elemental to x when x" fine grand.... I didn't feel like pushing it then - but that elemental couldnt hera him worth crackers. Like 40ft away ... low wisdom... techinically shouldnt have been able to happen.
MindWandererB 06-04-06, 03:29 AM	Listen DC to understand communication is 10+Distance ... Allot of the gladiators and NPCs that are running around here actually couldnt hear you talking from the distances in question. I remember one in particular (uhhh promethia? or the other one) One of Telins characters had a "direct elemental to x when x" fine grand.... I didn't feel like pushing it then - but that elemental couldnt hera him worth crackers. Like 40ft away ... low wisdom... techinically shouldnt have been able to happen.So you shout. No big deal. The problem is when someone wants to give orders and be stealthy at the same time--when I have to make a call on this one in my home games, I allow the PC to set the DC of the listen check, basically choosing how loud to speak--too high and they might be overheard, but too low and they might not be understood. Difficult given that the opponent has to meet a DC of 10 less (since they don't have to understand what's being said, they just have to detect the noise).
KerlanRayne 06-04-06, 03:57 AM	Listen DC to understand communication is 10+Distance ... Allot of the gladiators and NPCs that are running around here actually couldnt hear you talking from the distances in question. I remember one in particular (uhhh promethia? or the other one) One of Telins characters had a "direct elemental to x when x" fine grand.... I didn't feel like pushing it then - but that elemental couldnt hera him worth crackers. Like 40ft away ... low wisdom... techinically shouldnt have been able to happen.That's rediculous. That DC would be to overhear someone else's conversation. When ordering around allies, you are speaking louder than that. Spellcasting is listen DC of 0 + Distance and I thing people could get louder by yelling, say DC -10 + Distance. KerlanRayne
SauroGrenom 06-04-06, 12:29 PM	This is, unfortunately, impossible. There's no way to balance character creation costs (class levels, feats, etc.) with GP. The closest we can come is with an aproximation, probably a loose one at best. That's why allies are best dealt with by increasing EL--they function much like LA that way, which is a character creation cost. I think any solution that involved GP costs will take a long time in perfecting, and still ultimately be a bit clunky. The idea is not to make the cost and benefits of diplomacy allies precisely and perfectly balanced vs the costs and benefits of Leadership and Class Feature allies. As you so astutely pointed out recently, we have a "broaken" system when the benefits of allies gained by diplomacy are so good that they are better than all other allies and everyone will use them. My proposal carries costs beyond just gp costs. The benefits are different, but simular IMO. Let me summarize: Leadership: Cost: 1 Feat and ally penalty to gp (not xp) for each battle. Benefits: 1 Cohort of ECL-2 and a collection of allies. The Cohort levels automaticially as your character increases in level. The Cohort has 25 point buy stats, and it is fully customizable with regard to feats and skills. Cohort is intelligent and does not need to be commanded with any skill while in combat. Familiar: Cost: Class feature with 1 level in Sorcerer or Wizard Benefits: Tiny ally with minor combat effectiveness and a few special abilities making it usefull as a scout. Special abilities scale with increased class levels. Special Mount: Cost: 5 Levels in Paladin Class, must have ranks in Ride to use mount. Benefits: Mount ally with improved stats, HD, AC, Saves, Bonus Feat and shared spells. Special abilities and advancement by HD scale with increased class levels. Animal Companion: Cost: 1 Level in Druid or 4 Levels in Ranger, must be "handled" in combat. Benefits: Animal Ally with improved stats, HD, AC, Saves, Feats and other special magical abilities that scale with class levels. Diplomacy:(using my proposal above) Cost: Variable number of Skill ranks, gp cost of 1 encounter at your ECL to gain the ally, gp (not xp) penalty applied to all encounter rewards, and you are limited to a number of allies set by your Cha Modifier. Benefits: Intelligent ally from the list of eligable allies. Must be advanced by racial HD and must spend gp and questing time to advance the ally. (the campaign of CoCo limits you to 1 quest/ecl). Handle Animal: Cost: Variable number of Skill Ranks, gp cost of 1 encounter at your ECL to gain each ally, gp (not xp) penalty applied to all encounter rewards, and you are limited to a number of allies set by (Cha + Wis) modifiers. Benefits: Animal allies that must be "handled". Advanced allies can only be gained by questing to increase the HD (costing gp and time). As an example let's say that we take a Handle Animal Ally. Bob is a 8th level barbarian with a Cha of 12 and a Wisdom of 12. He has a good HA skill, so he has 8 ranks in that skill. He also has a MW whistle so his HA skill modifier is 11. Bob decides he wants to have a nice HA ally to help him in combat. So he get's a Brown Bear. This creature is CR4 and has 6 HD and is Large. So the HA cost of this animal is 4+3+4=11. So he can now quest to gain this ally spending 3400gp to gain this ally (then take time to train it). In further battles he must use a move action to command it, and he takes a penalty to all his gp rewards. Now let's take Fin a simular 8th level Druid. Fin can have the same Brown Bear Ally only Fin's ally cost no Skill points, cost no GP, can be commanded with a free action, will automaticially advance as Fin increases in level and it will not cost Fin any rewards. It looks like Fin's animal companion is somewhat better than Bob's HA ally. That's as it should be in my opinion. Bob is able to get a usefull ally, but it's not quite as good as the allies granted at the same level by class features. To my mind this is a balanced system. My equation in the proposal a few posts back has a basis in the stats and LA of creatures in the MM. Please look here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/toolsMonsterIndex.html) and click on the word "Level Adjustment". That is a list of all monsters in the SRD monster's manual. Clicking on the word will sort them by LA. You can quickly run down the list and see that in most (not all) cases LA is a near to the value of CR. So if I calculate HD+CR it should be near to the ECL of that creature. For animals, since they must be commanded with a move action and they are not intelligent and they do not have supernatural abilities, they are a bit weaker and the HD is divided by 2.
Ariel23 06-05-06, 10:16 AM	This may only be a minor cost/benefit, but some allies require a MQ while others don't. If you want to change your ally every fight [3WC], this might be a significant advantage. Thrall/Believer: Cost: 1 Feat and must use Expanded Knowledge or choose Telepathy as discipline and Mindlink as a power known; high CHA (16 at Thrallherd lvl 1); 12 skill points, 5 psionic manifester levels; counts against MaxCA, must provide equipment out of personal wealth to make ally effective in most cases. Benefits: 1 Thrall of ECL-1 [i][which therefore cannot be used] and a collection of allies [with CHA] . No ally penalty to gp or xp. The Thrall levels automaticially as your character increases in level. The Thrall has 25 point buy stats, and it is fully customizable with regard to feats and skills. Cohort is intelligent and does not need to be commanded with any skill while in combat. Thralls are never concerned with their master's reputation. The Thralls are the most difficult allies to obtain by far. Balanced with the costs, it is definitely the worst from a cost/benefit standpoint. What should be a great advantage is actually a huge disadvantage due to CoCo rules. A 6th lvl Thrallherd 1 with CHA 15 could spend 2 feats and 12 skill points and gain nothing under CoCo rules. In fact, a Thrallherd with good CHA and 4 ranks in Diplomacy (ex: a Telepath with 9 ranks) would be better off with a Diplomacy ally than his hard-earned class ally. Actually with a good CHA, Handle Animal is an option, as well. I would really like to see something done about the Thrallherd/Thrall while we are in the midst of overhauling the companion system. There is no "build" even at Epic Levels which would allow the Thrallherd to employ their Thrall in the CoCo. Suggestions: Thrall counts fully against allies [including Forgery] but is allowed at ECL-1. (I.e., the Thrallherd will have difficulty bringing in anything else, even with Forgery). Or Allow the Thrallherd (only) to raise their MaxCA with Forgery to bring in their Thrall. This would automatically add even more (cross-class) skill ranks or a feat onto the requirements for this class, but it's better than nothing. Or Let the Thrall take a level in Warrior or Expert (or an un-related class as per monster ECL) and count as ECL -1. Or Somehow the Thrall counts as an XP/GP penalty. [Not a true cost, but a Thrall shouldn't be one anyway since it's a class ally.] Or Let the Thrallherd lower his ally's HD. This is definitely the worst solution.
waywreth 06-05-06, 12:18 PM	This may only be a minor cost/benefit, but some allies require a MQ while others don't. If you want to change your ally every fight [3WC], this might be a significant advantage. Suggestions: Thrall counts fully against allies [including Forgery] but is allowed at ECL-1. (I.e., the Thrallherd will have difficulty bringing in anything else, even with Forgery). Or Allow the Thrallherd (only) to raise their MaxCA with Forgery to bring in their Thrall. This would automatically add even more (cross-class) skill ranks or a feat onto the requirements for this class, but it's better than nothin Loquan (the Arena's only active Thrallherd) has been using his Thrall in combination with Forgery with no complaints so far. As can be seen by his less than stellar win/loss record it is FAR from overpowering. I'm planning to retire him after one try at the 3FC, if he loses again, because he's annoying to audit, and is trying to do too many things not well.
Ariel23 06-05-06, 06:40 PM	But Forgery can't be used to raise the maximum CR of your allies, just how many you can bring in...?
Stormwind 06-06-06, 05:59 AM	But Forgery can't be used to raise the maximum CR of your allies, just how many you can bring in...? My understanding is that using Forgery on a single ally is a free activity. Since you can only do one free activity per fight, this means that you could bring, at most, one additional ally to a fight regardless of how high your forgery modifier actually is.
Caterane 06-06-06, 07:49 AM	My understanding is that using Forgery on a single ally is a free activity. Since you can only do one free activity per fight, this means that you could bring, at most, one additional ally to a fight regardless of how high your forgery modifier actually is. That is correct.
Ariel23 06-06-06, 01:02 PM	In no way can the character bring in a more powerful ally than his maxCA allows!! I don't see how this statement can be ambiguous. :confused: If nothing else makes it clear that the Ally/MaxCA/Forgery rules are not well understood, these last few posts should confirm it. ECL 7 Thrallherd MaxCA = 5 Thrall ECL 6* > ECL 5 = Thrall not allowed * At every level, your Thrall will be ECL -1 unless you have a 9 CHA. Thus the primary ability of the Thrallherd is nullified in CoCo. It is my understanding that an ECL 7 Thrallherd (MaxCA 5) could use Forgery +10 (-2 CA) to bring in: Five ECL 1 Believers but count them as only three for XP penalties Seven ECL 1 Believers Two ECL 2 Believers and three ECL 1 Believers One ECL 5 ally and an ECL 2 ally If an ECL 7 Thrallherd can use forgery to bring in an ECL 6 instead of an ECL 5, why not use Forgery +20 to bring in an ECL 9?
Ariel23 06-07-06, 01:19 AM	Too bad this post is going away in a week, as I've had some time to think about it and draft a response. Oh well, such is the fate of all words. I realize that the point of Sauro's post 2 weeks ago was to show that we will all never agree on anything. But, really, we agree on a lot of things in the abstract. What we will never agree on is the concrete methods we should use to achieve the abstract. This is why we have someone in charge: to make final decisions in the best interests of the community. Even when there is not a consensus. I view myself as an advisor; sometimes merely a philospher. When a topic merits discussion or my interest, I discuss it with He-Who-Rules. Once I have made my point, I support whatever the powers decide because it's important to have these decisions be made, and to move on. Even while I am asking for change or an examination of the rules, I am willing to abide by them. Asking questions about rules does not necessarily equate to dissatisfaction with rules. Asking questions may be a prelude to dissent...or to comprehension. In my case, questions often stem from simple curiosity or an immediate necessity. It is virtually impossible to improve any rule or system without knowing why the rule exists and what purpose it serves within the system. I think this understanding is fundamental to making changes...and knowing whether they must be made at all. For example, "Why does creating Magic Items cost XP?" is an excellent question. If you don't ask that question you might never realize that the rule is in fact achieving the opposite of its intended result. If I had to pick mission statements for my vision of CoCo they would be: Make Pitlording as fun as fighting. That's easier said than done. One way might be having all characters scripted sort of like mercenaries, then the PL and the dice get to determine most of the fight (along with the character builds). *shrug* If you know how to play TT D&D, then you should know how to play in the CoCo. And what you don't know, you should be able to find immediately. found.] The biggest need for the CoCo as I see it: All the rules in one place or instantly accessible from one place (hyperlinks). I can handle rules: whatever the rules may be, just make it so I can find them. Without asking. Make a "Rules II" thread that follows the PHB Table of Contents almost verbatim, with links to each chapter/subject. Then create a thread for each chapter. Create (reserve) a post for each sub-topic in that thread. [Example: "Skills" thread has 1 post for each Skill, which we then update periodically as rules and decisions are made. "Spells" has like 25 posts reserved for later explanation of issues such as Polymorph, Invisibility, etc] As you get time, go through and copy all old decisions into the appropriate place. If there is no approrpiate place, make a spot in Rules II, then create a thread for the issue, then link to it. Also do this for meta-game issues not covered in the PHB (DMG, MM, XPH) such as Weekly Character Actions, the Blackmarket, Guilds, and so forth. In the meantime, leave the Rules I, court decisions, ask an elder, etc, exactly as they are--they are just being duplicated and catalogued in separate locations in anticipation of Rules II being completed. This sounds like a big undertaking, but it's mostly organizational in nature--most of it may be accomplished by drafting an outline, and with copy + paste or {quote}, and not with a rules debate.
Book5 06-07-06, 02:30 AM	That's rediculous. That DC would be to overhear someone else's conversation. When ordering around allies, you are speaking louder than that. Spellcasting is listen DC of 0 + Distance and I thing people could get louder by yelling, say DC -10 + Distance. KerlanRayne Hmm, double check (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#listen) that first next time.. +10 DC to "comprehend" or some such rot. Which could be stated as "DC 10 +Distance to discern the spoken word." So, we have been giving that 10 DC away to the spellcraftng checks this entire time Mr. Rayne! Isn't that the most amazing thing? Thanks! :D
Book5 06-07-06, 02:33 AM	So you shout. ... I allow the PC to set the DC of the listen check Since when did "shouting" get in the SRD? This goes out to Kerlan as well. Thats a house presumption, not raw.
MindWandererB 06-07-06, 02:37 AM	Since when did "shouting" get in the SRD? This goes out to Kerlan as well. Thats a house presumption, not raw.Sometimes, common sense makes so much sense that you don't need a rule. This is one such time. Are you saying that in the magical world of D&D, no one is able to shout? Is there some pandemic plague of laryngitis? (Perhaps this plague has the special benefit of eliminating the need for sleep....)
Book5 06-07-06, 02:54 AM	Sometimes, common sense makes so much sense that you don't need a rule. This is one such time. Are you saying that in the magical world of D&D, no one is able to shout? Is there some pandemic plague of laryngitis? (Perhaps this plague has the special benefit of eliminating the need for sleep....) Actually.. why don't you test your "commen sense" B. Walk 20 ft accross the room and start shouting directions at another person on the computer. Like I dunno something complicated like how to set up a new administrative profile on a computer. Shouting is not actually an "effective" form of communication. Now do another experiment. Add two orcs swinging battleaxes to the room, in between you and your assitant on the computer. Now add the sound of burning wood and the rain, and the wind, and the sound of your own heart beating from the adrenalin that is pumping through your veins. No, B. I do not find your "sense" in this particular arena of dicussion "common" at all. Somewhat fanciful actually.. :bigeyes: if you want to start talking about adding actions into things again try this - run around the room while trying to shout directions at your assitant (with the orcs and rain inside stuff too). Now you are having problems breathing. Perhaps we should make it a standard action to shout. If you have the leadership feat you can shout for a move equivalent action. Remeber, what happens to you when someone YELLS!?! .. if you were actually going to make a new rule/action for "shouting" that is. Force a Concentration Check
MindWandererB 06-07-06, 03:12 AM	None of those things have anything to do with a person's ability to hear, except for the auditory noise. Yes, a fight going on will create background noise, and raise the DC with a circumstance modifier, but shouting loud enough will still be heard, and understood. If there were two orcs swinging battleaxes in the middle of a room, you better believe I'd shout to be heard. And it would work, too. Now, whether there's any effort involved in shouting, or what an individual person's ability to shout is (can the halfling wizard shout loud enough to be heard across a battlefield? How about a dragon?), is another issue. And one could, of course, come up with some kind of houserule for distraction (when you can physically hear someone, but weren't paying attention). None of that, however, limits a person's ability to shout, and be understood. I guess in your campaigns, there are no armies? Commanders have to shout for their troops to be able to hear them--the guy standing in the back of a phalanx isn't going to be able to make a DC 10 Listen check with that kind of range penalty, especially since he probably has a 10 Wis and no ranks. Nor are there any kind of public events--speeches, executions, etc. all require the speaker to talk more loudly to be heard. The Globe Theater is 100' across--does that mean that someone on the far side can't make out a single word of the plays? (Of course, a DC 10 check is absurd in other ways--that means that even if you're standing 5 feet away from someone, a person with a 10 Wis and no ranks will only understand half of what they say. Ridiculous.)
Book5 06-07-06, 03:40 AM	I guess in your campaigns, there are no armies? Actually in my campaings shouting deals damage, but that is beside the point and entirley outside of the coco, and yes they do have to shout. They have bull horns, and runners, and drummers. Do you know what a "drummer" does in a war? He gives field commands because a drum is easier to hear and simpler to distinguish than screamed words. What subfunction are you assuming for "misspeaking" - none, me? - I presume that vagerie is part of the listen check. (Its all quantum factoring) I do that here because there is no "shout check" in the SRD. Furthermore - presuming a shout check only lessens or sets the DC for your listen check, were you to use a "shout" check. We could go buck wild and use one of my "common sense" rules - "Listen Class" like movement and defense - You don't roll your listen - you add 10 to your wis and listen ranks and that determines the distance you can hear clearly, an additional ten feet around the circumfrence sets the "notice sound" area. Sounds are given radius based on the listen check table and when your listen radius intersects with the sound radius - you hear it. I am being sarcastic about that listen class thing. @Cat - honestly if you want to add a "command" action - make it trigger a concentration check. Even if its your ally. Getting yelled at is disturbing regardless of the reason.
Ariel23 06-08-06, 09:05 PM	Since we are trying to make TT D&D skills useful, I would like to point out that Profession and Craft are essentially worthless in TT D&D but actually pretty useful to the arena. Perform is great for bards...worthless for everyone else. Sleight of Hand is obviously good (but dangerous) in TT D&D. Survival, is definitely a bona fide skill in TT D&D, and useless in the arena. I was thinking that if you went hunting, trapping, and fishing you could probably make as much as someone weaving baskets (or someone with Profession: Hunter). For the time being, it would make sense to add Survival as a money-making skill. This would require no extra thought or special house rules--simply add the word "Survival" along with the other skills. Whether or not a "real" use for this skill may be found is to be determined...
Book5 06-08-06, 09:34 PM	I'd like to see survival added to that list and Slight of Hand taken off. Slight of Hand is perfectly useful in the arena.. just nobody uses it. :rolleyes: Heck! The only time Tan really won - was because of slight of hand.
TelinArtho 06-08-06, 09:48 PM	Survival actually does make appearances in quests and miniquests from time to time - and I do encourage questlords to bring in different types of encounters - particularly weather challenges.
Stormwind 06-09-06, 03:37 AM	Perform is great for bards...worthless for everyone else. This is not quite true. The feat cloak dance (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/psionicFeats.html#cloak-dance) requires 2 ranks in perform, and is a great feat for stealth based characters. Of course there is no reason to take more than 2 ranks in perform in this case.
Myrridin 06-09-06, 09:12 AM	Survival played a pretty decent part in my Campaign. It allowed the party to track someone who'd been kidnapped, and found the dark naga. I'm a big fan of making skills that aren't all that common in the Arena used in campaigns and quests. Makes so that you have to have a more well rounded character than Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Spell/Psicraft, Concentration...maybe Ride.
Caterane 06-09-06, 09:39 AM	I've been discussing a new Add-On I have in mind since the beginning of LG. It's called Living Characters and is about the implementation of a complete social setting next to the combat setting we have now. It is still in its children shoes but at one point in the (distant) future I'd like to have this social setting become reality and replace the skill uses we came up with now. The main problem with the development of a social setting is to find a way to engage the human player in a playful and competitive way that requires his or her own abilities. Just like it's your (strategical) ability when you write a tactic, it should be your ability to make a successful social character. So far, we have only some sketches. I have posted a first draft some months ago called 'Economy Add-On' (the thing with the titles and land grants) and recently, Sauro and I have developed it further (and improved it!) but the core - the success based on both player ability and luck - is still missing.
MindWandererB 06-09-06, 03:09 PM	Cat, I think that's a great idea. Two comments: 1) Wait. Please. We're just finishing a hiatus and we're embarking on perhaps the biggest change to the rules since Living Gladius started (3FC), in addition to the expendables cap and the random arenas. We'll also have guild conflicts opening up in, what, six weeks? Plus there's likely going to be changes in the ally rules. We can think about this as happening in the somewhat distant future, but please, let it sit on the back shelf for a while. We're just going through too much these days. 2) If we have semi-concrete plans to give social skills an application in the future, Diplomacy needs to be reconsidered completely. There's already some debate about whether Diplomacy allies are fair, and most folks think they need a nerf; Diplomacy is definitely overpowered if it gives you a substantial combat bonus and is central to winning another type of challenge. It becomes a must-have skill at that point.
Caterane 06-09-06, 03:59 PM	As said: distant future. Definately not this year.
Book5 06-10-06, 04:14 PM	The thing that really makes me worried about the idea of a social arena s that - there is no timing sequence for social rolls. They all seem to just be rolled all at once over a "normal communication" however you want to define that. I call it diplomacy. If you notice bluff and intimidate are taken as "part of normal communication" whereas Diplomacy is not. This breadcrumb leads me to consider the action of diplomacy .. the action of normal communication. Something allot of people do (which is wrong) is roll a diplomacy check, then a bluff check, then another diplomacy check, then another diplomacy check, and another bluff (mixing sense motives in here for the reactions) and all in for the goal of having one normal conversation. Like, :nonono: I have done it myself! I have had somebody roll their "talk skill" five times in the span of one conversation... but that aint the way its written down. At least this is my current opinion. I think - and I may be wrong here - but I think the rule is intended thusly: One roll per skill per conversation. A conversation being a specific thing - and the requisite action for a diplomacy check. I believe - even a one sided conversation is nonetheless a converstation. The thing is - that means for the entire conversation you get one check. The entire bartering scenario - one check. It says "at least" but at this point that is open to being an hour. Furthermore - what if you want to make bluff with diplomacy, or intimidate within a diplomacy. You can sense motive while you diplomacy - perhaps ... or you should. You can even tell jokes while you diplomacy and that is an entirely different skill altogether! What I am saying is that the "Action" of Perform (Comedy) is a joke. A whole joke. Of varying leangths short or long. Quick quips or Tall Tale'tastrophies.. one check. Same way with diplomacy - the action is "a conversation" short long, rushed :rolleyes: or otherwise - there is only one check per event. This is one of the reason I am so against using diplomacy as a command skill. I think it works great as a leadership skill - because its the skill of being comfortable and comforting in conversations. Bluff is about motivation. Intimidate about dominance. You can be motivating in less than a minute. You can be dominate for a second, and while you can make a diplomatic statement.. thats usually part of a Performance (acting). Think about Profession though! One roll a week!? Wait! What if you want to "talk shop" can you have a conversation with craft? profession? I think you should be able to. However there is no skill for it. Instead I have (when sticking to raw) taken to forcing diplomacy check...for every conversation. Basically - every time you have a conversation - that is a diplomacy action. Just like any movement is technically accessing the Balance function. Every time you take a step your feet might slip, and every you open your mouth you might put your foot init. Dislaimer: Just something to think about.
Caterane 06-12-06, 03:06 PM	Let's try to finish our work on the topics. Imbalance of xp/gp: The reasons for Usurpator's approach and his solution has been discussed and is widely accepted. I'll add it to the boards as soon as the new ones are running. However, I need a volunteer who finishes Usurpator's code table of the XP/GP ratio. Here's what he did so far: Your ------------------------------ Opponent's ECL/CR ------------------------------- ECL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1-3 300/300 600/600 900/900 1,350/1350 1,800/1,800 2,700/2,700 4 300/300 600/600 800/800 1,200/1,200 1,600/1,600 2,400/2,400 5 300/320 500/533 750/800 1,000/1,067 1,500/1,600 2,250/2,400 6 300/333 450/500 600/667 900/1,000 1,200/1,333 1,800/2,000 Offer 1° for this work! Inter-League Fights: The Inter-League fights we saw so far showed that ECL+ECL vs ECL+2 is a balanced setup for a fight so I think we can add these to the rules. It might be necessary to adept it beyond level 10 because there the difference is not that significant anymore. We'll see. I'd also like to find out about 3 vs 1 fights in the near future. Thaumaturg's Improved Ally ability: My suggestions were all received positively so we can add that too. Expand Nimbus: With the +33% bonus for Quests and Campaigns gone, what do you think about expanding the Nimbus? Craft Prerequisites: If you want to craft a skill item, you always have to have as many ranks as the bonus on the item. For other custom items, logical requirements need to be found on a case by case basis. The decision is up to me but the player can propose requirements when asking for the item in the blackmarket. Banned Spell(s): True Mindswitch is banned because it allows for permanent forms beyond anything you should get. Polymorph any Object needs to be looked at aswell. Ally Nerf: We drop the xp loss from bringing in allies and we have a great formula for ally costs. They will now damage you economically. Also, if your ally dies in Fight 1 you won't regain it until the cycle is complete. Diplomacy Allies: Simply put: they're too powerful for the cheap investment. There've been some good suggestions on how to deal with these allies. - Move action to "handle", Fullround action to "push" - Same alignment or Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per step - Diplomacy DC increases by 2 per additional ally for all diplomacy allies - You have to have the required knowledge value - Must speak the creatures native language An alternative is Sauro's proposal. Advanced Allies: Either we say the CR increases as soon as you go beyond the threshhold (eg, if CR increases by 1 per 3 HD, then the CR already increases with the first HD) or we only allow advancement up to the next threshhold. Note to myself: Mark Formian Worker, Grick, Rast, Remorhaz, Tendriculous, Udoroot, and Thoqqua. They can only be gained if access to telepathy.
TelinArtho 06-12-06, 03:20 PM	@Cat - I disagree that the thaumaturge allies suggestions were received positively. They are still vastly more expensive than mercs and since they only last 1-3 fights when prebuffed - have no way to compete against diplomacy allies (where many of the same creatures are available). EDIT: Here's the quick comparison of cost vs mercs When compared with the cost of mercenaries, they are somewhat close: 1HD/1st level - 125gp vs 100gp 2HD/2nd level - 250gp vs 200gp 3HD/3rd level - 375gp vs 300gp 4HD/4th level - 500gp vs 400gp 5HD/5th level - 625gp vs 533gp 6HD/6th level - 750gp vs 666gp However, since HD is not level - the breakdown isn't so clear. A 6HD, CR3 Howler will cost 750gp vs the 300gp of a level 3 merc. On the other side of the equation, a 3HD, CR5 Ravid will cost 375gp vs 533gp of a level 5 merc. Of course, if you are not a thaumaturgist - the prices are simply out of the question. But the real "problem" is the investment. For a thaumaturgist to get the better price, he has to succeed at a diplomacy check of DC 20 (same alignment), 30 (one step), or 40 (2 steps). Realistically, the cleric needs to invest a good number of skill points and money in order to cover the take 10 rule here - unless they limit themselves to the 1-2 creatures that are of the exact same alignment. The thaumaturgist also needs a means to communicate with the ally - which further constrains his skill points. And remember - this is to gain the ally from 1-3 fights (1 hour/CL). In all likelihood, for the current arena fights - that'll be 1-2 fights maximum. Compare this cost with the diplomacy allies and we see that the thaumaturgist allies are way too expensive. A Diplomacy ally requires a good number of skill points in diplomacy, knowledge and sometimes in speak language - but lasts effectively forever AND costs nothing (in comparison) per fight. While the thaumaturge allies opens up some doors - it ends up being an extremely costly expendable that you must prebuff with. To review: Lvl 8 N Cleric 8 casting LPA for a CR 3 6HD Crysmal. Needs some method to communicate (terran) and 1500gp and 4 spell slots used. Gains ally for 8 hours (1-3 fights) Lvl 8 N Cleric 7/Thau 1 casting LPA for a CR3 6HD Crysmal, Needs +20 diplomacy and some method to communicate (terran) and 750gp and 4 spell slots used. Gains ally for 8 hours (1-3 fights) Lvl 8 N Cleric 8 with diplomacy ally: Crysmal. Needs +16 diplomacy and native language (terran) and +6 knowledge (the planes). Gains ally for all fights.
bluemage55 06-12-06, 03:35 PM	Banned Spell(s): True Mindswitch is banned because it allows for permanent forms beyond anything you should get. Polymorph any Object needs to be looked at aswell. I'd like to point out that polymorph any object is far weaker, considering that it can simply be dispelled.
Ariel23 06-12-06, 03:51 PM	I am fairly [read: completely] ignorant about Cat's vision for a social arena. But I think he means an RP-oriented community with level-up options other than killing. I doubt that it is a Diplomacy check-based achievement structure, any more than the current arena consists of whoever rolls the best on the most attack rolls wins. But I do understand your point about rolling so many diplomacy checks. I suppose that's a matter of taste for the DM and players to decide as they "collaborate" at the table: If you like rolling dice, like to improvise story/events from successes and failures of said dice-- moreso than the actions of the players themselves--and prefer an environment where every encounter have completely unpredictable results, then more rolling = better. Some DM's are like that. Usually, the difficulty of a DC is the threshhold necessary to achieve a desirable result, as determined by the DM or the RAW. But I have seen several DM's, games, and situations where the DC is really "let's find out if you fail." Half empty, half full, I guess. IMO, I like to see a lot of Bluff/Diplomacy rolls simply because the success (or tragic failure) of an adventure can hinge on role-play (and roll-play). In some cases, rolling a 1 on a dip/bluff/intimidate check can lead to a total party kill more quickly than any failed roll in combat. What this means is that even for the robotic hack-n-slash min-max crowd, a low CHA can be a bad thing. Having a 24 STR with power attack and cleave will only get you so far when you insult the city guard. A lot of what you give as examples of infinite skill checks are 'skills' that are covered by the RAW when it says that there are lots of routine things you do on a daily basis that don't involve checks. Even if you wanted to have a Balance check for every step of your character's life, the DC would be -5 or something, so you still wouldn't be rolling them 99% of them time, since a "1" does not automatically fail. There is no DC for "talking shop" for one Crafter to another. Why would you need to set a difficulty for that? If you want to talk about your job, what is the threshold for failure? If you are trying to indefinitely influence their attitude, then the DM could give a synergy bonus from Craft to Diplomacy, since that is the appropriate skill. [Because Diplomacy doesn't have enough synergy bonuses already. :) ] If you only want to affect them for 1 round, then you use Bluff in the same way. I don't know what field you work in (I'm guessing something involving code or databases) but I certainly am not going to be swayed by anyone based solely on their technical proficiency in their/my field. Some people who know a lot about things at work also happen to be intolerable jerks. I'm more likely to bend over backwards for the really nice new guy who doesn't know anything about the job. Or the secretary who doesn't even have the same Craft/Profession as me. You could roll an Epic DC with your Profession and I still wouldn't fetch your coffee. Almost all interaction needs an outcome, but this doesn't mean it needs to be a random one. Edit: Diplomacy and other social skill checks was my biggest gripe with 3rd edition (from previous editions). Making role-play (as in talking) mechanical is a bad thing. Or at least I thought so. But the groups I have played with have been pretty good about trying to convince NPCs with words, rather than "I rolled a 27. Is he my friend now?" The rolls are usually secondary and often the DM has made up his/her mind about whether the speech succeeded.
Caterane 06-12-06, 03:57 PM	@Telin: The PHB set the prices. I just applied the "non-dangerous task" which halfs the price.
TelinArtho 06-12-06, 04:05 PM	I realize the PHB set the prices for the planar ally spells. What I am saying is that, in light of our current rules set - which is extended beyond the PHB, planar allies through the spell will always be much more expensive than a diplomacy ally of the same type. Diplomacy allies might take more skill points (the exception is when the difference is 2 steps in alignment - +30 in diplomacy for any HD amount vs +14+HD diplomacy +HD in knowledge), but since they last indefinitely AND don't cost anything on a per fight basis (anything in addition to the regular cost for all allies anyway), they are always a better choice. Just realized I made a mistake in my previous post - editting the diplomacy values in my example given to reflect the correct info (1 alignment step difference).
SauroGrenom 06-12-06, 05:05 PM	I'd like to point out that polymorph any object is far weaker, considering that it can simply be dispelled. True, but that fact is of zero signifigance unless you are a caster with sufficient caster level to dispell the effect. Take the Gargoyle as an example. You can be ECL15 playing a Gargoyle Fighter with 4 racial HD and 6 class levels. Or you can play as a 15th level human fighter permanently polymorphed into a gargoyle form. Now if your polymorphed human is in a fight with the natural gargoyle, who will win? Obviously the Human has spent a few gp to buy spell casting services, so the gargoyle will have a bit more money, but the gargoyle is down by 5 HD, and looses out on about 6 feats and +5 BAB and better saves and skill points. The only combat relevant aspect of the Gargoyle race that is not transfered by the spell is the damage reduction 10/magic. And that's not very relevant at this ecl where every weapon is magical. If the human were to try and buy magical items to grant the same benefits as the gargolye form, he would spend a great deal of money. I guess that it would be about 500,000gp to get fly 60, +8con,+4dex,+4Str,darkvision,+4natural-armor,3 natural attacks and various racial skill bonuses. To get all that for just a 8th level spell casting service is too much even if you only have it for a few battles before it is dispelled. Polymorph any object is a very powerfull spell even without the ability to grant permanent racial ability scores and natural armor and extrordinary abilities and natural attack forms and flight. Those aspects of a race always carry a LA when acquired in a normal way. To give them away for a few thousand gp spell casting service is a tremendous combat advantage. Even if it can be dispelled, that won't be fare to non spell casting characters who cannot dispell it. Also I'd like to point out that all other spells which permanently change a character cost xp. PAO does not cost xp. Look at Wish, attonement and true mind switch. Each of these is a spell that has the capacity to permanently alter a character and the use of the spell carries a xp cost. So I do not believe that the designers of the game thought that this spell was priced accordingly to permanently transform everyone in the party into new and radicially more powerfull forms. I don't think PAO should be banned compleately, because it has a number of other very usefull and balanced effects. It has offensive uses and it can mimic (at a higher level) several other polymorph like spells. However IMO the level and cost of using this spell are not high enough to permanently grant advantages that typicially cost LA to accomplish. So the use of the spell to gain a permanent new race should be banned. (and only this use of the spell) If you can transform into outsider forms the benefits you can gain at any given HD get rediculious. A few thousand gp and a few credits and you can be fighting at ECL10 with ability scores, extrordinary abilities, natural armor and flight that you would normally be required to pay +5 or so LA to gain with a race. Imagine having all the benefits of +5 LA race, but not being required to actually fight at a higher ECL. Using PAO to permanently gain a new form that usually costs LA to use, is a loophole that is nearly identical to what True Mind Switch can do. If we are willing to ban True Mind Switch (which is a 9th level telepath only power costing 10,000xp per use) then we should be very willing to ban a simular spell of lower level with no xp cost to use for the same effect. The two spells produce exactially the same problem with balance. The only difference is that the lower level spell can be dispelled by those few characters with the necessary CL and the proper memorized spell. To my mind that is not a serious dissadvantage that should allow you to basicially gain the benefits of a powerfull race without paying the LA.
Pittbull 06-12-06, 05:20 PM	I think we should ban PaO as spell-caster-service, since we will a problem in higher levels with it. Please don't forget, that a caster needs allready an apropiate knowledge-skill to change to a certain form, so only specialized builds will be able to you it's full power. To ban the permanent duration, might be a solution, but I personally dislike it. Especially because I build a character around this option. But where do you want stop decreasing the power of certain spells? Mage's disjunction is very powerful too? PaO doesn't make a wizard more stronger, he has many other ways to be invincible. Making PaO weaker only hits the clerics with the trickery domain.
Caterane 06-12-06, 06:10 PM	I'm also against banning it. Polymorph any Object is more or less the same like Polymorph which is in frequent use and generally accepted (incl our modifications with knowledge). The secondary uses (flesh to stone) and the permanent duration are well within the difference of 4 full spell levels compared to the regular polymorph. So if you are a caster who has invested 15 caster levels, then making polymorph permanent through an 8th level spell is no more unbalancing than using a standard action and a 4th level slot (or quickened polymorph at... 8th level ;) ). The problem is with those who do not have access to 8th level spells. A fighter just cannot produce the power of 15 CL but the Spellcasting Service allows for it. Thus, we should remove PaO from the list of available spells on the marketplace. By spending credits and some gold, you can also access such power long before you reach the appropriate level. An easy CL check is all you have to do and if you pass, you gain the the full benefits permanently. So banning PaO scrolls would be a solution. As Sauro said, it is a spell that should rather fall into epic ranges just as polymorph should have some official restrictions (like we did) and move up 2 spell levels. This is a mistake the designers made and the current trend seems to indicate that they're aware of that and won't repeat it in a 4th Edition should it ever come. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of banning anything and will always see it as the very last option. Sauro made another proposal by email which is about assigning a LA to PaO. It might be a way to leave PaO open but the LA would always be arbitrary. For an Erinyes, for example, he suggested a +5 LA (because not all abilities are transfered). So if Barthleby would PaO into such a creature, he would move up 5 levels instantly (which might very well be in line with what the spell grants Barthleby).
SauroGrenom 06-12-06, 06:23 PM	I think we should ban PaO as spell-caster-service, since we will a problem in higher levels with it. Please don't forget, that a caster needs allready an apropiate knowledge-skill to change to a certain form, so only specialized builds will be able to you it's full power. To ban the permanent duration, might be a solution, but I personally dislike it. Especially because I build a character around this option. But where do you want stop decreasing the power of certain spells? Mage's disjunction is very powerful too? PaO doesn't make a wizard more stronger, he has many other ways to be invincible. Making PaO weaker only hits the clerics with the trickery domain.I'm not suggesting that this use of the spell should be banned because it's too powerfull. Rather I don't like that it is a "cheap" way to get something that can be had in a different way. All the benifits of PAO are coppied from a race that has a LA. By using this spell you are defeating the LA requirements to get the same benefits. This is in effect a special cheat that allows you to get very powerfull benefits at no cost. Being a CL15 wizard with ranks in knowlege is not a cost. You are CL15 anyway because you are a wizard, and you have ranks in knowlege (class skill) anyway because you like to polymorph. A cleric with the trickery domain can get the same at a very minor cost. Effectively the cleric pays 1 cross class skill point per level and some gp for a knowlege item to get the benefits of LA for free. If I had the option I'd do that with all my characters. Also I don't think it is a solution to place some kinds of limits on who can use the spell short of a ban of the use for a permanent form. If it is possible for someone to cheat the system and get racial benefits without LA, then it is a problem that should be stopped regardless of how many people are using it. A loophole is a loophole, if 50 people or just 2 people use it, it is always a loophole. PAO is much like polymorph in effect, but the differences are critical. It allows you to have a very very powerfull effect in play without being required to cast the spell in combat. That is a problem for me. There is no need to memorize the spell for each battle, there is no chance to counterspell it or to disrupt casting, and you do not need to spend the standard action to get the desired effect. I don't have a general problem with spells that are powerfull. The issue is spells that permanently modify a character's abilities and carry no real cost to a CoCo character. There are only a few spells that do this. At some point when wizards make it to CL17, we may have an issue with people casting wish to gain inherent bonuses on every ability score and staying at a lower ECL while becoming more powerfull. We may also have an issue with some characters using the Permanency spell to drain themselves of xp and gain a host of usefull magical augmentations for themselves while remaining at artificially low ECL (as wealth continues to climb since they become more powerfull and continue to fight at the same ECL). Infact I would have no problems with PAO if the characters were required to take the LA of the form they adopt. So if your character uses PAO to become a Gargoyle, and he accepts a +5LA as long as the form persists. That would be OK by me. I just don't think you should get a whole lot of combat benefits without paying the cost that is normally associated with those benefits.
SauroGrenom 06-12-06, 06:35 PM	Let me compare and contrast Cat's Diplomacy Allies and Advanced Allies Proposal above with my own. Diplomacy Requirements to get an ally: Cat-Proper Language Skill Cat-Proper Knowlege Ranks of correct type Cat-High enough Diplomacy skill to handle the required DC for that creature of that alignment and with the given number of allies you have. Sauro-Proper Language skill Sauro-High enough Diplomacy skill to cover the Diplomacy Cost of that ally (cost is modified by alignment, type, advancement ...) Limits on how powerfull your ally can be: Cat- Set by the CR of the creature and your MaxCA Sauro- Diplomacy Cost scales with the HD and CR (or ECL) of the ally, you must have sufficient Diplomacy to pay the Diplomacy Cost of the ally Cost of Having an Ally: Cat-gp penalty applied to winnings Sauro-gp penalty applied to winnings Sauro-surrender 1 fight's winnings to acquire the ally (the ally is the reward of the fight) Advancing an Ally: Cat-Acquire advanced allies as the miniquest to gain the ally with no future advancement allowed. Continue to use CR to limit ally potency but change it so that +1-3HD is +1CR and so on. Sauro-quest to advance the ally spending 1000xCR in gp to advance each HD (calculate each one at a time so as CR increases so does cost) Sauro-Elite array is banned for diplomacy allies. Sauro- Modified skills/feats are not allowed except with advanced HD. Effects in Combat for Tactics and Pitlording: Cat-New Combat actions to control the allies Sauro-none Effects on number of allies you can have on the battle or on your sheet: Cat- Alllies on the sheet are limited only by the skills needed to acquire all the allies Cat- Allies in a battle are limited by the MaxCA you can bring into a battle Sauro- Allies on the sheet are limited by the total Diplomacy Cost of all the allies and your Diplomacy score Sauro- Allies in a battle are limited by the MaxCA you can bring to a battle as an upper maximum (must also meet diplomacy cost) The key points that I tried to integrate and that are not included in Cat's proposal are: 1 The ally system should be "Player Heavy" in its setup. That is instead of "Pitlord Heavy". I want all the rules to be excluded from the battles, and they should be figured out by the player on his own time. No new rules for pitlrods to follow. 2 The acquision of an ally should be a financial commitment as well as a commitment of your character to a miniquest and a few skill points. This prevents people from gaining different allies at no additional cost for each ECL just because the new ally is not as usefull anymore. There is a gp investment in each ally, so you are inclined to choose carefully and make the best use of your allies (like how you treat a Cohort or class feature ally). 3 As character's level they should be able to bring their allies with them by advancing the ally gradually. Cohorts get this for free, but diplomacy allies shouldn't get it for free. So a gradual cost of gp is reasonable to "upgrade" your ally. 4 The growth of an advanced ally's power should scale with HD not just CR. CR grows too slowly. This becomes obvious at higher levels. For example a Gargoyle advanced with +8HD is only CR7, while it is an ECL17 Cohort. So the same creature is a Cohort at ECL19 and a regular ally at ECL11. By making a "Diplomacy Cost" I can still allow the creature (not elite) at ECL11, but the character must have a diplomacy skill of +24 and must spend a miniquest to gain the ally then a full quest and 44,000gp to advance it. So this highly overpowered ally at ECL11 is not likely to be available untill about ECL14 when the character can get a high diplomacy and enough spare gp (33% of his total wealth) to advance his ally. 5 There should be a natural limit on the number of allies you can have on your sheet. Perhaps you are very diplomatic, but at some point you will have trouble keeping all the "followers" happy to be around. This natural limit is integrated into Diplomacy Cost. 6 The whole diplomacy ally system should be an alternative way for some characters to gain allies simular to cohorts and class feature allies. The potency of this ally should be reasonable and should scale with the increased ECL in a way simular to the increased potency of other allies. Since these characters are investing skill points instead of class levels or feats, the ally should carry a different set of costs. I chose higher gp costs and lower flexibility, but you get a slightly more powerfull ally at the same ECL.
SauroGrenom 06-12-06, 08:02 PM	I'm also against banning it. Polymorph any Object is more or less the same like Polymorph which is in frequent use and generally accepted (incl our modifications with knowledge). The secondary uses (flesh to stone) and the permanent duration are well within the difference of 4 full spell levels compared to the regular polymorph. So if you are a caster who has invested 15 caster levels, then making polymorph permanent through an 8th level spell is no more unbalancing than using a standard action and a 4th level slot (or quickened polymorph at... 8th level ;) ). Well I ask that we first remember that there is no question that True Mind Switch needs to be banned. When I suggested it to you in an email, and described what I could do with it you agreed right away that it needed to be banned. So with that in mind, we should compare True Mind Switch with Polymorph any Object. True Mind Switch (TMS): 9th level power - must be CL17 to manifest this power Telepath discipline power - must be CL17 Telepath to manifest this power 10,000xp cost - This is the highest non-epic xp cost for any spell New form must have HD equal to or less than ML Victim must fail the will save Must penetrate SR of victim (basicially you must defeat an example of the creature you wish to become) Costs you a permanent lost of Level if your previous body dies Cannot be dispelled Polymorph any Object (PAO): 8th level wizard/sorcerer spell - Must be CL15 Arcane caster to cast the spell Can be used to cast Heightened versions of 7 other spells in this slot New form must have HD equal to or less than CL No save when used to permanently alter willing subject No need to defeat SR when used to permanently alter willing subject (subject can lower SR) No XP cost Available to any arcane caster (not just a small subset of them) No need to find and defeat an example of the form you desire to take No level loss at any time Can be dispelled By making this direct comparison we see that TMS is much harder to qualify to cast. You must be a higher level and have a higher inteligence score and you must be telepath (a subset of psions). Also TMS carries a greater cost to cast the spell, and TMS carries a far greater chance of failure when casting it since you must effectively defeat the creature you wish to become. Furthermore TMS is likely to carry a level loss with the manifestation of the power. None of these limits exist on PAO. Instead PAO is a lower level spell with lower cost and it is available to more character classes and it can be used to mimic a hightened version of 7 other spells (at least 2 of those are offensive). In all dimensions but one (the ability to dispell it) PAO is more powerfull that TMS. I am having real trouble understanding why TMS can be banned with no argument, while PAO has greater potential for abuse at lower cost to a character and there is reluctance to ban its use in this way. Sauro made another proposal by email which is about assigning a LA to PaO. It might be a way to leave PaO open but the LA would always be arbitrary. For an Erinyes, for example, he suggested a +5 LA (because not all abilities are transfered). So if Barthleby would PaO into such a creature, he would move up 5 levels instantly (which might very well be in line with what the spell grants Barthleby). If there is general reluctance to ban anything at all, then I think this is the only way to allow these kinds of spells/powers and maintain any spectre of balance as they become availalbe to use. BTW if you allow PAO then you should also allow TMS with the same restrictions.
Traevanon 06-12-06, 10:21 PM	It might be posited that by the time characters hit 15th level they are beyond the scope of what arena combat can simulate anyhow.
Pittbull 06-13-06, 02:30 AM	I like Sauro's camparison of the two powers/spells. TMS should not be banned either, the resitrictions are fair enough. If you really want, I'll be OK with the artificial LA-rule, but I really don't like it. But what do you want to do, if a druid casts shapechange in a fight? He'll gets everything from his new form then or isn't this spell broken? Edit: If we forbid scrolls of PaO, why don't forbid scrolls of certain levels at all, for example all above level 6?
MindWandererB 06-13-06, 03:34 AM	Ally Nerf: We drop the xp loss from bringing in allies and we have a great formula for ally costs. They will now damage you economically. Also, if your ally dies in Fight 1 you won't regain it until the cycle is complete. I just noticed, the second part of this won't work--it will instead do exactly the opposite of what we want. I was trying to plan what to do with Aerryl in case this rule is implemented--what if her allies are killed in fight 1? The bat swarm is easy--what she should do is miniquest for two more bat swarms, so she'll have backups in case the first one or two are killed. There's no reason why someone with any Handle Animal or Diplomacy ally can't do the same thing. The only "cost" is the time it takes to train new animal allies. However, she can't replace her dire bat so easily, or even at all. She'd have to settle for a Handle Animal mount instead, which would be inferior. So the "death until cycle complete" rule penalizes only class allies, and just forces anyone with Handle Animal or Diplomacy allies to quest for multiple "copies." Sure, you can only quest once per level, but is this really what we want to encourage? Let's rethink this one before putting it in action.
SauroGrenom 06-13-06, 08:08 AM	But what do you want to do, if a druid casts shapechange in a fight? He'll gets everything from his new form then or isn't this spell broken?I don't think that a druid's shapechange is realy comparable. Shapechange is a class feature not a spell. Also it suffers from powerfull limitations that are not present with PAO or TMS in that you must shapechange into an animal form. Also it is not permanent and you must spend actions in combat undergoing the shapechange. All in all, I think the comparison (between PAO and shapechange) is not an easy one to make.
Traevanon 06-13-06, 08:15 AM	Edit: If we forbid scrolls of PaO, why don't forbid scrolls of certain levels at all, for example all above level 6? It probably would be best to admit that this venue (at least at the current time) cannot handle characters of 13th level or higher and thus banning spells and powers of 7th level or greater would probably work just fine. You could even go further and ban any magic item that has a CL requirement of 13th or higher, or that requires spells or powers of 7th level or higher and not really affect much. I'm sure that the CoCo wouldnt be hurt by such a restriction, the real question is how much will it help? With players capped at 10th level I didnt even imagine that this was an issue. So according to the above logic I agree with banning PaO and True Mind Switch as spellcaster services.
Pittbull 06-13-06, 08:39 AM	I don't think that a druid's shapechange is realy comparable. Shapechange is a class feature not a spell. No Sauro, I meant the spell: Shapechange Transmutation Level: Animal 9, Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 10 min./level (D) This spell functions like polymorph, except that it enables you to assume the form of any single nonunique creature (of any type) from Fine to Colossal size. The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD). Unlike polymorph, this spell allows incorporeal or gaseous forms to be assumed. You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities. You also gain the type of the new form in place of your own. The new form does not disorient you. Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. You can become just about anything you are familiar with. You can change form once each round as a free action. The change takes place either immediately before your regular action or immediately after it, but not during the action. If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on your Disguise check. Focus: A jade circlet worth no less than 1,500 gp, which you must place on your head when casting the spell. (The focus melds into your new form when you change shape.)
Myrridin 06-13-06, 09:07 AM	It might be posited that by the time characters hit 15th level they are beyond the scope of what arena combat can simulate anyhow. The old CoCo had characters that got to the upper levels, and I believe a Harvester hit 20th. Now those fights were just stupid to pitlord. It usually involved one of the characters, often a cleric, casting a spell Ethereal Jaunt, or something to get out of combat for about 8 rounds. Then they'd buff all the way up, come back in, and if their opponent didn't have a Greater Dispel Magic...and get lucky, it was over.
Abyssal Stalker 06-13-06, 10:05 AM	I have a question concerning the new forest map. I read it's description and noticed that the squares with undergrowth offer cover. Is this intenitonally cover, not cover aginist ranged attacks as I think it should be? There might be an explanation for this but for me it seems quite odd that they provide cover also for melee.
Caterane 06-13-06, 11:21 AM	PAO is much like polymorph in effect, but the differences are critical. It allows you to have a very very powerfull effect in play without being required to cast the spell in combat. That is a problem for me. There is no need to memorize the spell for each battle, there is no chance to counterspell it or to disrupt casting, and you do not need to spend the standard action to get the desired effect. I disagree with your assessment. Look, Polymorph does the same like PaO. It just needs a standard action and costs 4 SL while PaO is permanent. There's however a difference of four! spell levels between these spells and the benefit of saving a standard action and 8 SL in a fight is IMO not worth that this spell is 4 full levels higher. What you dislike, Sauro, is polymorphing in general, and this is not our topic. PaO becomes a problem when those without 15 CL can make use of it, and this can be easily fixed by removing PaO Spellcasting Service and Scrolls. If we use your LA proposal, then I just cast the regular polymorph in the fight, ok, I lose a standard action and 4 SL, but the effects you described - the brokenness of having a form without the LA which is your main argument - is absolutely the same like with PaO. You'd fix nothing unless you begin to apply it to the 4th level Polymorph too ...and to Shapechange, and Pittbull has already asked to look at the Wildshape ability. Your proposal is a huge houserule that finds no comparison outside this board and affects a large number of spells and abilities and we wouldn't know where to stop. Maybe we should look at True Mindswitch again but the main reason I agreed to ban it right away is that it is not dispellable, has a huge XP cost (which just creates problems imo) and is almost impossible to properly restrict. By contrast, PaO can be restricted just fine. PS: Please save your proposals and repost it on the new board because everything posted here will soon be lost.
SauroGrenom 06-13-06, 11:41 AM	Ahh, sorry I mixed up wildshape and shapechange. Shapechange is not a problem for me. It has limited durration, you must memorize a 9th level spell, you must cast it in combat, it cannot be quickened (untill epic levels), it can be counter spelled, casting can be disrupted. In other words it is just like a higher level and more powerfull version of polymorph. I'm OK with that. My problem with one aspect of PAO is that it can make a permanent modification to a character. I don't think this spell was intended to be used by PC characters to permanently change themselves or others into beneficial forms. The spell does not have any of the typical costs associated with permanently changing a character. All other spells that permanently change a character cost xp to cast, but PAO has no such cost. Rather PAO is inteded to be a modified version of baelfull polymorph with vastly more options. Also permanently gaining the benefits of a form is very different from a temporary benefit granted by a spell cast in combat. In our 3FC you would need to memorize a 9th level spell 3 times to cast this spell in every battle. That is a very large commitment of your spell casting power to gain a new form in a battle. Also you are still required to cast the spell in the battle, and you face all the risks associated with casting in battle. In all I have no problem with spells like Shapechange or even quickened Polymorph. I feel firm in my opinion that if you want permanent benefits of a new form, then you should pay the LA associated with the benefits you recieve, regardless of how you get those benefits. If it is by casting a permanent PAO or by TMS or some other effect, you should pay the LA that those abilities cost. The LA in each case will probably need to be determined by Cat on a case by case basis, but I have no problem trusting his judgment on how much LA you should get. There are many monsters in the SRD that you can compare with and find a reasonable LA. In any case, I think our respective positions have been described. Perhaps we should put it to an elder vote. Or perhaps Cat has heard enough and made his decision.
Caterane 06-13-06, 11:49 AM	@Sauro: You overestimate the need to cast polymorph in the fight. It is no problem to arange things so that you can cast savely; not even at low-levels. If you read the old highlevel fights, you'll notice that casters always leave the arena to buff up anyway so disrupting a spell or the standard action is not an issue at all. I haven't even seen a single counterspell in all the coco history. That leaves us with the plain comparison in power of Polymorph and PaO. If we now ban PaO Scrolls and Service, we have two spells with the same effects; the slight benefits the latter has are minor and not even worth it being 4 levels higher.
SauroGrenom 06-13-06, 11:56 AM	I disagree with your assessment. Look, Polymorph does the same like PaO. It just needs a standard action and costs 4 SL while PaO is permanent. There's however a difference of four! spell levels between these spells and the benefit of saving a standard action and 8 SL in a fight is IMO not worth that this spell is 4 full levels higher. What you dislike, Sauro, is polymorphing in general, and this is not our topic.PAO is not only equivalent to a quickened 4th level spell. It is also an offensive spell with totally new abilities and equivalent to 7 other spells heightened to 8th level. Are you suggesting that you can take any 7 spells of 5-6th level heighten them to 8th level, put them together into a new spell that can be any one of them and make a new offensive capability and make a 4th level spell permanent and that is equivalent to a 8th level spell with no xp cost that is available to any CL15 wizard or sorcerer? True polymorph in general is overpowered, but that is not the issue here. The issue is bringing overpowered spell effects into a battle without paying the typical cost associated with casting that spell in combat or with gaining those benefits in other premanent ways. Fine cast polymorph in every battle, I have no problem with that. Even cast quickened polymorph in every battle, but you must memorize 3 copies of an 8th level spell to do that. With PAO you get the benefits without any cost that is relevant in a battle. Basicially you get something for nothing. That is especially a problem when others are paying heavy LA costs to get the same benefits. House rule or ban, appear to be the only ways of prevent a few characters of getting something for free that other characters pay LA for. Whatever you do, please don't let casters cast spells outside of combat with no cost to themselves and carry overpowered spell effects into combat without even sacrificing the spell slots or actions in combat.
Caterane 06-13-06, 12:00 PM	Well, then there's another option: PaO resets after a cycle and you have to cast it anew. Or we just ban the 'permanent' option of PaO.
SauroGrenom 06-13-06, 12:20 PM	Well, then there's another option: PaO resets after a cycle and you have to cast it anew. Or we just ban the 'permanent' option of PaO. I could buy that although I think its still a very very low cost for the benefit. Let me remind you of the metamagic feat Persistant Spell. This increases the durration of a spell to 24 hours and it increases spell level by 6 levels. Clearly a 24hour polymorph is in the range of epic magic. If we look at the rules for epic spellcasting we see that the DC of a spell is 5 times higher if you make it a permanent effect. If you want me to I can calculate what an epic spell made with the Transform Seed and permanent durration would cost to develop and cast. I think PAO is intended to be a more powerfull version of Baleful Polymorph not a more powerfull version of Polymorph. But I don't think I'll be able to convince you of that. The easiest way to allow this use of PAO that I can see is to require PAO as a pre-buffed spell and basicially treat is as a polymorph spell with a durration of the full day. That way you at least spend 1 spell slot of the 8th level to gain the form for three fights. To even allow this is to basicially allow a 10th level spell to be cast from a 8th level spell slot.
Pittbull 06-13-06, 12:27 PM	If you just ban the permanent effect of PaO, it'll have no influence: Duration Factor --> Duration --> Example 0 --> 20 minutes --> Pebble to human 2 --> 1 hour --> Marionette to human 4 --> 3 hours --> Human to marionette 5 --> 12 hours --> Lizard to manticore 6 --> 2 days --> Sheep to wool coat 7 --> 1 week --> Shrew to manticore 9+ --> Permanent --> Manticore to shrew I'm not sure what kind of duration Sauro has in mind. But speaking of an intent of designer, I believe they wanted to make the spell right the way it is. They created two new tables for it and a strange calculation-system. If you you compare this spell with other spells and say PaO is broken, I think, this is no better argument. As Cat says it is really no problem for a caster to buff savely, if he is protected in the first round. So the duration isn't so significant. But if you want decrease the spell's duration to 1min/cl or 10min/cl, you work completely against the designer intent. I guess Cat's proposal of ending a permanent spell after a three week circle is a good one. It has even an advantage for the caster's oponents: since the spell has been used as a prebuff it can't be used as an offensive force anymore. Edit: Sorry, I read your last post after I posted this one.
Pittbull 06-13-06, 12:32 PM	The easiest way to allow this use of PAO that I can see is to require PAO as a pre-buffed spell and basicially treat is as a polymorph spell with a durration of the full day. That way you at least spend 1 spell slot of the 8th level to gain the form for three fights. To even allow this is to basicially allow a 10th level spell to be cast from a 8th level spell slot. This might be an acceptable solution! Cat, what do think?
Caterane 06-13-06, 01:02 PM	Ah Persistent Spell, I knew that would come. That's a good point but you cannot apply one effect (here: the feat) to all spells and use it as a proof if there's a situation where the effect is not balanced. In a complicated system such as D&D with so many spells, it is impossible to judge if a +6 increase in SL is a good solution for each and every spell. The concrete problem with PaO and Polymorph is that they're WAY too powerful. PaO should be epic and Polymorph 6th or 7th level, or restricted in many ways. I know what you're saying Sauro; I can fully see your point and it might become necessary that we go with your proposal but since your suggestion is more radical than mine, I'd like to try out the less severe one first and see if it helps. Concretely: - No Polymorph Any Object scrolls can be bought - Spellcasting Service does not cast PaO on you - It needs to be prebuffed normally (incl SL cost) and it expires after a cycle. plus of course the knowledge requirements. This addresses the main problem (that non-CL15 PCs can use it) and it includes a cost. It's now a persistent polymorph, and optionally a baleful polymorph or flesh to stone. That's certainly acceptable for ECL 15+ fights.
MindWandererB 06-13-06, 02:46 PM	I have a question concerning the new forest map. I read it's description and noticed that the squares with undergrowth offer cover. Is this intenitonally cover, not cover aginist ranged attacks as I think it should be? There might be an explanation for this but for me it seems quite odd that they provide cover also for melee.You're right. Undergrowth is covered in the DMG. This is what it should look like: Undergrowth: Vines, roots, and short bushes cover much of the ground in a forest. A space covered with light undergrowth costs 2 squares of movement to move into, and it provides concealment. Undergrowth increases the DC of Tumble and Move Silently checks by 2 because the leaves and branches get in the way. Heavy undergrowth costs 4 squares of movement to move into, and it provides concealment with a 30% miss chance (instead of the usual 20%). It increases the DC of Tumble and Move Silently checks by 5. Heavy undergrowth is easy to hide in, granting a +5 circumstance bonus on Hide checks. Running and charging are impossible. Squares with undergrowth are often clustered together. Undergrowth and trees aren’t mutually exclusive; it’s common for a 5-foot square to have both a tree and undergrowth.
Book5 06-13-06, 03:02 PM	[qoute=Cat] - It needs to be prebuffed normally (incl SL cost) and it expires after a cycle. [/quote] Side effect of the Nimbus? Slowely Eroding at any permanant spells... Or hey! - what if perms stayed... until you had to get resurected? Wouldnt that work out really well? Very realistic. The old CoCo had characters that got to the upper levels, and I believe a Harvester hit 20th. Now those fights were just stupid to pitlord. It usually involved one of the characters, often a cleric, casting a spell Ethereal Jaunt, or something to get out of combat for about 8 rounds. Then they'd buff all the way up, come back in, and if their opponent didn't have a Greater Dispel Magic...and get lucky, it was over. I "humbly" suggest that the high level and epic level arenas need more circumstances surrounding them. Allot of the higher level abilites are things that make you immune to stuff and capable of fighting in more hostile environements. Heck! I wanna see thunderstorms in the mid level fights... talk about a caster nerf! ------------------------------------ @ Ariel23 and the proposed social arena "I suppose that's a matter of taste for the DM and players to decide as they "collaborate" at the table: If you like rolling dice, like to improvise story/events from successes and failures of said dice-- moreso than the actions of the players themselves--and prefer an environment where every encounter have completely unpredictable results, then more rolling = better." The problem is that is great on the table top, but the way the whole pitlording thing works this is simply too "fuzzy" to work consistantly. There is too much discretion involved. "Even if you wanted to have a Balance check for every step of your character's life, the DC would be -5 or something, so you still wouldn't be rolling them 99% of them time, since a "1" does not automatically fail." Yes exactly. And the DC to make a nuetral party mad at you is ... "less than 1" so yeah - I understand that assuming a unfailable balance check is made every time you walk accross a well crafted floor is almost mind numbingly redundant... but its still something that I think can be taken as implied. "There is no DC for "talking shop" for one Crafter to another. Why would you need to set a difficulty for that? If you want to talk about your job, what is the threshold for failure? " Here we get into stuff that is really non-core. "Talking shop" or whatever is a way for people to give themselves "status" or "standing" or "authority" - these things are usually the primary point of a social conflict. One person wants to "prove" something to the rest. Ever had a converstation that felt more like a competition? Thats what I mean by "talking shop" :rolleyes: aka "this" is talking shop. Ummm actually secretaries do get people coffee all the time.. and that has to do with them succeeding at their profession check. I mean think of production assitants on a movie set - basically a bunch of people aiding the profession check of the director. The director could just be making one big profession check to make them all hop to. Ever hear people talk about how they "are all in work mode" or some such? A job creates a mentality, and with that mentality are ways of behaving and ways of interacting with others. I have known people that were very touchy and anti social when they were just being themselves, but put them "in charge" of something.. give them "the authority" to "do a job" and they become frickin tyrants! What I am saying is that if you are in a room full of cooks.. and one person has a cooking skill of +5 or better over everyone else... they are automatically in charge of stuff... until you stop cooking. Going on (no more quotes) I think that there is nothing wrong with dispersing plenty of bluffs into a dimplomacy conversation... because bluffs are isolated actions. A bluff can be as simple as "lets go!" Diplomacy on the other hand has three basic functions - change attitude, negotiate, and advocate. The advocates function is what really gives it away. RAW - its one roll for an entire court hearing. ONE!~ Just one roll of the dice to cover a whole court proceeding! Because.... a court proceeding really is like one very long controlled conversation. With one very specific question. Most of what you are probably using diplomacy checks for are actually bluffs. Note: A bluff is not necessarily a lie. Every lie is a bluff.. but you can "motivate" people to "believe" you about something that you think is true! Like Right now.. I am bluffing you! What I am saying is: Keep rolling those bluff checks.. but only roll one diplomacy .. at the end of every conversation. Well, there is one "mini-roll" I think is missing from the diplomacy functions - "introductions" the first meetings with someone are always their own special action that can't be a bluff... so must be a diplomacy.. unless you prefer to intimdate! Does anyone else thing the rule masters were trying to "say something" with the whole diplomacy/intimidate thing. Intimidate only works on people that are weaker than you - but at low leves is more likely to suceed in the common social settings of D&D. Shopkeepers and other commoners are not usually higher than 2nd or 3rd level. However as you gain levels it requires more and more skill points to stay on top - and it never really works that well on people of your own challenge rating. Diplomacy on the other hand is a waste of skill points untill your bonus is at least +10 and then.. it works the same all the time for everybody regardless of level. ... Huh....
Caterane 06-13-06, 03:12 PM	I have worked a bit on Sauro's proposal. We use the base requirements: - Move action to "handle", Fullround action to "push" - You have to have the required knowledge value (Value = Ally HD) - Must be able to communicate with ally - Miniquest without rewards to obtain ally. - You can miniquest for up to your max CA. We use the Diplomacy formula "5+HD+CR" add a table of modifiers: Change Diplomacy DC by... +2 for each alignment step that character is different from ally +2 per additional ally (class, HA, diplomacy) for all diplomacy allies +2 if any mental ability is higher than that of the character +2 if character is of the different type as the ally (eg plant) +2 if you do not speak the native language of the ally If ally dies during 3FC, it is not available until the next cycle. [Mindwanderer, you can of course have 2 backup allies but it also costs you gold and the DCs go up] - Number of Allies based on Charisma. We already have a regulation in that the DC increases pretty quickly if you have more than one ally. - Solitary Modifier. The Organization Entry in the MM doesn't change anyway and can just be included in the base DC which would make this an invisible modifier no one recognises. An alternative is to mark solitary monsters and say that their DC increases by +4 per additional ally instead of +2. - Mental abilities higher... I am not sure on that. Since our current diplomacy allies are all between INT 3-6, Intelligence is not an issue at all so it is only about Wisdom and Charisma, stats that are not naturally developed with such low int creatures so it seems like a cheap cost reduction. - Same type bonus... I think it should be the other way around so that you're penalized for not being of the same type. Basically, since all other boni fell out, I didn't want to have a solitary bonus in the table. Now, all are increasing the DC. Advance Diplomacy Allies We also add the option to advance the ally by paying 1000 gp per racial HD added plus the normal credit cost for an advanced ally. We can say the credit cost is a one-time fee so if you advance the ally further at a later point, you don't have to pay additional credits (the extra customization workload for the pitlord is already there). However, I'd say this is a Free Activity then (which is also a great way to record the advancement). Note that you not only have to increase your diplomacy but also your appropriate knowledge skill if you advance an ally. Customize Diplomacy Allies I'm not a fan of restricting options. I like the diversity you have when you can pick different feats and skills, or look for an Alpha Wolf (Elite array). I'll think about it though. I just think that if we implement the suggested changes, we've nerfed diplomacy allies a lot and we should maybe test it out first before coming up with additional restrictions. Handle Animal Proposal So far I haven't seen Handle Animal as being broken. Animals, Vermin and Plants are restricted by their intelligence and by the tricks they know. Although we could probably allow for advancement for these creatures just like diplomacy allies. Or hey! - what if perms stayed... until you had to get resurected? Wouldnt that work out really well? Very realistic. This is also a good idea and one that may be extended to all perms. However, it would make permanent effects sometimes worse than hour/lvl or day/lvl spells because they stay till the end of the cycle even if you lose. So compromise idea: Permanent effects port over to the next cycle if you haven't lost in the last cycle. Thoughts? Another thought: As it is now, you're autospotted if you leave cover for more than 1ft per rank in hide. This is written in the PHB. But there's also Bluffing to create a diversion with a standard action. What if we say that you can use bluff to offset the autospot rule? Is an opposed check and leaves you with a move action only.
Book5 06-13-06, 04:57 PM	:D Communicating in Combat: - You must have to have the required knowledge value for the creature's type. See the Knowledge skill rules below for details as to which type is covered by what knowledge skill. Note: Bardic knowledge serves for all knowledge skill in this circumstance as well. - It is a Swift Bluff action to "Signal (aka Handle)", or a Standard Intimidation action to "Command (aka Push) in combat." Beyond the skill modifier and the action type you use the functions as described in their Handle Animal Equivalents. For our purposes you may signal any specific tactical manuever that has been described previously on your character sheet or tactics. - Signaling and Commanding assume you can either speak or communicate telepathically with your ally. If you cannot communicate directly with your ally you must take a special full round diplomacy action DC 10+Distance to communicate via gestures. This use of diplomacy provokes an attack of opportunity. That means if you cannot "talk" with your ally - then you at least need to be within sight of them, you risk the chance of misunderstanding, and you must do something that could provoke an attack of opportunity. - You undertake a Miniquest for no rewards other than to obtain the ally. You can miniquest for allies up to your max CA for free. Allies are part of a normal character, and part of everyone's game. Therefore you do not need to pay credits to gain an ally. If you want to have more allies available than your Max CA (and therefore more than you can take into the arena at any one time) you must pay 1 credit as per normal miniquest rules. To determine how many allies you gain from Diplomacy we use the "Diplomacy Formula: 5+HD+CR" and add a table of special modifiers: COCO Special Diplomacy Modifiers: +2 for each alignment step difference between the character and the ally. +2 per additional ally (class, HA, diplomacy) for all diplomacy allies. +2 if the ally's mental (int, wis, cha) scores are higher than that of the character. +2 if character is of a different type than the ally (eg. plant). +2 if the character does not speak the native language of the ally. +2 if the ally is listed as solitary in the MM. +4 if the ally is using the elite array. couple thing :rolleyes: skill associations, action speeds, added the gestures thing, clarified some of the english - you could practically post that thing! I actully like that. It all makes sense. Using diplomacy for the command and signal actions doesnt make sense to me. In case you havent noticed. :D Cmon, its no more complicated, but it makes allot more sense! Bluffing! Now I want to intimidate you, Sorry guys but guild guidlines and econ d20 is a little :snore: to me sometimes - but you are talking about "making new rules" and thats my cup of tea. :tiphat: Furthermore - Caterane.. are you not the one who said that "adding too many non-core rules is what broke the last arenas? Well.. you should be more careful with yours. You are the only one who is suggesting that we add skill functions. I am not suggesting adding new skill functions to the arena. Even the Knowledge/Heal check thing is really just derivative. Even having tables to determine allies gained via diplomacy is just codification of the whims of the GM. This command action deal though... I wouldnt recomened it. But! if your gonna do it should be done right. Use the skills for what they are supposed to be doing - don't just add hoc one skill into another one without any real clarification. Particularly when you have this really vacuous hole of logic regadring the difference between a push and a handle when it comes to an intelligent creature. and since were all "making things up" :confused: :weep: :eek: :cool: I have got a "creative" solution for one of your outstanding bunks. You want people to use the intimidation skill right? Well (this is even arguably core.. cept for the command refrence). Intimidation in Combat All uses of the intimidation skill in combat are considered distracting to the target. Both Demoralize and Command actions prompt a Concentration check DC 10+the result of the intimidation check. Command: See the description of Diplomacy Allies above for details regarding the use of the command action. :cool: :D Now were Talkin! :embarrass :rolleyes: get it? now we're "talking" :rimshot:
TelinArtho 06-13-06, 05:24 PM	Okay - I finally saw this statement about an ally dying during the 3FC. Is this going to apply to all allies? Meaning - a paladin's special mount, a druid's animal companion, etc? If so - I think that is a bad move. Suddenly, the first week of each fight cycle people are gunning for the allies of their opponent in the hopes of fighting them later with another character during the same fight cycle. If this suggestion only applies to handled animals and diplomacy allies I am fine with it. Leadership - meh. But Class feature allies - I think they should always be available if they can be (Paladin's special mount might not always be available for all fights due to short duration...)
Caterane 06-13-06, 06:14 PM	@Book: It's a good idea to use Bluff and Intimidate but altogether with knowledge and diplomacy these are too many skills. Maybe if we change the skill uses: Diplomacy to gain ally Bluff to handle ally Intimidate to push ally +2 DC if you don't have the appropriate knowledge value Oh and I've already explained why the use for diplomacy isn't a house rule here. Social skills require an arbiter in a TT game which we don't have. So instead of not using them (which would be a house rule; to "ban" core skills) we just create a "static" arbiter - a frame that resembles real-life uses of said skills. An alternative would be to exchange our phone numbers and roleplay social skills out. ;) @Telin: how often does it happen that you have 2 characters in the same league and then actually fight the same opponent ...within the same cycle ...in a later fight ...provided that you were able to kill the mount ...and take advantage of that strategy by winning the fight ...and there's no backup mount. All in all, a very rare occurance and surely not a good counterargument to what I intend with this rule: to decrease the reliance on allies.
SauroGrenom 06-13-06, 06:17 PM	Cat, The PaO suggestion you last posted here is something I can agree with for a while and we can wait to see how well it works. Also I think the dilplomacy ally proposal is moving in the right direction. But there are two parts that I think are unnecessary/complicated and a third that I think I didn't convey very well in my original proposal and was missed. The move action to "handle" and full round action to "push" is, as you would say, "a huge house rule" and it's not realy necessary. We haven't had complaints about how well allies fight. Rather we have issues with how powerfull they are especially when customized and advanced. Infact they can be more powerfull than the characters. So this idea is a totally new rule, and it is a rule that will play a role in each fight with allies. Also the death of an ally durring a 3week cycle is unnecessary. This makes diplomacy allies different from all other kinds of allies, and that is another detail that must be rememberd and can be complicating. Finally, you set aside my idea of a Diplomacy Coefficient that is "spent" on the allies you have. I introduced this for a reason that you may or may not agree with. The idea is that there are only so many "friends" you can keep happy at a time. So if you get one ally at the maximum you can have due to the diplomacy DC, then you have invested all your persuasive efforts into attracting one ally who is the most powerfull you can get. Or you can choose to divide your efforts to persuade 2 different guys to follow you around. Say you have a diplomacy check of +20, then you can have 2 allies that each have a diplomacy cost of 10, or one ally of diplomacy cost 20. If you use sort of "points" that are spent on each ally with a cost given by the Diplomacy formula 5+HD+CR makes it rather hard to have more than one very powerfull ally anyway. I guess I just don't like the idea of having a diplomacy of say +20 at ECL12 and get to bring 2 griffons into battle. Especially when a person with leadership is only allowed to have one griffon cohort at this level. Why should the diplomacy skill be able to give twice as many allies as the leadership feat? For that reason I realy like the idea of having "diplomacy points" that are spent on each ally you have on your character sheet.
Caterane 06-13-06, 06:23 PM	I haven't decided on anything yet. Maybe you're right that we should first use the new changes and keep the "handle" ally in the back in case it becomes necessary to add additional barriers. I also misunderstood your proposal then and I like it even better the way you describe it now. But isn't that already covered by our +2 per additional ally for all allies? As for the ally death... It would lessen the reliance on allies which is a good thing imo. You get him back after the cycle is complete. It's like that in quests so why should the arena be different.
SauroGrenom 06-13-06, 06:46 PM	I also misunderstood your proposal then and I like it even better the way you describe it now. But isn't that already covered by our +2 per additional ally for all allies?The "points" idea is a bit more restrictive. The major function of the +2 penalty is to make it harder to have a diplomacy ally and a leadership cohort and a animal companion and a couple handle animal allies. Let me work though an example using ECL12 with Diplomacy of 20 and a neutral alignment. You can get a Griffon with a cost of 5+7+4=16 and you take a +2 penalty since you are not a magical beast. So the diplomacy DC is 18 to have one of these, and if you have two of them you can get a diplomacy dc of 20 for each. If you use points to spend on the ally, then you only get one of these allies at ECL12 with a cost of 18, and you may be able to advance it by 2 HD at best to het the max of 20 points spent on the ally. If you use a set DC of 20 each for two of them, then you can have two of them with a total of 8CR in every battle at this level. So using points clearly makes a lower limit on the number of powerfull allies you can have using this skill. You can still get other allies into a battle by other means if you want. So you can take Leadership or you can hire a mount and bring it into the battle. As for the ally death... It would lessen the reliance on allies which is a good thing imo. You get him back after the cycle is complete. It's like that in quests so why should the arena be different. That would be true, but if you place that in the arena for diplomacy allies, then you should do the same for all other allies. Make the rule universal, that way it's simpler to keep track of.
Caterane 06-13-06, 06:54 PM	Yes, all allies. That's why Telin objected above. I have to work through some examples using your proposal. Having only a griffon at ECL 12 with diplomacy 20(!) and knowledge nature 7 and a gold cost might be a bit too steep. People'd rather buy griffon statues then.
SauroGrenom 06-13-06, 07:05 PM	Yes, all allies. That's why Telin objected above. I have to work through some examples using your proposal. Having only a griffon at ECL 12 with diplomacy 20(!) and knowledge nature 7 and a gold cost might be a bit too steep. People'd rather buy griffon statues then. Hmm, Your call on the allies healing thing. I chose ECL12 for the diplomacy ally griffon because it's the same level where you can get a griffon as a cohort (ECL10 cohort). So it looked like a decent balance where the same ally is gained at the same level by two different sources. The Cohort ally can be 25 point buy with full customization, while the Diplomacy ally can be advanced 2 HD. Nearly the same ally in both cases, only one is acquired by skills the other is gained by a feat (and a +4 Cha mod). If you want to drop any of the requirements, I'd drop the knowlege skill requirement since most classes only have one or two Knowlege skills on the class list.
MindWandererB 06-13-06, 07:10 PM	Do you really want to lessen the reliance on class feature allies? I mean, they're a class feature, not some kind of add-on.
SauroGrenom 06-13-06, 10:58 PM	Yes, all allies. That's why Telin objected above. I have to work through some examples using your proposal. Having only a griffon at ECL 12 with diplomacy 20(!) and knowledge nature 7 and a gold cost might be a bit too steep. People'd rather buy griffon statues then. I was also thinking that Diplomacy is a very easy skill to get a high value in. This is because it has 3 different skills that grant synergy bonuses. So even if you don't have diplomacy as a class skill, you can get a decent diplomacy score using synergy bonuses, high cha and custom items for diplomacy bonuses. Let me think ECL12... you can get 15 ranks in diplomacy if you have it as a class skill, and with a +5 cha mod you are finished. But if your cha mod is lower, then 5 ranks in Knowlege Nobility or Bluff or Sense motive will all get you a bit higher diplomacy. Or if you have Diplomacy as a cross class skill, you may need to compensate with synergy bonuses from class skills or even a custom diplomacy item. In any case this system will make diplomacy allies easiest for bards and rogues to get, but also druids, monks and telepaths (maybe paladins) are in a good position to gain these allies. I'm just thinking out loud.
NiQil 06-13-06, 11:56 PM	I have to preface this by saying that I do not normally play classes that have allies, so this probably won't affect me one way or the other. That being said...I really don't think that class allies should be subject to any penalties as has been discussed above. We currently do not penalize them with regard to fight rewards, and they currently do not count against your ally cap. I find it illogical that we would penalize them like other allies in other ways, but not in the ways I mention. Class allies are part of what creates the class balance (according to WotC, anyway), and to penalize classes for class features is poor form, in my opinion. I don't see any talk of penalizing clerics for having too many turn attempts, or taking away the 1/day abilities of the phrenic template. Class allies should not be penalized. If we are going to include class allies in this, then why not include them in the ally cap and the fight penalties?
Caterane 06-14-06, 02:45 AM	Simple answer: because your class ally can die during the campaign. Your 1/d phrenic ability can not. It's not about nerfing anyone but the 100% reliance that class allies are always present no matter how you kamikazee them is not how it works in a TT game. I see a difference in the carelessness of class ally use when I compare coco and TT games.
MindWandererB 06-14-06, 02:52 AM	Simple answer: because your class ally can die during the campaign. Your 1/d phrenic ability can not. It's not about nerfing anyone but the 100% reliance that class allies are always present no matter how you kamikazee them is not how it works in a TT game. I see a difference in the carelessness of class ally use when I compare coco and TT games.But in a TT game, you have a bit more to go by. You don't bring your dire bat into a 20' high cave, for instance. In the CoCo, we have no idea whether bringing an ally would be suicide or not. There's also the issue of greater mortality. Say I beat a wizard in a duel. It's then in my best interests to attack and kill his familiar before the wizard bleeds to death and ends the fight. It falls in the category of "economic damage" that some players adhere to. In a TT game, that familiar probably never would have been in any danger, but in the CoCo, if you lose a fight, the victor will probably kill it. Finally, there's the restrictions on the arena. If I somehow got a bat swarm as an ally in a TT game and I ran into a sorcerer, I would tell the bat swarm to get the heck out of there before it gets fireballed. In the arena, it doesn't have a whole lot of options that way.
Caterane 06-14-06, 03:06 AM	That's personal experience. In my campaign, our druid brings his companion everywhere. The batswarm can keep distance and cover; and even in a real game you can be ambushed by a sorcerer. I don't know if I understand you correctly though: is your point that class allies are never in danger in a real game? Finally, if the master is unconscious the pitlord has to prevent that the opponent now kills all allies before CDGing the master. By default, that behaviour is never executed by the pitlord so it would have to be requested in the tactic and this is easily identified and ignored.
MindWandererB 06-14-06, 03:23 AM	Then I think we need an official ruling on animal "AI." The way pitlords have been doing things in my time here, animals will do nothing at all if not handled, and will fight to the death if ordered to attack. In "real" D&D, animals have more self-preserving instincts--they'll avoid a fight if threatened and not ordered to attack, and they'll withdraw and run if heavily injured. I'm not saying that animals are never in danger in a real game. But they're in danger less often, just as PCs are in danger less often. The CoCo is a lethal environment--the death toll is over 50% per battle (if you count FFAs and Hunter fights). Animals are usually more fragile than their masters. And okay, you prohibit chasing after allies before CdGing the PC. But you can't prohibit CdGing downed allies before going after the PC (it's a legitimate tactic--what if they cured it?). And you can't prohibit a shift in tactics to favor going after the ally first (always a dilemma when dealing with mounts--take out the mount first to make the rider easier, or just go for the kill?). Another issue is that this penalizes class allies more than Diplomacy or Handle Animal allies. You can get multiples of the latter, up to your max CA--and your max CA can be pretty high with Forgery. Heck, you don't even have to actually use Forgery--just having a +5 or higher modifier is enough to allow you to own more allies, as long as you don't bring all of them into a fight at once. But class allies, including Leadership cohorts and psicrystals, are irreplacable. And this rule would result in some seriously silly builds. I know what Aerryl will have to do--fill up her max CA with backup mounts. What TT game has the druid (and the ranger, and the paladin) bringing an entourage of mounts just in case their class ally dies? (Although I suppose Raise Dead will see some use now....)
Caterane 06-14-06, 03:46 AM	Shooting the mount first is absolutely okay. The higher death toll is compensated by the nimbus. If in a real game you knew that your mount returns after 1-2 fights, you'd handle them differently, no doubt. We should also stop to see leadership or class allies as holy belongings of the character. Leadership, that's one feat without any real prerequisites; imo much cheaper than our new diplomacy rules. And class allies are also not untouchable just because the word "class" is infront. It will have the effect that familiars are not sent into melee as they're now. This is a completely unparalleled tactic; no one would use his familiar that way. It will have the effect that you have to have a good build yourself instead of a mediocre build with superb allies.
NiQil 06-14-06, 08:07 AM	Shooting the mount first is absolutely okay. The higher death toll is compensated by the nimbus. If in a real game you knew that your mount returns after 1-2 fights, you'd handle them differently, no doubt. We should also stop to see leadership or class allies as holy belongings of the character. Leadership, that's one feat without any real prerequisites; imo much cheaper than our new diplomacy rules. And class allies are also not untouchable just because the word "class" is infront. It will have the effect that familiars are not sent into melee as they're now. This is a completely unparalleled tactic; no one would use his familiar that way. It will have the effect that you have to have a good build yourself instead of a mediocre build with superb allies. I'm not sure how things go in your games, but in my games, familiars are sent into melee all the time. Is having a superb familiar really so powerful? Even a superb druid animal companion is less powerful than a good chunk of our diplomacy and handle animal allies, in my opinion. Keep in mind, I am not talking about Leadership. I am referring to a paladin mount, druid and ranger animal companion, and wizard and sorcerer familiars. I do not even include the psicrystal, because they are also granted by feats. I would rather see the abolishment of all diplomacy allies rather than have these restrictions placed on class allies. Part of a good wizard build is knowing when to use your familiar. Part of a good druid build is knowing how to work with your animal companion. Diplomacy and Handle Animal allies are what is out of control here. Leadership is not even that bad. If we had no diplomacy and handle animal allies at all, I don't think we would even be having this discussion. To use your own words, why not try these rules without having them affect class allies and see how it goes before making a blanket ruling? You can always restrict class allies later. But it seems plain to me that those that have spoken on this issue so far are against having them affect class allies.
TelinArtho 06-14-06, 10:04 AM	Shooting the mount first is absolutely okay. The higher death toll is compensated by the nimbus. If in a real game you knew that your mount returns after 1-2 fights, you'd handle them differently, no doubt. We should also stop to see leadership or class allies as holy belongings of the character. Leadership, that's one feat without any real prerequisites; imo much cheaper than our new diplomacy rules. And class allies are also not untouchable just because the word "class" is infront. It will have the effect that familiars are not sent into melee as they're now. This is a completely unparalleled tactic; no one would use his familiar that way. It will have the effect that you have to have a good build yourself instead of a mediocre build with superb allies. While I might agree that class allies are not indestructable and should be used with caution - there is an inherent flaw with the idea of "keeping the ally out of harm's way" when in the arena. The arena simple is not big enough to allow a class ally to stay out of the way if the tactics of the opponent dictate to take out the ally first. Take a horse for example with 60 move. The PC decides that the horse will be of little use against his opponent - who flies. However, since he prebuffed with the horse - he's required to take it into the battle with him. Now - in his tactics - he has to push his horse to "flee" - (because there's no trick to "stay out of harm's way") and his horse will circle around the outside edge. Even if the opponent has a 40 fly speed - he'll be able to pick apart that horse over the course of the fight with relative ease. If the arena did not have walls - the horse would be off at a 5x run speed and out of sight in no time. With the way things are - the ally would have nowhere to go - so "protecting your ally" isn't even an issue. Again - for handled animals and diplomacy this isn't as much an issue because you can pay for the expense of having "backup" animals/allies. For class allies - you don't get that equivalent "backup." This is why I feel the rule should not apply to class allies. /d
Caterane 06-14-06, 10:06 AM	NiQil, you're apparently also of the opinion that class allies are immune to death. I don't know where you all get that idea. In a TT game, the druid direbat is as vulnerable as the handle animal direbat. Why should the former one be different? Both die but the druid's bat is auto-ressurected or what? Part of a good wizard build is knowing when to use your familiar. Part of a good druid build is knowing how to work with your animal companion. If a wizard or druid knows how to work with the ally, then we have no problem to let them prove this in the various battles of gladius. Good point, NiQil! Even a superb druid animal companion is less powerful than a good chunk of our diplomacy and handle animal allies, in my opinion. ...and of course, it's nowhere written that class allies have to be the most powerful ones! Don't know where you get this idea from. Diplomacy and Handle Animal allies are what is out of control here. We know that and we've been discussing their restriction for 5 pages by now. They will be fixed, don't worry about it. To use your own words, why not try these rules without having them affect class allies and see how it goes before making a blanket ruling? You can always restrict class allies later. Because class allies face the same situations than diplomacy allies do. Just because it's a "class direbat" won't save it from the ogre's blow. It is for logical reasons because I see none why class allies are anyhow immune to death when the very same allies - acquired via diplomacy - can die in the very same situation. To use your example: a druid knows when to send off his class direbat but he doesn't know that for his handle animal direbat :confused: Anything you say for class allies also applies for diplomacy allies so either they're all ressurected or they all die. And since this rule is about the reduction of reliance on allies and more towards a focus on the character, I think it's a rule we should implement.
Caterane 06-14-06, 10:14 AM	@Telin: If a horse flees, it is no threat so any reference in the tactic as to the disabling of the ally should be automatically considered "successful". There's no reason to hunt down an ally who doesn't really participate in the fight and this falls into the category of a pitlord ignoring this part of the tactic.
TelinArtho 06-14-06, 10:23 AM	Okay - that I'm fine with. With the smaller arenas (the all vs all arena for instance) - I was exceptionally concerned about it, but if my tactics for my ally says - Keep out of danger - I have guaranteed that while my ally won't help in this fight - at least he'll be there for a future fight. This should be spelled out clearly in the rules sections that pitlords are to leave allies alone who are "on the sidelines." I could still see it as a problem - but only testing it will reveal it for sure. /d
Caterane 06-14-06, 10:49 AM	What we can do is to allow leaving the ally out of the fight completely. However, since it was prebuffed it counts as if it had participated in the fight for reward purposes. That way the pitlord doesn't have to bother and it's your decision to take him into the dangerous fight.
SoulLord 06-14-06, 11:43 AM	Well since you brought this up with effects being passed on the 3 fight cicle. What about. 1.-Sundered equipment. does it get restored for free after each fight or after the cicle. 2.-Long duration ill effects. do they get removed after the fight or after the cicle (blindness) The sundered equipment I feel would need to have the same treatment as the allies killed in battle.
TelinArtho 06-14-06, 11:49 AM	Both of these have the potential to be devastating to the point that the player would just forfeit his remaining two matches. If either of those would happen in a campaign - we'd pretty much give up for the day unless we had resources to overcome it on hand (an extra set of weapons or someone who happens to have a scroll of remove blindness). Forcing people to have a second set of equipment being carried around would make things a little silly - especially if they also needed to carry around a couple of potions of remove blindness, etc I'd say this would be a very bad idea.
Zevox 06-14-06, 12:39 PM	Long-term ill affects is already covered by the 3FC rules here. They're auto-healed at the end of each match the same way hp is restored. Broken weapons though isn't covered. I expect they'll get the same treatment as the ill affects. If they don't, I know I'll be getting a lot of complaints from Asran's opponents ;) . Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 06-14-06, 01:01 PM	This just brings out the question why some ill effects are restored and others not? I don't mean to be negative, but I just can't see the logic here. What's the difference between these things: -A mounted knight: dependent on his horse -A spiked chain-tripper: dependent on his weapon -A wizard: dependent on his spells All are handled differently in the name of game balance? Is this fair to everyone? This brings us back to where we started. I remember that there was quite a lot of discussion about hit points, etc. This just adds more questions about fairness and need for more house rules. I just can't see why someone should own three mounts when someone else doesn't need to own three weapons. I thought that the way to nerf allies was making it mandatory to prebuff with them. We haven't even seen the effects of that decision and yet we are nerfing them more.
SoulLord 06-14-06, 01:40 PM	So If you die don't worry you'll be brought back to full health and no ill effects from the fight But if your allies die they won't be ressed until the end of the cicle. But remember that Spiked chain and the wand that got sundered? no problem here they are back just as if nothing had happened to them.
MindWandererB 06-14-06, 02:01 PM	I agree; it isn't consistent. It's also inconsistent that PCs are healed and resurrected but allies are only healed. I would much rather see all allies get raised, but Dip/HA allies get nerfed. Cat and a few others will remember: why do we have the Nimbus in the first place? It's because the CoCo is more lethal than a TT game, so getting raised/restored/healed/gear fixed would be unacceptably expensive. @Cat, please let me make this clear: of course TT allies are not immune to death. But TT allies, like TT characters, are a whole lot less likely to die than their equivalents in the CoCo. This is by design. Why don't we try implementing a bunch of the other ally nerfs for a few weeks and see if it's enough? If it's plain that allies--all allies, in this case--are overpowered, then we can discuss ways to nerf them further. But seeing as how this particular nerf is controversial, can we try going without it for a little while before you hit us with the GM stick?
Ariel23 06-14-06, 02:12 PM	The way pitlords have been doing things in my time here, animals will do nothing at all if not handled, and will fight to the death if ordered to attack. In "real" D&D, animals have more self-preserving instincts--they'll avoid a fight if threatened and not ordered to attack, and they'll withdraw and run if heavily injured.Somewhere in an official thread, Caterane says that animals do this because they are used to the Nimbus. In TT D&D players do not automatically recklessly assault obviously superior foes, continuing to fight even when dropped to 1 HP. But that's expected and accepted in the arena. I'm not sure why it would be different for animals and allies. Even a superb druid animal companion is less powerful than a good chunk of our diplomacy and handle animal allies, in my opinion....and of course, it's nowhere written that class allies have to be the most powerful ones! Don't know where you get this idea from. I think he meant that DIP/HA allies are in need of a nerf, not the class allies. If anyone ever told me that the Ranger's animal companion was overpowered, I'd probably pee my pants from laughing hysterically. NOTE: Please don't try to confirm this.
SauroGrenom 06-14-06, 02:50 PM	NOTE: Please don't try to confirm this. Let me tell you about how overpowered ranger animal companions are... ;) Since you asked nicely I won't go any further, but I couldn't resist. About the allies death thing. I recall that my second version of the "Radical Proposal" that eventually lead to a 3 fight cycle included no automatic healing or restoration of equipment untill the end of the cycle. I had the argument that a barbarian's high hp are one of his assets and and the backup shortword is a must have for most warriors. I wanted the savy adventuring tactics of bringing extra stuff, and the class features or weaknesses of various classes with low or high HP or healing magics to be usable in the CoCo Arena. I feel that part of the reason that clerics have reasonable combat prowes (armor, weapons, moderate BAB) is because they are expected to spend much of their spells on healing magics. So by the 3rd fight of the day, the cleric is all out of spells and must fight with his basic combat prowes. If HP damage is healed for free automaticially, then the spontanious casting of healing magic is a totally unused class feature. At that time, this idea was not adopted because there was a major concern about how the 1st fight of the day will match up with the 3rd fight of the day. We should probably remember that concern now. We are discussing a system that allows allies gained by skill use, but to gain any ally will require investment of feats, class levels, gold and/or skills. The decisions on how to spend your money, feats, class levels and skills are an integral part of your build. So if the purpose of the CoCo is to test how well a build can survive 3 consecutive deadly encounters, attrition and slow consumption of all resources without renewal should be a part of CoCo. Or if the purpose of the CoCo is to how well any build can defeat any other build in an average matchup, then restoration of most resources needs to be a part of CoCo. Only resources that are intended to be consumed or "used up" should not be restored. Some abilities and items are usable a limited number of times in a day, while others are expected to be basicially permanent. A mounted warrior does not typicially carry around an extra shield just in case his primary one is broaken. But such a soldier will carry around 4 potions of cure moderate wounds, because he expects each of them to be used once. So with some items, class features or abilities you have the expectation of being required to limit there use. With others this expectation is not reasonable, and to attempt to prepare for it is unreasonable and impossible. To introduce a rule that has allies stay dead after a battle, is a step closer to an Arena of attrition where the most successfull builds are those with the least to loose. It's a stylistic decision about the flavor of the CoCo setting. It appears to be unpopular.
KerlanRayne 06-15-06, 06:01 AM	What we can do is to allow leaving the ally out of the fight completely. However, since it was prebuffed it counts as if it had participated in the fight for reward purposes. That way the pitlord doesn't have to bother and it's your decision to take him into the dangerous fight.Allies are prebuffed to to reduce the number of allies an opponent has to worry about. If the ally is of no use, they should have the option of leaving it out without penalty. They can still only prebuff allies up to their max allowable so the it won't cause any problems. KerlanRayne
Abyssal Stalker 06-16-06, 08:38 AM	To introduce a rule that has allies stay dead after a battle, is a step closer to an Arena of attrition where the most successfull builds are those with the least to loose. It's a stylistic decision about the flavor of the CoCo setting. It appears to be unpopular. I see your point Sauro, but I don't see why allies should be different from anything else you can get with money/credits/experience/skill points/feat slots. Please remember that I gave you my support on the proposal at the very first time you introduced it. I don't understand the diffrence between allies and equipment. Some builds need their equipment to be effective and others need their allies to succeed. The allies cost you something just like equipment. The currency used can be anything, but nothing's free. Yes, I have a built dependant on his allies allthough he has some versatility too. Making me buy 3 horses with full gear because they might die feels just the same as if I was told to buy 3 +1swords because they might get sundered.
Book5 06-16-06, 09:48 PM	@Book: It's a good idea to use Bluff and Intimidate ... An alternative would be to exchange our phone numbers and roleplay social skills out. I am glad the logic came through, but I do have something to say about your alternatives ;) My position is that this is a house rule, but that is a semantic debate considering your description. I understand the difficulties we are facing regarding this issue and hence I have spun no few words in this regard. speaking of "regards" I submitted a "regdar's" article when the boards refreshed ... heres hoping Mel likes it! !~! I spell checked, and grammer checked, and everything! (in word even) First of all the most strict core interpretation would actually be contingent on the ally not the leader. "Speaking" is a non skill action. It is a special non-action that requires no action and is not checked in any way. If you can speak you can speak and that is the end of what the raw has to say about that. The only question is whether the ally can hear you, understand you, and is willing to participate. This action can be covered by raw (as a question) via a listen, knowledge, and sense motive checks on the ally's part. To make a table... First make a listen check on the ally's part. Then make either a knowledge of sense motive check. Make a Knowledge (Leader's Type) check DC 10 if the command is one the ally is expecting. Make a Sense Motive check DC 15 if the command is one the ally is not expecting. See how easy that is? Same number of rolls - and we use the functions already predefined in the srd. The Knowledge check is used to "answer a simple question" (manuver delta-1 .. now? ) and the Sense Motive check is used to understand what the leader "wants you to do" in unexpected situations. No Action required to talk - but general interaction will reveal your position. What we are doing here - is adding special skill actions. Specifcally ones that are not covered by the srd.. and cannot be defended (honestly) as coming out of the SRD. Throughout the SRD "general interaction" is mentioned... but never defined. General Interaction does not have any rule value - but it looks like were gonna give it some. Looking at the rules above for listen, knowledge, and sense motive - I can see how creating new skill functions is attractive. I would rather use the speaking skills for general interaction on my table .. and do. Yet I still prefer using the existing functions with clarification as opposed to making new ones..... here. I am looking at the rules thread right now, and the closest thing I see to a rule creation like this one is the heal/knowledge function. Which still seems somewhat.. overboard to me, but hardly as inventive as adding entire functions. Actually thats why I don't like the Heal part of the heal/knowledge check. Heal has no "sensory function" init. We gave it one. That unnerves me. The only way I am able to sit confortable with it is by the fact that (I think it is a simple KS check) and since the "heal" action is really just a free action - making the skill check kinda a knock off of an intelligence check. Nonetheless I must implore you to rethink this core break as well, yet again. Understanding status is a question. The heal skill is an action. There is a world of difference there. And! We have no catch for "misdiagnosis or mistake" and if you leave it as a simple knowledge check you would. Its not the same as the listen randomization rule. In a table top game a gm might flip a coin, call high ten, or other wise "throw" something randomly to determine the vageries of misperception. He may also decline the difficulties as we have here, providing less and less valuable information regarding the location as the skill roll's result degenerates. Thats fine. The open lock skill and the search skill are set as a form of take ten common to the coco - the ECL multiplication method. Thats a simple arbitration of procedure. Defining the skill roll for an action already technically defined as having no skill roll ..... regardless of how honest and necessary it is! Will be a brittle point in the coco. They will say .. and I quote - "Thats not RAW" "Thats not even clarification of RAW" "I thought this was supposed to be the RAW Arena?" "RAW doesnt say you have to check to talk to your cohort! Whats that? He understands me!? We talk everyday, over breakfast, at lunch, fighter practice, I watch him pray... " I think you see where I am going with this. Nothing you have suggested here has been more in violation of RAW. Further, this will be used almost every fight. Anyone who has an ally, cohort, merc, etc will have to be accessing these rules to get through a fight. Every pitlord will have to actually agree to use these rules - despite the fact that they can potentially add 20-30 dice rolls per fight.. and! How much flack is there gonna be about "well by RAW I don't have to do that so I should have won! this stinks! I just wanted my cohort to toss me a heal potion!" its not "not a house rule" Cat. Sorry. I guess I Its an important addition if! you go through with it. However it is a house rule. You have made rules, and they only apply in this house. I totally agree that there needs to be some procedure that covers the possibility of miscommunication in combat, that function can be handled by raw by the skill I have mentioned already (ks, listen, sense motive) but adding functions to diplomacy, bluff, or intimidation will be house rule. Specifically if they are based off the handle animal actions. Even if you go by my rules (and I heartily recommend the Diplomacy Signlanguage thing - it works so well) you are violating things like.. idunno "normal bluffs require at least a full round action in combat" ... of course within the skill itself we find precedant to make bluff a swifter action than that. Before I retreat and regroup from this tactical position I have a couple more things to mention. Someone (and I cant seem to find it now) said I was making things too complicated. My reponce: what do you think this is? D&D is complicated! Furthermore - why do you think they didn't write rules for speaking percisly in the first place. Its complicated. Nor is it straitforeward, nor is it easy to quantify. There was an entire innuendo skill that would have worked perfectly for this, but they rolled it into bluff, and rather than trying to codify how well you people can talk to each other in the heat of battle as oppoesed to in a crowed room, or a concert hall, or in down a hallway - they say "you understand each other" unless you are sending a secret message... and then maybe no one will understand you. Thats really all. If we want to make a deffinitive and defendable house rule for converstation and command - it should be robust and a little complicated. Lastly - I like the idea of the cohorts/familiars/allys being killed till the end of each 3 - week cycle. Defines them as expendables of a sort, and you can apply that xp penalty to the wixards finally! ;) Intimidate. Pompts. Concentration..... at theoretically infinite range. Experiment with that one at home! :D No.. I mean yell at your roomates while they are on their computer! :rimshot:
Pitlords 06-19-06, 06:20 PM	It is time that we close the lid on all the topics we have discussed. Let's start with Diplomacy Allies since they're the most troublesome ones atm, and to a lesser extend all allies. First the general rule that affects all allies (changes in red and strikethrough, respectively): Death of an Ally If a cohort or ally dies in one of the various Battles of Gladius (or otherwise inside the Nimbus), it is True Ressurected, re-summoned, re-animated, or otherwise made whole again, for free, after the 3-Fight Cycle is complete. There will be no negative side-effects from losing an ally (eg paladin's mount, familiar). Until then, however, the ally is not available and cannot assist you in any way. He's basically... dead. Allies and Equipment: [...] any ally that is mentioned in the prebuff section counts against your rewards. You may choose to leave the prebuffed ally out of the fight (automatically including whatever you have listed under its equipment section) but your rewards take a hit as if the ally was actively assisting you. [...] Diplomacy Allies: Similar to Handle Animal, you can use your Diplomacy skill to get an ally of an intelligence between 3 and 6 (see Rules of Gladius: Allies II for a complete list). You have to have the requisite diplomacy value (see Allies II) and complete a quest or miniquest with an EL equal to your ECL. You gain XP normally but instead of a gold reward, you gain the service of the ally who may never be higher than your maxCA allows at the time of the quest (see 'Cap on Allies' below). Since the ally is intelligent, no additional training is necessary unless otherwise noted. Each character has a Maximum Coefficient of Diplomacy (maxCD) which is equal to his diplomacy skill value. Each Diplomacy ally has a certain 'CD Cost'. The sum of all your Diplomacy Allies on your sheet may not exceed your maxCD. There are certain factors that modify the CD Cost (see Rules of Gladius: Allies II). Note that all Diplomacy allies require a share of your xp and gold if they participate in a fight (see below for details). Diplomacy Allies always use the abilities presented in their entry (but may be customized or advanced; see below). The List of Allies - Diplomacy The following is a list of legal Diplomacy allies, as well as the diplomacy bonus needed. These allies always use their CR to determine the maxCA (this is an exception to the normal rule that LA creatures uses their ECL). Please read Rules of Gladius: Allies I on information on how to obtain such an ally before you continue here. Note that this list does not include advanced versions which are also available (see Rules of Gladius: Allies I for more information on Advanced Creatures). Diplomacy allies may only advanced by racial HD, never by class levels. All diplomacy allies come without any equipment. Basic Requirements: You must have a high enough maxCD (maximum Coefficient of Diplomacy) to support all Diplomacy allies You must be able to communicate with your allies. Telepathy counts as any language. Spells or abilities that only grant temporary linguistic skills do not count. You must complete a Quest or Miniquest with the questgoal being the ally. The EL of the quest must be equal to your ECL. You may quest for up to your maxCA (maximum Coefficient of Allies). You gain XP normally but instead of gold, you gain the service of the ally. The value infront of the creature's name is the base CD Cost (remember that the CD Cost of all your Diplomacy Allies combined must not exceed your maxCD). The base CD Cost is 5+HD+CR of the ally. Certain factors modify the CD Cost of your Diplomacy Ally. Change the CD Cost by... +2 for each alignment step the character is different from ally +2 per mental ability that is higher than that of the character +2 per ally you have if the Diplomacy ally is listed as nothing but 'solitary' +2 if the ally is using Elite Array abilities (ie customized) +1 per HD and CR added to the Diplomacy ally (ie advanced) -2 if you speak the native language of the ally (or Telepathy) -2 if character is of the same type as the ally (eg elemental) -2 if you have the correct Knowledge value equal to the Base CD Cost of the ally Please tell me if anything is missing or you see a mistake. The CD Costs will be updated soon.
MindWandererB 06-19-06, 06:28 PM	@Cat: Once again, you have run roughshod over all the criticisms regarding this issue and put it into action. Frankly, I'm disappointed. However, we'll just have to see what the results of this will be. One immediate one will clearly be this: a huge surge of miniquests to gain backup allies. Be prepared for a PL shortage.
SauroGrenom 06-19-06, 06:32 PM	THis line: +2 per additional ally you have if the Diplomacy ally is listed as 'solitary' It is unclear. There are many creatures that list 'solitary' in the organization section of the monster stat block. But I think you intent to say that this penalty applies if solitary is the only entry in this section of the stat block. Nearly all creatures list solitary in addition to other larger groups.
Pitlords 06-19-06, 06:42 PM	Clarified. @MW: I don't know what you're talking about. I left out the commands and actions to push which were the main criticism. We have a problem, we have discussed it for weeks, and here's an elegant solution. We could talk back and forth till the end of time or we can try it out. One thing that is clear is that it is much better than what we had. @Sauro: There's one thing that can be improved: Any character who wishes to acquire an ally must mini-quest for the ally. The ECL of the mini-quest must be at least equal to the character’s own ECL (regardless of the ally’s ECL). On completing this mini-quest the character does not receive typical GP rewards. They receive the ally in place of gp rewards and receive normal xp rewards for the encounter. I think the cost should be based on the ally power. A lvl 3 character pays 900 for a small air elemental while a lvl 20 character pays 80,000 for the same creature. Can you think of a way to easily and smoothly base it on the ally CR?
Zevox 06-19-06, 06:45 PM	MWB was refering to the controversy regarding losing allies for the duration of the 3FC when they're killed. Putting that aside for a moment, I don't see any note in there about allies only impacting gp rewards rather than both xp and gp. Did you decide against that for some reason? Zevox
MindWandererB 06-19-06, 06:47 PM	@MW: I don't know what you're talking about. I left out the commands and actions to push which were the main criticism. We have a problem, we have discussed it for weeks, and here's an elegant solution. We could talk back and forth till the end of time or we can try it out. One thing that is clear is that it is much better than what we had.That was Book5's complaint, and maybe one other person. Most of the last couple dozen posts are complaining about allies, especially class allies, being gone for the cycle if they die. However, you're right in that we can try it out. But I still think that class allies, which are not part of the problem, will be the worst hit.
Pitlords 06-19-06, 06:53 PM	@MW: Ah ok, that's what you mean. Well, we have both said what could be said about the class ally death and it's now time to find out how it works. I stated and argued my reasons some posts above and after I offered a compromise in that you can leave your ally out of the fight after you know your opponent, the debate ended there. Let's just wait and see how it goes. @Sauro: Edited my post above. Also, can you explain your advancement formula?
MindWandererB 06-19-06, 07:04 PM	Will these new rules go into place this week or next? I assume next, since the numbers still need to be worked out.
SauroGrenom 06-19-06, 07:12 PM	@MW: Ah ok, that's what you mean. Well, we have both said what could be said about the class ally death and it's now time to find out how it works. I stated and argued my reasons some posts above and after I offered a compromise in that you can leave your ally out of the fight after you know your opponent, the debate ended there. Let's just wait and see how it goes. @Sauro: Edited my post above. Also, can you explain your advancement formula? The advancement idea I came up with was as follows... To advance 1HD costs 1000gpxcurrent CR at that HD. So if you advance your griffon by 1 HD the CR of that creature is 4 and this costs you 4000gp. Now you have a 8HD griffon. If you advance it by 2 HD you spend 8000gp. You calculate the cost at each HD and go up as far as you want. So to advance a griffon from 7 to 9 HD carries a cost of 4000gp +4000gp total 8000gp to advance the ally. If you want to advance by 3 HD then the 10th HD costs an additional 5000gp for a grand total of 13000gp. Once you gain the 11th HD you also increase in size and get a CR+1, so the CR is now 6 and it costs 6000gp for the 11th HD. You can continue to advance 11-12 HD at a cost of 6000gp each, but the 13th HD costs 7000gp (CR steps up again). And so on. Obviously if you get an elite ally it will cost a bit more to advance him.
KerlanRayne 06-20-06, 05:41 AM	Allies are prebuffed to to reduce the number of allies an opponent has to worry about. If the ally is of no use, they should have the option of leaving it out without penalty. They can still only prebuff allies up to their max allowable so the it won't cause any problems.Is there a reason for the penalty? Will it stop some abuse that I don't see right now? I'd rather give them a break rather than givng an extra penalty for no real balancing reason. KerlanRayne PS - Is there a reason the standard arena map was altered?
Pitlords 06-20-06, 09:15 AM	The Diplomacy Ally list has been updated. We'll probably implement it on June 28 because I want to give you enough time and also make one package. @Kerlan: There is now a pattern for the rocks and they're more evenly distributed. @Sauro: That sounds very expensive.
SauroGrenom 06-20-06, 12:12 PM	@Sauro: That sounds very expensive. That was just a first idea. It's more expensive than advancing a purchased ally in some cases and a bit less expensive in other cases (pseudo-dragon). Also the purchased ally cannot be "upgraded". If you want an advanced Griffon purchased ally, you need to sell the old one and buy a new advanced one. So I figured you would need to pay a bit more for the option to "level" your ally as you increase in levels. In any case if you want to drop the cost, just decrease the constant out front. Make it xxxgp X CR for each HD, where CR is the CR at the new advanced HD. Choose a number out front that you like, 800gp, 500gp, 400gp whatever. Probably 400gp will get you close to the cost of advancing purchased allies in most cases.
Pitlords 06-20-06, 02:29 PM	500 seems reasonable and is a round number. I'll add it to the rules. Is there a reason for the penalty? Will it stop some abuse that I don't see right now? I'd rather give them a break rather than givng an extra penalty for no real balancing reason. We had that discussion before. Without the cost, there is no reason not to always prebuff with your maxCA and leave those at home which you don't need. We wanted to remove the ability to adept to the opponent by chosing the best allies. The cost makes this a very expensive tactic now.
MindWandererB 06-20-06, 02:41 PM	I have a moderately urgent request for a rules change: that the 1 quest/level rule be changed to 1 successful quest/level. If failed quests count, it 1) places an undue burden on guilds, which then have to do without the character's income for about a month, 2) forces ally builds to go without their desired ally for several fights, and worst of all, 3) forces characters who want to become something like an assassin or war mind to do something else for their next level.
Pitlords 06-20-06, 03:08 PM	If a cohort or ally dies in one of the various Battles of Gladius (or otherwise inside the Nimbus), it is True Ressurected, re-summoned, re-animated, or otherwise made whole again, for free, after the 3-Fight Cycle is complete. There will be no negative side-effects from losing an ally (eg paladin's mount, familiar). Until then, however, the ally is not available and cannot assist you in any way. He's basically... dead. This is similar outside the Nimbus (Quests, Campaigns) with one exception: if it was a leadership ally, your leadership score drops by 1 for each cohort that died. Gold Cost: Advanced allies are also more expensive. The upprice for purchased allies is listed behind their entry. Advancing a Diplomacy ally by one HD cost 500xCR where CR is the CR at the new advanced HD. So far, these are the only allies that cost money to advance. Next Question is if we should extend the new rule about allies dying during the 3FC to sundered/destroyed equipment. You get everything back at the end of the cycle but if you lose your greatsword in fight 1, you have to use your backup weapon in follow-up fights. The only thing we have to prevent - just like with allies - is that a character destroys everything of an unconscious or otherwise helpless opponent. Pitlords are then advised to make a judgement call which, however, shouldn't be too difficult because such a maneuver needs to be clearly written in the tactic and the intent is thus easily recognized. IMO it would just be consequent to include sundered equipment. Is there anything that might be problematic with that?
MindWandererB 06-20-06, 03:42 PM	IMO it would just be consequent to include sundered equipment. Is there anything that might be problematic with that?Yes, there is. It means that if you run into an opponent with Improved Sunder in week 1, you're better off surrendering. Almost every time. That way, you only lose one fight, but if you get your primary weapon sundered, you'll likely lose the next two as well. There's a point that has been made before that I'd like to elaborate on. Cat, you said that in your TT games, people are much more cautious about protecting their class allies, and than the kamikaze tactics folks used in the arena were something you disapproved of. However, if I were in a TT game faced with the challenges we face here--a one-on-one fight with an opponent just as min-maxed as I am--I wouldn't send myself to fight, much less an ally. I'd run and come back when I had a clear advantage. We don't do anything to our allies that we wouldn't do to ourselves, and the same goes for a TT game. Sundering is a brutal tactic. I only use sunder attacks in my TT games under very limited conditions--if I've been overgenerous with rewards, for instance, and I need to cut down the party's treasure. And if I were to sunder a warrior's primary weapon, I would expect them to go home for the day. Furthermore, it presents an unfair advantage against such victims. Say an archer loses their bow in week 1. Maybe they didn't buy a backup, or maybe the backup was broken as well. Then their next two opponents will pretty much auto-defeat them. That's not the point of the arena, and you don't learn anything about the strengths of weaknesses of a build (the archer learns that he sucks without a bow--big surprise--and the opponent learns that he's better than a bow-less archer).
Pitlords 06-20-06, 03:47 PM	I have a moderately urgent request for a rules change: that the 1 quest/level rule be changed to 1 successful quest/level. If failed quests count, it 1) places an undue burden on guilds, which then have to do without the character's income for about a month, 2) forces ally builds to go without their desired ally for several fights, and worst of all, 3) forces characters who want to become something like an assassin or war mind to do something else for their next level. I just had the same discussion with Telin. Here's what I wrote: Miniquests suck up one pitlord for one player. If they would be unrestricted, many would see the coco as a roleplaying platform and increase their MQs. We can barely support it as it is now. Also, if you compare our MQs to the MQs at the beginning of Living Gladius, you'll see that we've removed many things that made a quest risky. You didn't gain rewards if you lost, your powerrating went down, there was this completion bonus, you lost a level (!!), and it seems that soon sundered equipment and dead allies will be ressurected on quests too. The only little risk we have left is that you have to wait some time. I really don't want to make miniquests a farce. Why then miniquest at all? To burden our pitlords? Miniquests need to stay restricted for these two main reasons.
MindWandererB 06-20-06, 04:05 PM	...Miniquests need to stay restricted for these two main reasons.I agree with the restriction in general, I just don't think it should be applied to failed quests. What would happen if you had a character build that relied heavily on an ally? You create the character, go on the quest, and fail it. So you're stuck, probably losing then next eleven fights or so until you level and can try again--and you might fail that one, too. Or what if you plan on becoming an assassin at your next level, but you fail the mini? Suddenly you're forced to take a different class, changing your build entirely. Anything that forces someone to develop their character in a way other than what they wanted is a problem.
SoulLord 06-20-06, 04:08 PM	I just had the same discussion with Telin. Here's what I wrote: Miniquests suck up one pitlord for one player. If they would be unrestricted, many would see the coco as a roleplaying platform and increase their MQs. We can barely support it as it is now. Also, if you compare our MQs to the MQs at the beginning of Living Gladius, you'll see that we've removed many things that made a quest risky. You didn't gain rewards if you lost, your powerrating went down, there was this completion bonus, you lost a level (!!), and it seems that soon sundered equipment and dead allies will be ressurected on quests too. The only little risk we have left is that you have to wait some time. I really don't want to make miniquests a farce. Why then miniquest at all? To burden our pitlords? Miniquests need to stay restricted for these two main reasons. How about this Miniquests must have at least 2 gladiators if they are to be free of the 1/lvl limit. this would free up pitlords and increase role playing
TelinArtho 06-20-06, 04:11 PM	I know I told you in my PM that I was all done with the issue- but MWB does bring up a valid point. Since a miniquest at a minimum is required for getting allies and for prestige class requirements, restricting those can really impact the build of the character. Now the allies part - while an inconvenience, could probably be dealt with. For a character who was going to go for blackguard or assassin or war mind or what have you - this becomes a nasty headache. Now suddenly the player restarts his character because he can't get the class he wants at the level he wants. However, if you feel that miniquests are impacting the CoCo in such a negative way - why don't we just do away with them altogether. Introduce the cost that has been proposed (by doing a MQ but getting no gold reward), and make a special shop with restrictions on it via Handle Animal and Diplomacy, etc. And if you don't think this is an important consideration, let's use Niqil's four horsemen. Since the EL of the miniquest must be at least your ECL or higher for things like prestige class acquirement, we'll be looking at a dire situation indeed. Peaceful contact with an outsider - so the four dwarves each face, at ECL 5, a cleric with hold person memorized. They all face the cleric and each one fails their will save. Niqil sees that he can't miniquest again until the next level, so he restarts all of his characters at ECL3, and miniquests them for the same requirement. Four miniquests per week until he gets each character in as planned. Absurd? Yes. Does it make the MQ a farce? yes. If you want to prevent abuse of the miniquests - I suggest putting in a check before they are used. Can someone miniquest to roleplay? No. Can someone miniquest to advance? No. I still don't see anywhere in the rules where you gain any sort of reward for failing a quest either - so if someone could point that out to me it would be great. I happen to think you shouldn't gain anything from it... but I'd like to see it before I make too much comment about it.
SoulLord 06-20-06, 04:13 PM	Next Question is if we should extend the new rule about allies dying during the 3FC to sundered/destroyed equipment. You get everything back at the end of the cycle but if you lose your greatsword in fight 1, you have to use your backup weapon in follow-up fights. The only thing we have to prevent - just like with allies - is that a character destroys everything of an unconscious or otherwise helpless opponent. Pitlords are then advised to make a judgement call which, however, shouldn't be too difficult because such a maneuver needs to be clearly written in the tactic and the intent is thus easily recognized. IMO it would just be consequent to include sundered equipment. Is there anything that might be problematic with that? I think Allies should have the same treatment as equipment. If you say that if an ally dies he's out of the 3FC then equipment should behave the same. If you say that equipment is returned after each fight then allies should also return after each fight. Just to have a consistent ruling.
SauroGrenom 06-20-06, 04:18 PM	IMO it would just be consequent to include sundered equipment. Is there anything that might be problematic with that? As I mentioned with respect to allies death, this kind of rule is a stylistic decision about how the setting of the Arena works. This and the allies death rule would make the Arena more like running the Gauntlet. Coupled with the new maps and the 3 week cycle, this makes the arena a very diverse environment. Now the place you fight, spells you have left, expendables remaining, equipment remaining and allies alive are all variables in each battle. Up to this point all the new maps and the 3 fight cycle and the expendibles cap and the new diplomacy rules have all been rules that control the setting and have no effect on a character's class features or the items they have paid for and expect to use. Some of these rules limit what you can have on your sheet, but not whether what you have is available in this battle (excepting spells). The allies rule and a sundering rule are both examples of changes to the setting that allow your opponents to take things away from you and make them unavailable in further fights against other opponents. In effect sundering equipment is the economic equivalent of ability damage that may not be healed before the next battle. If you want to go that way, it's more true to the challanges faced by a character in a campaign. But it is also blurrs the line between arena and quest combat. Also remember that in a real campaign, you will have companions to fall back on. Those others are not available in this environment. Whatever you decide, I'm OK with it, but I'll probably want to build a grappling sundering Large sized creature of some kind or maybe two of them at the same ECL.
Pitlords 06-20-06, 05:06 PM	Failed miniquests are failed miniquests. I know your arguments but they don't convince me at all. If you are worried that you don't pass the MQ to go Blackguard on time, then begin questing at ECL 3. If you fail all MQs up to ECL 8 then you're not good enough to become a blackguard yet and have to go through another level but come on, this is the worst case scenario and the guy has deserved it: Prestige Class Requirements are still requirements, not presents. If a character relies so heavily on allies that he cannot even complete a miniquest at his level then he should probably rather play the ally and scrap his character. It's surely not the board's fault. Neither is it if you fail to enter the guild. The guild has to make it without you for some weeks, so what? You're pulling out impossible worst-case scenarios or ask that failing characters should get an advantage and exception just because they failed. I really like it as it is now and the things you listed as problematic are actually things I'm very glad that they exist because they are what makes miniquests still something of a risk. Without that, they would be nothing but empty shells that do nothing but burden our pitlords. Let's get back to the topics at hand please instead of opening up new topics. There's enough that needs to be concluded.
MindWandererB 06-20-06, 05:29 PM	If a character relies so heavily on allies that he cannot even complete a miniquest at his level then he should probably rather play the ally and scrap his character.If it weren't for this comment, I'd go ahead and let it rest. But frankly this line makes me mad. We're not all the master players you are, Cat. We don't all have a roster full of Great Renown characters. We fail our miniquests sometimes--and not particularly rarely, either. With the 3WC and the minimum EL for quests equal to a character's ECL, it's going to happen more frequently from now on. I read other peoples' quests pretty frequently, and I have seen a substantial number. Some are due to bad choices by the questlord (hound archons and fire elementals come to mind), some are due to one or two bad die rolls (A CR 3 caster can dish out a Blindness/Deafness or a Hold Person spell, which are often enough to win a fight), and they are very rarely due to to player error. A quest at your own ECL is actually pretty hard for most of us. A character can potentially become a war mind or assassin as low as their 6th character level. That gives them two tries to quest for the PrC before getting there. If they enter a guild or quest for an ally, that gives them only one quest remaining. If they fail, their entire character concept goes out the window. And you're saying they "deserve" it? No one "deserves" to be unable to create the character they want, not even the worst min-maxers here. Their only hope is to rebuild the character and start over, which costs them months of advancement--keep in mind that a character who only wins half their fights takes five to six weeks to level. And not everyone plays only successful characters, either. There are a few characters with the Failure tag out there who keep on going despite it. These people should not be penalized for their persistence. And how is the ability to repeat a failed quest an "advantage?" You gain nothing by it. I think SoulLord had a good idea, in that quests (and miniquests) that involve more than one character shouldn't count. They're no more of a burden than an arena fight, after all.
Pitlords 06-20-06, 06:06 PM	You're right of course. I apologize for that line. Still, I see requirements - be it for a PrC or a Guild - as an obstacle that needs to be overcome (by being successful). If we allow retries then you can basically quest about 30 times before hitting the level where you wanted to take the first level in the new class. That's no obstacle anymore. Soullord's proposal just takes away even more characters from the Battles of Gladius. Miniquests only exist for the sole reason that players who don't have credits can still use all game options of this board. I thought only a few would use them but the majority would go on full quests which I still regard as the normal way to overcome requirements. However, it's the other way around. Miniquests have become a huge part of this board already and I don't want to give them even more space. If I would know for sure that it would encourage players to pitlord and at the same time not chase away newbies, I would say we forget about MQs altogether. Anyway. I've added the Planar Ally rules in the Rules: Allies I (once the slow board accepts my edit). I am playing with the thought that you can waive the payment if your diplomacy exceeds the DC by a certain amount. Suggestions and thoughts?
SoulLord 06-20-06, 07:14 PM	Still, I see requirements - be it for a PrC or a Guild - as an obstacle that needs to be overcome (by being successful). If we allow retries then you can basically quest about 30 times before hitting the level where you wanted to take the first level in the new class. That's no obstacle anymore. Soullord's proposal just takes away even more characters from the Battles of Gladius. Miniquests only exist for the sole reason that players who don't have credits can still use all game options of this board. I thought only a few would use them but the majority would go on full quests which I still regard as the normal way to overcome requirements. However, it's the other way around. Miniquests have become a huge part of this board already and I don't want to give them even more space. If I would know for sure that it would encourage players to pitlord and at the same time not chase away newbies, I would say we forget about MQs altogether. And why is it that Miniquests are so popular? They are fun and they don't cost credits. I understand that they should not hog up our pitlord population which is why I suggested at least 2 players per MQ to avoid the 1Q/lvl rule.
MindWandererB 06-20-06, 08:31 PM	I have another idea that might make all parties satisfied with the situation: Have miniquests count as two character activations. That has them consume the same amount of "resources" as an arena fight (1 pitlord per 2 activations), but allows full freedom to miniquest for character build components such as allies and PrC's. They would still be available to players without credits but would cut down on pitlord use. Optional twists to this suggestion: ·Have this only count for any MQs after the first per character level. That's sort of a hybrid between the current rule and this one. ·Have this not count for guild membership quests. We don't want to deter people from joining guilds if we want the guild system to thrive. Guildmasters and backup guildmasters should be more willing to invest their time in building their guild roster anyway.
Salrantol 06-20-06, 09:22 PM	With regards to failed miniquests, you should also note that in recent memory there have been a couple of miniquests where the foe was substantially more powerful than a character of the same ECL would be--i.e. hound archon at EL4, which was selected by a pitlord who didn't realize how much more powerful the creature was. With that, the character would be set back several fights because of pitlord error and Wizards' crazy CR system, not because of a flaw of the characters. There is a huge range of variance at a given CR, even among very similar creatures. Compare a hyena to a riding dog or a wolf. Compare a mule or a light horse to a light warhorse. That's just at CL1. Light warhorses are often nearly a match for an ECL 3 character, whereas a hyena is barely a roadblock.
Pitlords 06-21-06, 03:20 AM	@MW: Hey, that's a great idea with the two activations per Miniquest! This solves the 1 PL per player problem as elegantly as any of Sauro's proposals. I'll add that at once! Thumbs up! :thumbsup: I don't like to take away the last piece of excitement. Another problem is that if we unrestrict miniquests for membership, then you can play the substitution game where you just drop out those who are inactive for some time. On the other hand, guild membership should be encouraged and more importantly, it doesn't help the character in any way. He joins for roleplaying only while his gone miniquest slot is a real game effect. I'll think about the guild quests. Mindwanderer's awesome idea has changed the situation quite a bit.
Pitlords 06-21-06, 08:48 AM	I just found a small complication in the rules for the 3FC: you don't level until the 3FC is complete. This creates two problems: it confuses me when I update the roster. Did the player add his xp already? In which week is he in? If the information on his sheet is unclear - and this happens often (many don't even get the title lines straight), I'll miss the level-up. This creates confusion on the roster from time to time, and in effect, increases my workload. Another problem is that a character who was short before leveling up at the beginning of the 3FC will earn XP to more than half-way up the new level. His rewards however are that of a fight at his current lower level. Example: Character has 5900 XP and is ECL 3. The 3FC starts and he wins 3 times. Fight 1: 900 XP/GP; 5900 -> 6800 xp Fight 2: 900 XP/GP; 6800 -> 7700 xp Fight 3: 900 XP/GP; 7700 -> 8600 xp Total Gold earned: 2700 Gold. However, for the second and third fight, he would have gotten 1200 gold if he could have made use of his new level. That's a difference of 600 gold which is quite a lot at level 3, and the difference stays relatively as worse at higher levels. So the big question is: can't we allow a level-up during the 3FC? I think I remember that the reason for this was that it's unfair to be paired in a higher league without being able to use your new abilities. Since this affects only abilities that need rest to be used (spells and x/d abilities) this affects only a small number of characters and even then only for 1-3 spells at the most. If this is the only reason, I think we can allow a level-up during the 3FC. Or was there another reason why we forbade it?
SoulLord 06-21-06, 09:02 AM	I just found a small complication in the rules for the 3FC: you don't level until the 3FC is complete. This creates two problems: it confuses me when I update the roster. Did the player add his xp already? In which week is he in? If the information on his sheet is unclear - and this happens often (many don't even get the title lines straight), I'll miss the level-up. This creates confusion on the roster from time to time, and in effect, increases my workload. Another problem is that a character who was short before leveling up at the beginning of the 3FC will earn XP to more than half-way up the new level. His rewards however are that of a fight at his current lower level. Example: Character has 5900 XP and is ECL 3. The 3FC starts and he wins 3 times. Fight 1: 900 XP/GP; 5900 -> 6800 xp Fight 2: 900 XP/GP; 6800 -> 7700 xp Fight 3: 900 XP/GP; 7700 -> 8600 xp Total Gold earned: 2700 Gold. However, for the second and third fight, he would have gotten 1200 gold if he could have made use of his new level. That's a difference of 600 gold which is quite a lot at level 3, and the difference stays relatively as worse at higher levels. So the big question is: can't we allow a level-up during the 3FC? I think I remember that the reason for this was that it's unfair to be paired in a higher league without being able to use your new abilities. Since this affects only abilities that need rest to be used (spells and x/d abilities) this affects only a small number of characters and even then only for 1-3 spells at the most. If this is the only reason, I think we can allow a level-up during the 3FC. Or was there another reason why we forbade it? I think It would be more complicated like that. Higher level allows you More or better allies More and higher level spells Increased 1/day usage of abilities Better skills to name a few. I have a Suggestion to fix this even if it's artificial. After a character levels up in the middle of the 3FC 1.-he should mark this on his title. 2.-his rewards are given as if he had fought in the next league. So in your example the character would win money and xp as if he had been fighting in the 4th league. this would eliminate the disparity in xp/gp. the alternative would be to allow leveling between the 3FC and to allow to buy things that the previous level did not have acces to.
Abyssal Stalker 06-21-06, 10:35 AM	@MW: Hey, that's a great idea with the two activations per Miniquest! This solves the 1 PL per player problem as elegantly as any of Sauro's proposals. I'll add that at once! Thumbs up! :thumbsup: So does this mean that MQ's are not anymore restricted to 1/lvl?
Pitlords 06-21-06, 11:27 AM	Polymorph Any Object: This spell is not available at the Marketplace; neither in form of Scrolls or Items nor as Spellcasting Service. Unlike with other permanent spells, you need to prebuff this spell including the spell level cost and it lasts only until the end of the 3-Fight Cycle. True Mindswitch: This power is banned. Miniquests: count as two character activations per character. Crafting Items and Requirements: If a character wants to craft a custom magic item himself, he has to fulfill prerequisites just like most magic items have prerequisites, be it a spell or a certain alignment or something else. The magic items listed in the DMG serve hereby as a guideline. For example, +5 Perform Dance Shoes might require you to have 5 ranks in Perform Dance. New XP/GP Table: You can surely remember our discussion about the imbalance of gold and xp, and Sauro's terrifying analysis of it. It's time to add Usurpator's proposal to the rules. This will replace the old tables. You now basically just check the XP, then multiply them by the ratio to get the gold rewards. ECL /CR XP : GP | WinXP WinGP | LossXP LossGP 1 1 : 1.00 | 300 300 | 100 100 2 1 : 1.00 | 600 600 | 200 200 3 1 : 1.00 | 900 900 | 300 300 4 1 : 1.00 | 1,200 1,200 | 400 400 5 1 : 1.06 | 1,500 1,600 | 500 533 6 1 : 1.11 | 1,800 2,000 | 600 666 7 1 : 1.23 | 2,100 2,600 | 700 866 8 1 : 1.41 | 2,400 3,400 | 800 1133 9 1 : 1.66 | 2,700 4,500 | 900 1500 10 1 : 1.93 | 3,000 5,800 | 1000 1933 11 1 : 2.27 | 3,300 7,500 | 1100 2500 12 1 : 2.72 | 3,600 9,800 | 1200 3266 13 1 : 3.33 | 3,900 13,000 | 1300 4333 14 1 : 4.04 | 4,200 17,000 | 1400 5666 15 1 : 4.88 | 4,500 22,000 | 1500 7333 16 1 : 5.83 | 4,800 28,000 | 1600 9333 17 1 : 7.05 | 5,100 36,000 | 1700 12000 18 1 : 8.70 | 5,400 47,000 | 1800 15666 19 1 :10.70 | 5,700 61,000 | 1900 20333 20 1 :13.33 | 6,000 80,000 | 2000 26666 The question now is: how to we deal with (a) XP loss from crafting and (b) Involuntary XP loss? (a) We can say that you have to pay an extra amount of GP depending on the XP lost. Let's say you (ECL 6) craft something worth 1000 gold, you'd lose 40 XP and 44 GP (40*1.11). At ECL 10 the same crafting would cost you 40 XP and 77 GP (40*1.93). Alternatively, we can just forget about the XP loss when crafting although I don't really like that because it's not by the rules and we have to keep this anyway because: If you cast a spell with a XP cost, you have to pay the correct price in gold along with it. (b) Involuntary XP loss, like the death of a familiar, can result in GP loss aswell. It becomes problematic if the character doesn't have enough money (we might solve it by deducting the outstanding gold from his next rewards). Alternatively, we can waive involuntary XP loss. @AStalker: I haven't decided yet. @SoulLord: The question is if this is worse than what I posted.
bluemage55 06-21-06, 02:09 PM	IIRC, the way that Living Greyhawk campaigns handled item creation feats was for them to simply serve as a discount on all items purchased of the appropriate type. Are there any problems with such a method for the CoCo?
SauroGrenom 06-21-06, 03:30 PM	The question now is: how to we deal with (a) XP loss from crafting and (b) Involuntary XP loss? (a) We can say that you have to pay an extra amount of GP depending on the XP lost. Let's say you (ECL 6) craft something worth 1000 gold, you'd lose 40 XP and 44 GP (40*1.11). At ECL 10 the same crafting would cost you 40 XP and 77 GP (40*1.93). Alternatively, we can just forget about the XP loss when crafting although I don't really like that because it's not by the rules and we have to keep this anyway because: If you cast a spell with a XP cost, you have to pay the correct price in gold along with it. (b) Involuntary XP loss, like the death of a familiar, can result in GP loss aswell. It becomes problematic if the character doesn't have enough money (we might solve it by deducting the outstanding gold from his next rewards). Alternatively, we can waive involuntary XP loss. Involuntary XP loss is actually very rare. It can only happen to a sorcerer or wizard 1/year. That's once for each actual year in the CoCo. Infact If the Nimbus is extended to cover quests, then even this cannot happen. XP cost due to crafting or some spells is a much more common occurance. The simplest thing to do would be to simply negate the xp cost. If all xp costs are ignored the problem just dissapears. The other way to do it is to try and mimic falling behind and catching up to the xp of your party members. This is the virtual xp idea, but it can be complicated. The idea of attaching increased gp cost using the ratio's of xp and gp value from above can get messy when you create a character at higher level. So if you create a 10th level character, then which ratio do you use for his precrafted items. Had they been crafted at ECL3, then the ratio is lower than if they were crafted at ECL10. As I said the easiest thing would be to just negate the xp cost all together.
Pitlords 06-21-06, 03:46 PM	XP/GP Balance: I tend to agree. With the balanced XP/GP ration, all you lose is a little bit of time, if at all. It therefore increases bookkeeping and creates an extra house rule factor. I think we're just going to forget about crafting xp and involuntary xp loss from next week on. Spell XP costs need to be payed though (and with it, the appropriate gold cost). That solves another issue. We still have these topics to conclude: Destroyed Equipment: Should destroyed equipment be unavailable until you complete the 3FC, similiar to how allies are handled? Free Miniquests: for guildmembership. Arguments for and against are posted above. Planar Ally: Should we add an option that you can reduce the payment to zero if your diplomacy check exceeds the DC by 10? You still have to use up the spell levels and you've invested a lot into diplomacy. Handled Animals: Should we convert the HA system to Sauro's system, just like we just did with diplomacy allies? It's definately more eloborate; question is if it is necessary. Level-Up during 3FC: For above mentioned reasons, we should discuss this.
Sunwolf 06-21-06, 04:17 PM	RE: Leveling in a 3FC How about we allow the leveling in the 3FC but no purchases (as usual) until the end of the cycle? This allows the benefit of the extra abilites of the new level (more hp, spells, spell levels, skills, etc), fighting in the new rank, and xp/gp rewards of the new level, and ease of tracking for Cat. Downside is the character has to wait till the end of the cycle to buy stuff and may not have access to higher level expendibles for 1-2 fights. The character would have had to wait to buy new stuff till the end of the cycle anyway. RE: Destroyed equipment -- I think that equipment should be restored after each fight. Otherwise characters fighting an opponent built around sundering will be at a severe disadvantage in their remaining fights in the cycle. In a similar, manner I believe that allies should also be restored after each fight -- since they are vital to some builds.
SauroGrenom 06-21-06, 04:25 PM	I just found a small complication in the rules for the 3FC: you don't level until the 3FC is complete. This creates two problems: it confuses me when I update the roster. Did the player add his xp already? In which week is he in? If the information on his sheet is unclear - and this happens often (many don't even get the title lines straight), I'll miss the level-up. This creates confusion on the roster from time to time, and in effect, increases my workload. Another problem is that a character who was short before leveling up at the beginning of the 3FC will earn XP to more than half-way up the new level. His rewards however are that of a fight at his current lower level. Example: Character has 5900 XP and is ECL 3. The 3FC starts and he wins 3 times. Fight 1: 900 XP/GP; 5900 -> 6800 xp Fight 2: 900 XP/GP; 6800 -> 7700 xp Fight 3: 900 XP/GP; 7700 -> 8600 xp Total Gold earned: 2700 Gold. However, for the second and third fight, he would have gotten 1200 gold if he could have made use of his new level. That's a difference of 600 gold which is quite a lot at level 3, and the difference stays relatively as worse at higher levels. So the big question is: can't we allow a level-up during the 3FC? I think I remember that the reason for this was that it's unfair to be paired in a higher league without being able to use your new abilities. Since this affects only abilities that need rest to be used (spells and x/d abilities) this affects only a small number of characters and even then only for 1-3 spells at the most. If this is the only reason, I think we can allow a level-up during the 3FC. Or was there another reason why we forbade it? There are no other reasons why we forbade it. However the wealth concern may not be much of a problem realy. I'd allow the players to choose in each case. So if I want my character to level, then great I can add in the xp and level him. So for example Kracknol has few x/day abilities and does not rely heavily on new powers. But if my character is a prepared caster, then I'd rather have him wait. For example in Raskos's case he has a great many bonus spells and bonus pp and psi-like abilities that all are important to his success. So for this character I'll not edit my xp untill I have a 3 week total.
SauroGrenom 06-21-06, 04:57 PM	About Destroyed equipment: I think this is probably an unnecessary step, but I can see both sides of the argument. My major concerne with this and the dead allies ideas are that you can enter a battle and benefit or suffer from abilities and feats that were used in a previous battle where that person is no longer around. So if Bob fights Tom and Tom's primary weapon is sundered and his mount slain, then when Tom fights Eric next week Eric gets to enjoy the effects of Bob's Improved Sunder and Cleave feats. This is a sweet deal for Eric because he doesn't need to have those feats, but enjoys the benefits in his battle anyway. At the same time Tom deals with the Cleave and Improved Sunder feat effects in both his battle with Bob and his battle with Eric. Miniquests: I honestly haven't been following the argument very closely. But as a Guildmaster I want to make sure that I can send guildmembers on a mission with decent frequency. If I need to send two of them, then that's fine with me. Or perhaps any mission is resisted by a member of the opposite guild so there are two characters in the quest. In any case I agree that its important to get multiple characters into quests and mini-quests. Planar Allies: I haven't thought much about it, so I'll reserve comment and allow those who have hought about it to voice more informed opinions. Handle Animal Allies: My major concern with this is how the advanced allies are being handled. That has a great potential for abuse. HA allies are generally not as powerfull as an intelligent Diplomacy ally with the same CR or HD. This is partly because of the need to "handle" them in combat and also due to the fact that the animal type is a weaker type than outsiders or magical beasts or dragons. There should be some kind of limit placed on how far you can advance these allies, but it should be more flexible than what you get with diplomacy allies.
TelinArtho 06-21-06, 05:07 PM	For Planar allies and thaumaturgists - how stringent are we on the alignment: Always Alignment - obviously, you always get the ally with that alignment - that's easy. Usually Alignment? Do you get to pick within one step of the listed alignment maybe? (So if it is "Usually Chaotic Evil" - you could get a Neutral Evil or a Lawful Evil) Any Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil/Neutral? Do you get to pick the most beneficial to you as long as it stays on the axis stated (Any Lawful would Lawful Evil if that was the most beneficial, etc)? Most of the outsiders seem to have an always alignment - but it would be nice to know this before anyone tries to use the rules (like me... :)) As to the costs, I think beating the score by an additional 10 is a decent baseline. The only people who do are investing very heavily in having the ally anyway - add to that they still have to be aware the ally may not last all 3 fights of the cycle - so they need to be able to handle things without the ally as well...
Pitlords 06-21-06, 05:54 PM	(Level Up) I think we should definately let characters level up. I have already trouble keeping track of characters who have enough XP but are on hold. I also have to check in which week they're in (half the characters didn't list that in the headline, as is required), and during the week I have to check back once in a while to see wether he has already added the XP or not. Finally, bad XP tracking at the bottom of the sheet confuses me further. So in order to prevent having a mess on the roster or a headache (or both) characters level normally after this week. They may not memorize anew to fill their new spell slots nor can they use abilities that need rest to work. All other abilities not based on rest work normally. However, I see that there is a need to balance the difference out. Any ideas? Perhaps you can fill the newly gained slots retroactively? (Sunder) @Sauro: but that's how it works in a real campaign. If your equipment gets destroyed by a rust monster, your next opponent - Eric - benefits from the rustmonster ability. (Planar Ally) @Telin: "Always" Alignments are clear. "Usually" ...I'd say can be anything within one step. If only one component is listed, the other component may be anything. To get a friendly creature (same alignment) to helpful requires only a Diplomacy value of +10. If you have +20 you don't even have to pay. If the alignment is one step away, it is indifferent and you need a +20 to get it to helpful. An unfriendly creature (two steps away) needs diplomacy +30. With a circlet of persuation and a +10 diplomacy robe, Cha 14 and 15 ranks in a class skill you can gain +30 at ECL 12 more or less easily. There's still an incentive to go higher because at +40 you can waive the payment for those with two steps away even. Sounds good to me. Do you have a list of available planar allies? Should we allow advanced ones? What about a knowledge requirement to pick the planar ally yourself? Or perhaps to pick an advanced version? (Handle Animals) Sauro is right with the advanced animals. They're less troublesome than diplomacy allies (which have been fixed) but they're still abusable. Sauro, didn't you have a formula for them?
SauroGrenom 06-21-06, 06:57 PM	For HA allies, I suggested CR+1/2HD and use the same sort of system where you buy the allies with HA points from your skill check modifier. That was a first idea, and I haven't worked through any examples. Perhaps it would be necessary to make the HA cost equal to 5+CR+1/2HD or some such or even CR+HD. I chose the 1/2HD because animals have rather poor save or BAB progression, and they lack supernatural abilities that scale with DC as HD increases. For Sunder: I just used the same argument that was used to keep the 1/3 rule. That argument was that if you go nova in fight 1, then the player who you battle in that fight doesn't get to reap the rewards of your decreased spell casting power in battle 2 and 3. So the benefits are allowed to be enjoyed by another character. This is unfare to the player in fight 1 who lost. For Sunder and Allies Death, the same thing is happening. Conditions of one battle provide benefits to other characters in future battles. When thinking about the 1/3 rule it's not fare to the victum of a Nova in fight 1. When thinking about sunder and dead allies, it's not fare to the victum of a sunderd weapon or dead ally in fights 2 and 3. For both the nova strategy and the sunder strategy, there is a way that such strategies will play out in a campaign. In general both are events that will not work very well for players to use or have used on them. Each will bring the adventure to a very desperate position where the characters are not equiped to handle the next battle. I'll not take a side on this issue. I just want to explain how I see a simularity between the 1/3 rule and allowing equipment and allies to be restored. Both are aspects of the setting that are in place to make each arena battle as fare as possible. One of my major motivations in proposing the 3FC was to reintroduce resource management to CoCo. Before the 3FC there was no need to conserve spells or scrolls or potions. All were renewed at the end of the fight anyway. By limiting howoften you can rest and purchas items, these expendibles and x/day abilities are now managed to allow success in a short series of battles. By making ally death and equipment loss last for the entire cycle, then you are expanding the idea of what are "resources" that a player must manage. Where as before "resources" that require managing were only expendibles, spells and x/day abilities, now it will include basicially everything on the character sheet except HP. Perhaps level loss should carry over from fight to fight as well?
TelinArtho 06-21-06, 09:22 PM	Do you have a list of available planar allies? Should we allow advanced ones? What about a knowledge requirement to pick the planar ally yourself? Or perhaps to pick an advanced version? I wrote up all of the available allies from lesser planar ally a few pages back along with their HD, CR and alignment (though I wasn't consistent with "always," "usually," etc - so it will need to be cleaned up). I also made the assumption that the only options for the planar ally spells are outsiders and elementals. I don't think that knowledge should be a requirement to be honest, because you already need a method to communicate - which will already cut down your options for most characters (unless they are an extra-planar linguist...). There's only about 20 available options - and many of them wouldn't really be worth the expense to bother with. That being said - advanced versions are a little troublesome and I think that should wait until later - after we've seen it in use for a little bit. I guarantee that Kraegin will make use of them after he finishes his quest and becomes a thaumaturge - so we should have some trials soon. For the planar ally spells to be usable in the arena - they still need to have the improved ally ability in order to make it a reasonable cost. I look at 1500gp for a 6HD ally of up to CR5-6 as being unreasonable for a period of 1-3 fights. If it was a guaranteed 3 fights - that's a possibility - but if it can be a minimum of 1 - then it is too much. For a thaumaturge, it is getting more reasonable at 750gp, but it could be expensive - when you also take into account the spell levels that need to be used for it.
MindWandererB 06-22-06, 01:41 AM	I personally don't see the problem with holding off leveling up--just have folks include their ECL in their title line. Then Cat doesn't even have to think about it. Keep rewards the same as they should be for the current ECL. Filling newly-gained spell slots is possible, but other things aren't--for instance, what if you feel like you need to buy a potion or scroll of Fly immediately after hitting ECL 5? Your prepared opponents will be able to fly, but you can't. I think mid-cycle levelling is just a whole lot messier than it needs to be.
KerlanRayne 06-22-06, 05:00 AM	How about if you gain enough experience to level up in the middle of the cycle, you level up normally and your cycle resets back to fight 1. Just an idea. KerlanRayne
Stormwind 06-22-06, 05:44 AM	I like Kerlan's idea. It's simple, clean and requires a minimum of bookkeeping. To reiterate: As soon as you have the experience to do so, you level up and your fight cycle is reset. The only possible abuse that I can think of would be if a character somehow manages to always level after only a single fight. However even in this case, you are still limited by the 1/3 rule for spells, powers and abilities, thus I'm not sure this would even classify as abuse. It might give a slight edge to wizards who do so in that they would have their full range of spells to choose from rather than a more limited selection that they would normally have in their second week, however I think that this will be a very minor point. Storm
Pitlords 06-22-06, 08:35 AM	I've cleaned up almost the whole Rules of Gladius (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6463399) thread. I think it looks better now and is easier to use. I also read through the whole thing and updated everything that was outdated. Here's the new change to the 3FC regarding leveling: You can add the XP gained and level up normally. If you gain a level during your 3-Fight Cycle you have to fight the remaining fights in a higher league. Although you haven't rested yet, you can make use of new abilities that depend on rest to work (spells, x/d abilities, etc). Just fill the newly gained spell slots with spells and mark new x/d abilities as unused. This only applies to abilities and spells that you gained with the new level. I've also written up a short tutorial on how to update your character. Please tell me if anything is unclear or missing. Once the fight is done, the pitlord posts any important information about the fight in the Fight Summary. You have to do some bookkeeping after the fight but don't worry, it's easy and quickly done. Here are the basic steps on how to update your character sheet. Link the Fight: At the bottom of your character sheet is a section called "Previous Fights" or something similar to which you have to link your fight. If the fight took several posts you have to link all of them. You also have list the name of your opponent(s) and their player(s), the level you fought at, the pitlord, and the rewards. As long as these information are included, the layout is basically up to you although you're encouraged to use the streamlined version of the standard character sheet. Please do not place (sblock)(/sblock) around the fight history because the pairingsmaker has to quickly check your sheet to prevent rematches. Deduct Expendables: If you have used any expendable items, like scrolls or potions or even a charge from a wand, the pitlord lists this in the Fight Summary. You have to move all used up items on your sheet to the "Past Expenditures" section at the bottom of your sheet. Leave the price and caster level and everything else behind the expendable; just cut/paste it to the section with the used up items. Mark off used abilities: The pitlord also lists all spells or abilities that have been used in the fight. This is important due to the rules for the 3-Fight Cycle because anything used up is not available in your next fight. Please be very careful here because if you make a mistake and your next opponent points it out you auto-lose the fight! If you have completed your 3-Fight cycle, you can ignore this point. Update your prebuffs: If you have used spells or abilities before or during your last fight that still have a remaining duration of at least one hour, the pitlord mentions those in the fight. You can write them into your "Prebuffs" section on your character sheet. If the next Time Roll is lower than the remaining duration of your prebuffs, then they are still running at the beginning of your next match. If you do not list them under prebuffs, they are considered to be dismissed by you. Add your Rewards: Once the fight is done, you get your fight rewards (XP and GP), naturally! The Pitlord posts these rewards in a summary at the end of the fight which serves as a quick reference for our auditors who check your sheet. Rewards are modified if you or your opponent brought in allies (see Rules: Allies I), or if you used a Free Activity (see Rules: Skills) to earn extra money. Add XP to your experience total, and gold rewards to your stash. Level Up: If you have earned enough XP to level up, do that now. Level your character normally. If you haven't completed your 3-Fight Cycle, you have to be careful: you can use all abilities and spell slots you gained with the new level. Fill the newly gained spell slots with spells normally just as if they hadn't been used yet. All spells and abilities used up in previous fights stay used up! If you didn't gain a level, skip this point. Buy new Equipment: If your last fight was the third one of your 3-Fight Cycle (and only then!), you can use your accumulated gold to buy new equipment and refill your expendables. You can also craft a week or three, start a quest, or just prepare for the next 3-Fight Cycle by updating your - hopefully streamlined - title line.. I also updated any reference to Wednesday 9 PM GMT to 9 PM CET (http://wwp.centraleuropeantime.eu/). If you find a spot where this isn't the case PM me please. Effectively, this means pairings are 2 hours earlier in summer and 1 hour earlier in winter. More importantly, I can go to bed earlier :) :) :) @MW: Your suggestion with the title line never ever works. Some don't even have the correct ECL listed on their sheet! I would be 100% dependent on the care of the players, and that's not working. Since you can fill the new spell slots and make use of new abilities, there's only the little drawback with the equipment that can now be bought at one level higher but this is really minor compared to the headache I'd face. @Kerlan: Not so good because you can count on it. Also, since you gain a lot of xp over three fights it would happen very often that a cycle won't be completed which defeats the whole purpose of the new rule. @Stormwind: It's similarily minor to not be able to buy expendables of 1 single CL higher for 1 or 2 matches which is the only drawback of the level-up during the cycle.
SoulLord 06-22-06, 09:22 AM	How about if you gain enough experience to level up in the middle of the cycle, you level up normally and your cycle resets back to fight 1. Just an idea. KerlanRayne As Caterane likes to call it an elegant solution. It gets my vote and also you get a cookie for coming up with it. :cookie: I strongly suggest that the cicle be reset after the level up for the reasons I mentioned in previous posts.
TelinArtho 06-22-06, 03:16 PM	Okay - here's the full list of Outsiders and Elementals that would be available for Lesser Planar Ally. There are a few more that have the subtype "Extraplanar" that I have not listed here - but I only just noticed them as I was checking other things. If I get a chance, I'll go back and get them. These are organized by HD and then CR. Lesser Planar Allies For Thaumaturgist Same Alignment = DC20; 1 step off = DC30; 2 steps off = DC40 1 HD (125gp/250gp for Thaumaturgist/Other) Aasimar (1HD, planetouched, CR 1/2) usually any good Formian Worker (1HD, formian, CR 1/2) always LN Tiefling (1HD, planetouched, CR 1/2) usually any evil Lantern Archon (1HD, archon, CR2) always LG Vargouille (1HD, CR2) always NE 2 HD (250gp/500gp) Lemure (2HD, devil, CR1) always LE Elemental, Small (2HD, elemental, CR1) usually N Azer (2HD, CR2) always LN Dretch (2HD, demon, CR2) always CE Magmin (2HD, CR3) always CN 3 HD (375gp/750gp) Imp (3HD, devil, CR2) always LE Quasit (3HD, demon, CR2) always CE Thoqqua (3HD, CR2) usually N Triton (3HD, CR2) usually NG Juvenile Arrowhawk (3HD, arrowhawk, CR3) always N Juvenile Tojanida (3HD, Tojanida, CR3) always N Mephits (all) (3HD, CR3) usually N Minor Xorn (3HD, xorn, CR3) usually N Yeth Hound (3HD, CR3) always NE Ravid (3HD, CR5) usually N 4 HD (500gp/1000gp) Elemental, Medium (4HD, elemental, CR3) usually N Formian Warrior (4HD, formian, CR3) always LN Flamebrother Salamander (4HD, salamander, CR3), usually any evil Hell Hound (4HD, CR3) always LE Rast (4HD, CR5) usually N Shadow Mastiff (4HD, CR5), always NE 5 HD (625gp/1250gp) Xill (5HD, CR6) always LE 6 HD (750gp/1500gp) Crysmal (6HD, psionic monster, CR3) any lawful Howler (6HD, CR3) always CE Barghest (6HD, CR4) always LE Hound Archon (6HD, archon, CR4) always LG Janni (6HD, genie, CR4) usually N Achaierai (6HD, CR5) always LE Bearded Devil (6HD, devil, CR5) always LE Nightmare (6HD, CR5) always NE Bralani (6HD, CR6) always CG Formian Taskmaster (6HD, formian, CR7) always LN Succubus (6HD, demon, CR7) always CE [EDIT]Just to give an example of what we're working with, I wrote up the options for Kraegin. Of course, right now (at ECL7), he doesn't qualify for the diplomacy benefit of the thaumaturge - but once he advances he will. At that point, without anything more, he'll have a +10 diplomacy skill. Assuming the rules for planar allies are solidified, he will almost definitely craft himself a Diplomacy +10 item. I have stricken out the eligible allies that Kraegin could get, but can't use due to the ally cap. Kraegin's list of possible planar allies and needed diplomacy: Same Alignment (DC20 diplomacy for half price) Tiefling (1HD, planetouched, CR 1/2) usually any evil Vargouille (1HD, CR2) always NE Elemental, Small (2HD, elemental, CR1) usually N Thoqqua (3HD, CR2) usually N Mephits (all) (3HD, CR3) usually N Minor Xorn (3HD, xorn, CR3) usually N Yeth Hound (3HD, CR3) always NE Ravid (3HD, CR5) usually N Elemental, Medium (4HD, elemental, CR3) usually N Flamebrother Salamander (4HD, salamander, CR3), usually any evil Rast (4HD, CR5) usually N Shadow Mastiff (4HD, CR5), always NE Janni (6HD, genie, CR4) usually N Nightmare (6HD, CR5) always NE 1 step off (DC30 diplomacy for half price) Lemure (2HD, devil, CR1) always LE Dretch (2HD, demon, CR2) always CE Imp (3HD, devil, CR2) always LE Quasit (3HD, demon, CR2) always CE Juvenile Arrowhawk (3HD, arrowhawk, CR3) always N Juvenile Tojanida (3HD, Tojanida, CR3) always N Hell Hound (4HD, CR3) always LE Xill (5HD, CR6) always LE Crysmal (6HD, psionic monster, CR3) any lawful Howler (6HD, CR3) always CE Barghest (6HD, CR4) always LE Achaierai (6HD, CR5) always LE Bearded Devil (6HD, devil, CR5) always LE Succubus (6HD, demon, CR7) always CE 2 steps off (DC40 diplomacy for half price) Formian Worker (1HD, formian, CR 1/2) always LN Azer (2HD, CR2) always LN Magmin (2HD, CR3) always CN Formian Warrior (4HD, formian, CR3) always LN Formian Taskmaster (6HD, formian, CR7) always LN Now the last thing that is required of the planar ally spell is the ability to communicate. I've always treated this as knowing a language the ally would speak. Several of them however, do not speak. If the "communication" can be given through body language- that opens up possibilities - but also means that communication during a fight would be limited. For instance - communicating via body language - ally must be able to see the gestures of the caster in order to get new commands. Commands must be simple and probably no more complicated than a handled animal. However, if the caster speaks the language - the two can communicate freely in that language throughout the fight. All that would be needed is visual or aural capability to get the message. [Edit the Edit] Planar Ally (up to 2 with no more than 12HD total) Adult Arrowhawk (7HD, arrowhawk, CR5), always N Djinni (7HD, genie, CR5) always CG Adult Tojanida (7HD, tojanida, CR5) always N Belker (7HD, CR6), usually NE Babau (7HD, demon, CR6) always CE Average Xorn (7HD, xorn, CR6) usually N Lillend (7HD, CR7) always CG Avoral (7HD, CR9), always NG Rakshasa (7HD, CR10) always LE Elemental, Large (8HD, CR5) usually N Chain Devil (8HD, devil, CR6) always LE Chaos Beast (8HD, CR7), always CN Hellcat (8HD, devil, CR7) always LE Invisible Stalker (8HD, CR7) usually N Zelekhut (8HD, inevitable, CR9) always LN Night Hag (8HD, CR9) always NE Greater Barghest (9HD, CR5), always LE Average Salamander (9HD, salamander, CR6) usually any evil Bodak (9HD, CR8), always CE Erinyes (9HD, devil, CR8) always LE Couatl (9HD, CR10), always LG Efreeti (10HD, genie, CR8) always LE Vrock (10HD, demon, CR9) always CE Bone Devil (10HD, devil, CR9) always LE Hezrou (10HD, demon, CR11) always CE Retriever (10HD, demon, CR11) always CE Ghaele (10HD, CR13) always CG Hellwasp Swarn (12HD, swarm, CR8) always LE Nessian Warhound (12HD, hell hound, CR9) always LE Bebelith (12HD, demon, CR10) always CE Formian Myrmarch (12HD, formian, CR10) always LN Barbed Devil (12HD, devil, CR11) always LE Devourer (12HD, CR11) always NE Leonal (12HD, CR12) always NG Glabrezu (12HD, demon, CR13) always CE Astral Deva (12HD, angel, CR14) always any good Trumpet Archon (12HD, archon, CR14), always LG Greater Planar Ally (up to 3 with no more than 18HD total) Kolyarut (13HD, inevitable, CR12) always LN Ice Devil (14HD, devil, CR13) always LE Nalfeshnee (14HD, demon, CR14) always CE Planetar (14HD, angel, CR16) always any good Elder Arrowhawk (15HD, arrowhawk, CR8), always N Elder Xorn (15HD, xorn, CR8) usually N Elder Tojanida (15HD, tojanida, CR9) always N Noble Salamander (15HD, salamander, CR10) usually any evil Cauchemar Nightmare (15HD, nightmare, CR11) always NE Marut (15HD, inevitable, CR15) always LN Horned Devil (15HD, devil, CR16) always LE Elemental, Huge (16HD, CR7) usually N Nightwing (17HD, nightshade, CR14) always CE Hound Archon Hero (17HD, archon, CR16), always LG Marilith (16HD, demon, CR17) always CE Abyssal Greater Basilisk (18HD, CR12), always CE Pit Fiend (18HD, devil, CR20) always LE Balor (20HD, demon, CR20) always CE Formian Queen (20HD, formian, CR17) always LN Titan (20HD, CR21) always any chaotic Elemental, Greater (21HD, CR9) usually N Nightwalker (21HD, nightshade, CR16) always CE Solar (22HD, angel, CR23) always any good Elemental, Elder (24HD, CR11) usually N Nightcrawler (25HD, nightshade, CR18) always CE
TelinArtho 06-22-06, 05:12 PM	Okay - I've added the rest of the possible allies that can be summoned with the other two planar ally spells. First off, several more can be removed from the list - because anything CR17 or higher will never make it into the arena until we allow epic characters. Also, since anything ECL10 or above is frozen, then nothing with a CR higher than 6 will be seen. Add to that the fact that Planar Ally is a 6th level cleric spell - means that, unless the caster is using a scroll, the spell won't even be used in the arena until the ECL11 is open. In other words - most of the later two spells won't even be an issue for quite a while.
Caterane 06-22-06, 06:29 PM	@Soullord: As said, the problem is that it would interrupt quite a few cycles. Looking at the list for 24.May Pairings, I can find eight level ups. This is a lot of cycle interruption. I can also see the abuse already. Quests with the EL being just high enough so that you stop a few XP before leveling, then start the cycle. Since we can only make guesses at this point, let's just try it out as it is and see if the level up works. The current rules say that you can use your newly gained abilities so you lose only 1 single CL of expendables available. That's all. @Telin: Thanks a lot for that list! I will add it to the rules tomorow and add the thing with the free payment.
SoulLord 06-22-06, 07:33 PM	@Soullord: As said, the problem is that it would interrupt quite a few cycles. Looking at the list for 24.May Pairings, I can find eight level ups. This is a lot of cycle interruption. I can also see the abuse already. Quests with the EL being just high enough so that you stop a few XP before leveling, then start the cycle. Since we can only make guesses at this point, let's just try it out as it is and see if the level up works. The current rules say that you can use your newly gained abilities so you lose only 1 single CL of expendables available. That's all. @Telin: Thanks a lot for that list! I will add it to the rules tomorow and add the thing with the free payment. I see your point that 1/day abilities hould not be refreshed by resetting the cicle but it's not only expendables that are aquired. 1.-expendable cap increases 2.-Higher level expendables can be bought 3.-higher level allies can be used A character who earns a lvl in the middle of the cicle is at a disadvantage against characters with full access to the store. if we allow the reset there is potential for abuse for characters with 1/day abilities. Since casters who save spells would actually be losing an advantage if they reset. But I'll wait and see how it works
TelinArtho 06-23-06, 02:32 PM	Before I start talking about this - I want to mention that I still think we should see Planar Allies in action before a ruling is made about advancing them either with the elite array or more HD. However, I figured I'd get the ball rolling for this next step to see what falls from it. Customizing Planar Allies with the Elite array Okay, first of all, this trades off an array of 10s and 11s with an array of 15,14,13,12,10,8, at the expense of adding one CR to the creature. In most cases, I think this should be fine. The cases where it will be most pronounced are when a creature already has a really high ability score. A Medium air elemental for instance could get as high as a 26 dex (15+10 (racial)+1 (4HD)), It might improve a spell-like or special ability's DC by 2 or damage by 2-3 per attack - but otherwise, it won't have a huge effect. The cost is a greater ally cost in terms of what you can bring in - even though it doesn't affect the cost incurred by the spell. In general, I am fine with this applied to planar allies - but again - a credit cost of 1 per casting is reasonable because it certainly creates more work. All adjustments should be verified as well. Customizing Planar Allies with different Feat or Skill Allocations I've been trying to figure out how this is really going to help. In some cases, it could help, but it would certainly be a case-by-case basis. In general though - at 1 credit per feat changed or 1 credit for a different skill allocation - I think this should be fine. The credit cost will hopefully keep alterations at a minimum - and remember it is per casting. Advancing Planar Allies with more HD This of course requires special handling because of the restrictions of the creature to be advanced and the limit on HD for the spell. According to the rules on applying more HD to Elementals for every 4 HD added, they gain 1 CR; for Outsiders 2 HD adds 1 CR. However, I think that even a 1HD improvement should increase the CR by 1 - just to make sure that people don't "customize" without restriction. Of course, any advancing still must stay within the boundaries of the advancement limits listed with the entry and only for HD - not class levels. To further restrict it - the maximum of 6HD for the lesser planar ally will make sure that advancement can't always happen to the maximum. For example, someone wants to improve a medium elemental. Normally they have 4HD and with the advancement line can be advanced to 7HD. a 3HD advancement would only increase its CR by 1- but because of the Lesser Planar Ally spell limits - it could only be improved to 6HD and that would still make it a CR4 creature. Still, with a hefty 3 credit cost to adjust the hit dice and a confirmation of the adjustments needed beforehand, I think it would work fine. Lastly, with added hit dice, the spell actually costs more. A CR4, 6HD medium elemental would be 1500gp for a regular caster or 750gp for a thaumaturgist with the appropriate diplomacy skill bonus and on top of that would have a greater ally penalty when used in a fight. ----------------------- In summary, I think all of these things should have a credit cost because of the extra work for pitlords to handle them. However, in general, I don't see an example creature available that would be "broken" by allowing these adjustments. However, I still think a cautious approach should be taken - so for the first few attempts, they should be watched. Since there are not many people capable of casting the spell required, this should not be difficult to monitor closely.
Book5 06-23-06, 09:37 PM	Welcome to the Core Coliseum! Part 1: The Characters and the Tavern. Boy! Ever hear tell of Gladius? Well lemme tell ya! Right here in wizard city..... As players of D&D we are constantly faced with rules questions. How to interpret the rules as they are written is a daunting task. Some claim to know the rules of D&D backwards and forewords, and some make big claims about knowing how the rules were supposed to be. Take my word for it, you should never take their word for it. The next time you have a serious question about what the rules as written actually say; I say get yourself to Gladius! Gladius? What’s that? No, we’re not talking about an ancient roman sword. Though that is where the name came from. Gladius is a City not a sword. The greatest D&D city ever made! Founded on the coast of Talas, in the world of Othala, Gladius is a city with character. Or perhaps I should say: Gladius is a city with allot of characters. Nearly 1,000 characters living, breathing, and fighting at last count. Does any other D&D city have 1,000 unique inhabitants? No. Let alone fully stated and in complete concordance with all core rules? Nope! Gladius, or “The COre COliseum,” is a city wherein we test character builds. We make character’s using the SRD (and nothing else) and we pair them off into fights. Each player can have two characters for free. Your characters are active weekly, gaining experience and gold for battles as well as other activities. You can roleplay your build in one of the many RP threads, or you can simply ready your silent killer for battle in the arena. Your level of participation in the living city is entirely up to you, and does not effect you success in the arena whatsoever. What do we have for you today? We got maps, we got guilds, we got everything a city needs! Complete with a colorful history and a rather novel setting piece – the magnificent nimbus! By virtue of the nimbus and the mysterious pitlords the warriors of Gladius take up arms in lethal bloodsport for your weekly entertainment. Pixies face off with giants. Gnomes battle trolls. Archers shoot fliers out of the sky, and grapplers wrangle wizards to the ground. We can discuss why casters are better classes than the non-casters. We can provide example after example of how a properly prepared wizard will win vs a basic fighter nearly every time. Even with his spell levels limited! While some players bemoan the so called “1/3rd” rule – everyone with a bit of sense can see that even restricted to 1/3rd of their power level that the casters cleanup in the arena regularly. There is no waiting period – if your character is set to ready by the end of Tuesday this week you can watch your character get killed by Saturday. We like to make certain the newbies gets trounced first, you see! I am not saying anything about your character.. but I doubt he can stand tall vs the Harvester (III) or even Clavis the Bohemian Dragon. This is not your neighbor’s table top game. No one is scared to kill your character, and you get free resurrections anyway. Currently there are only three undefeated characters above the low level leagues; and all three characters’ players are experienced pitlords. How does that saying go? Meet new and interesting people.. and kill them! The “COCO” (as we like to call it) is a mega-campaign. Instead of several campaigns being run independantly with a similar premise – every single character in Gladius can willingly interact with every other character in the city. Be it roleplaying or duels to the death – the city is alive! We even have weather. The living city systems are mostly driven via the guild threads. The living city of Gladius gives you the unique ability to play with dozens of other players simultaneously in a ever expanding campaign setting. Duels to the death are most certainly the norm amongst COCO battles, but we also have intrigue, political maneuvering, craftsmasters, and the like. Whatever you taste desires. One caveat however, you better have a good build. If you want to sign up for the guilds and participate in more than just bloodsports – you need to have a solid character. The guild economy is driven by your character’s success. If your character couldn’t sneak his way out of a paper bag, then you probably shouldn’t try signing up for the Ever Watchful EYE. If you can’t maintain your psionic focus – don’t even bother the PSI. There is another saying: “Its not the size that counts, but how you use it” and that holds true in COCO as well. No one is going to sniff too hard if you walk into town and copy paste yourself a Harvester Lite, because beyond just points and feats you have the issue of tactics. In an arena where everyone above the bush leagues is a dyed in the wool killer .. just being a good build isn’t gonna be quite enough. Everyone has a weakness, winning is simply a matter of exploiting it! Looking to the Future! Gladius is so much so a living city that before too long it will change. It is hard to say exactly what these changes will look like, but rest assured Caterane (our illustrious GM) has your best interests in mind. Caterane (call him Cat) and the major players of the COCO are constantly working on the tournament systems. The most recent update was the ability to track multiple fights occurring in a single day. Soon we shall have a fully-fledged tournament system reminiscent of your standard ultimate fight club! “One of these days” we will have mass battle tactical combat. Also in the works is an obstacle course for those builds that are not meant to be blood thirsty murderers. We are even tinkering with a pure social conflict scenario .. Bards gotta be able to win something right? The ultimate goal is to create a crucible for you to test your characters against others who share your love for a good build. Furthermore every valid build will be able to test themselves against a compatible opponent, in a consensual arena. You just might have to wait a little while for that cooking competition. Why Wait? In Gladius the questions of “who is the best class” never degenerates into “well my fighter can beat up your wizard…” because my wizard has already fireballed your fighter to death three times in the arena. If you learn nothing else today – learn this: wizards are the most potent class in a face off. Think otherswise? Why don’t speak your mind in our Tavern? The tavern is an "open forum" for you to ask any questions, toot any horns, or generally talk shop about anything…. and boy can we talk! In the last year we have ran 5 taverns into threadtastrophy. This sixth one is half used up…. And by the time you read this we may have made it to number eight already! Anyone want to tell me why this wasn't good enough for Regdar? It was good enough for MSWord... ?? My first guess - is that something in here could be taken as insulting. Me and Mel have an understanding (either she is ****** off at me about this one thing (well 8 things but whos counting) - or its wasn't as good as it should be - I told her not to let me slacker stuff). Thoughts from elders in particular would be appreciated. It would dissapeare in the tavern thusly I put it here for ya'll muckity mucks to consider. B? Note: Book5 "broke" (get it!? as in no money...) his internet access. All I have is work (and I am currently doing the job of 3 people (for the pay of 1) SO! I'll let you permute your own conclusions on that regard. ) brb.. saturday should be slower.
MindWandererB 06-23-06, 10:06 PM	@Book5: I'm guessing because it's basically spam. If you want to advertise, ask the WizO's to do it for you, as Paradox did back in December. But it's not really pertinent to D&D for most people, it's not appropriate for Redgar's. And besides, this really ought to be Cat's domain.
Caterane 06-24-06, 05:40 AM	Book, that's a really nice advertisment and I'm touched that you tried to get us more members (after the 5 week non-upgrade chased away half the roster). Back in december I tried to start a "Board Advertisment" campaign in the GM Forum. Basically, every month one board is advertised by a GM and posted throughout the forums for everyone to read. Unfortunately it didn't went as expected: first of all, it was just plain text without my color and tags which made it vanish within a bigger text, then it stayed up for only a few days, and after that none of the other GMs ever made an advertisment banner so the idea died. I think it's time to revive it and I'll make a call in the GM Forum today. Here's my old advertisment btw: Hi everyone! I am Cat(erane) from the Core Coliseum (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=483) (or CoCo). Some of you might have heard of it but if you haven't checked it for more than a few weeks, you have surely missed a new Add-on. I am writing this because I am convinced that the CoCo has something for everyone! The CoCo has two purposes: the first one is to test your character in various situations, the second purpose is to roleplay your character in an interactive fantasy world. It's very simple. Create a character (Level 3 with 3000 starting gold) and see him fight in one of the various Arenas or Dungeons, and in different fight scenarios, ranging from 1vs1 to Team Battles to Hunter Games to All vs All fights. You might also end up against a random monster or a mercenary NPC. You gain gold and xp for every fight (more if you win) with which you buy better equipment, and ascend in the hierarchy of the CoCo (measured in Powerrating). Quests and Campaigns are another option open to your Player Character (PC). You can quest for whatever you want, perhaps an ancient weapon, a leadership cohort, or even something purely roleplying like to find your lost mother. While Quests are a solo-missions that last only for a few weeks, Campaigns are full-blown online adventures with a party of 3-5 PCs and lasting for about half a year. Your character still gains gold, xp, and ascends in the hierarchy of the CoCo. Behind the technical aspect of the CoCo stands a complete world centered around the City of Gladius (where the Arena is located). This world is always under construction because every story written, every event that happens on a quest or campaign, everything your character experience is recorded and included into the World of Gladius. Here is a great opportunity for Worldbuilders who like to help creating a continent and for Storywriters who want to fill this world with life. Be assured that you will be rewarded for every contribution you make. If you just enjoy reading epic, dramatic, or funny stories, this is the right place to go. Of course, we have already enmassed many many Maps created by users of the CoCo so if you need a good map quickly, you will surely find one. And if you want to create one on your own, you gain credits for that. Rules Lawyers will be at home in the CoCo. Because of the intense testing which goes into detail, you will get the keenest insights into the d20 D&D system. Debates about the functioning of the rules, their interaction between each other, and the finding and fixing of loopholes is constantly going on everywhere in the CoCo. And if you are new to D&D, I assure you there's no better and faster way to learn the rules. Besides, we have so many experts in "Knowledge (Dungeons & Dragons)" who will gladly answer any question you have. Many of our regulars show up daily so you'll get acquainted with new people from all over the world very quickly. The CoCo is a very personal board, even sharing pictures of its members, listing the birthdays of everyone, and most importantly, stay in contact even outside the board: The Core Coliseum Community (CoCoCo). Many regulars have Yahoo accounts so that they can always chat with each other even outside the board. If you have such an account and are interested in joining, I'll gladly give you all the handles of our members. There's still much more than I can write here but I want to present you our latest addition: the LivingGuild system. The seven Guilds (each having a different theme) are roleplaying platforms composed of and for CoCo characters to bring them even more to life. The Guilds have to conquer districts of the city, build structures (like marketsquare, temples, etc) to earn money and gain benefits, hire regiments to defend against (or attack) other guilds, and much more. It is basically a game in the game. The CoCo is constantly growing and improving. Our next planned add-on's are a Reputation system with titles, land and property, a Special Event system with random events happening weekly that affect the whole city, and a Mercenary system to hire allies. If you have a good idea on how to improve the board, please share it with us! I hope I have been able to give you a brief outline of what this board is about, and have shown you that there's surely something that interests you, too. All I am asking is that you give it a try. Come to the Core Coliseum, create a character or three, and participate in whatever way you want. Say 'Hello' in the Tavern and you will receive a warm welcome. See you in the CoCo! All links you need are in my signature. Cat PS: One last thing. You can also earn a Custom Avatar in the upcoming Iron Man Tournament. 64 characters, only one can win. It's still some time before we start it but you also need some time to level your character so that he is high enough to participate. |(Core Coliseum (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=483)) (Rules of the CoCo) (Quickstart Guide) (PM Caterane)
TelinArtho 06-27-06, 12:05 PM	So- any more comment on Planar Allies? I just want to make sure things are solidified - since we could (read: will) see them as soon as a week from Wednesday.
Book5 07-03-06, 07:41 PM	Book, that's a really nice advertisment and I'm touched Woot! Yay! Actually apparently Regdar thought I meant to post on General... shucks, Mel's so nice. Anyhow - any suggestions to make it more ya know.. better! and I will resubmit - the idea here is that while this is kinda out of the "general fare" of regdar's its still in the "general theme" which is to post as though you wanted to be taken seriously - this is a serious advertisment. drat - they kick me out of the building again, bye for now
Caterane 07-05-06, 08:26 AM	Now that I've pitlorded a couple of 3FC fights, the thing that bothered me the most was that I had to check back on all past fights and retrieve the summaries. I think all characters should make an sblock up at the top or somewhere on the sheet that has every information about previous cycle fights in there, and they should use our summary template. Let's do it that way. Another idea on how to decrease pitlording time is if we say that you don't have to list positions if you use the mapmaker. The round summary is also not necessary if nothing happened that round (no new buff, no damage, etc). What do you think about that? Do you have any additional ideas on how to make the pitlord's job easier?
TelinArtho 07-05-06, 09:26 AM	Well, I still feel the maps should have coordinates listed on them before they are used further. Drac's mapmaker was down for a portion this week - which makes fights on the plains and in the forest a pain. The sewer map is small enough to count it out - but it still isn't ideal. As to listing the 3FC info at the top of the sheet - that's fine with me.
TelinArtho 07-06-06, 10:40 AM	For Planar allies and thaumaturgists - how stringent are we on the alignment: Always Alignment - obviously, you always get the ally with that alignment - that's easy. Usually Alignment? Do you get to pick within one step of the listed alignment maybe? (So if it is "Usually Chaotic Evil" - you could get a Neutral Evil or a Lawful Evil) Any Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil/Neutral? Do you get to pick the most beneficial to you as long as it stays on the axis stated (Any Lawful would Lawful Evil if that was the most beneficial, etc)? Most of the outsiders seem to have an always alignment - but it would be nice to know this before anyone tries to use the rules (like me... :)) As to the costs, I think beating the score by an additional 10 is a decent baseline. The only people who do are investing very heavily in having the ally anyway - add to that they still have to be aware the ally may not last all 3 fights of the cycle - so they need to be able to handle things without the ally as well... Just going back to this, when a character uses lesser planar ally and lists the called creature on his sheet - the called creature should have the "correct" alignment for the diplomacy value right? So if Kraegin summons a medium elemental, he'll list its alignment as Neutral Evil - because that was how he got the "good" diplomacy value out of him. Also - when using LPA, the called creature should be listed under prebuffs AND under allies right?
SauroGrenom 07-06-06, 12:01 PM	Now that I've pitlorded a couple of 3FC fights, the thing that bothered me the most was that I had to check back on all past fights and retrieve the summaries. I think all characters should make an sblock up at the top or somewhere on the sheet that has every information about previous cycle fights in there, and they should use our summary template. Let's do it that way. Another idea on how to decrease pitlording time is if we say that you don't have to list positions if you use the mapmaker. The round summary is also not necessary if nothing happened that round (no new buff, no damage, etc). What do you think about that? Do you have any additional ideas on how to make the pitlord's job easier? Everyone's character sheet should have a clearly marked place for pitlords to cut. Look at Raskos for an example. Also it should be encouraged to avoid strange font tags and size tags. I know of at least one character sheet that is all in small italic font and it is a strain on the eyes to read. Also having everything in a nonstandard font introduces as much as 28 characters for every sblock. These font tags must be closed and reopened inside of the sblock and that adds up fast to hundreds of extra characters. When the max allies are listed perhaps you can also list the % of reward penalty. The plains map realy needs to have something to make it easier to track distance on it by eye. When the mapper is up that's great, but it's not perfect either. My computer screen is not large enough to show the bottom where the "distance" is shown if the characters are at the top of the map. Perhaps a darker line at every 10' and a heavy line at every 20'. That would just make it easier on the pitlord to plot those distances. I haven't used all the maps, but the same considerations should be applied to them all. Drac may be able to put a distance calculating function into his map generator to help pitlords. This would be very usefull so that I don't have to replace all the pins to find a distance between. Perhaps some kind of window where I can just choose pin a1 and pin b4 and it will tell me the distance. That will help with long range battles when I need to worry about range penalties. Infact on large maps I find it hard to plot movement distances. For example if character 2 moves after character 1, then the distance stat in the bottom of the map shows the distance between where character 1 ended and where my pin for character 2 is at now. I'd rather have it show the distance between my pin for character 2 and the pin for this character at the end of last turn. That is the distance he moves, and it's the distance I care about at this point. It would be great if the distance shown while doing this kind of move were cumulative for that character over the round. So I can use 4 pins to move around a couple corners and the "distance" shown at the bottom of the sheet represents the cumulative move distance. Then allow me to go back and move the 2nd pin and the distance is recalculated without moving the 3rd and 4th pins. Anyway the point is I want it to show me the distanced move by particular people in a "round". Also I want to be able to find the distance between any two pins on the map (for listen checks and range penalties).
Book5 07-07-06, 03:07 PM	Drac's mapmaker was down for a portion this week ACK! No bueno... idea.. Map Mirrors? ... I have space I think. I would need the php thingo though. We're webbys! we can make mirriors! I would think that at least one mirror would be advisable. Mine would have the caveate of google ads on the bottom of every page, but that wouldn't be that bad eh? gasp.. breath... gasp.. bing.. thank you for calling.. ...... have a nice day! What was I saying?? Oh yeah - I have a suggestion for that social arena - 15 minute turns, and 5/10/15 minute actions. Threatening - 5, Chatting - 10, Communicating - 15.... sigh.. freya's day is getting slower by the second - hehe - Where did I put Tan? Where did Ba'al wonder off too?
KerlanRayne 07-18-06, 03:03 AM	ACK! No bueno... idea.. Map Mirrors? ... I have space I think. I would need the php thingo though. We're webbys! we can make mirriors! I would think that at least one mirror would be advisable. Mine would have the caveate of google ads on the bottom of every page, but that wouldn't be that bad eh?If it's ever down again, try this Coral Cached Link (http://www.hwx.it.nyud.net:8090/coco/) and see if it works. It might not, but is worth a try. KerlanRayne
TelinArtho 07-21-06, 10:44 AM	Was there a final ruling on allies dying and whether they are available for the rest of the cycle? What about sundered equipment? Also, I still have some open items about LPA from above - most notably the customized, elite and advanced allies. Since Kraegin will be active next week - it would be nice to have these ironed out ahead of time.
MindWandererB 07-21-06, 02:31 PM	Was there a final ruling on allies dying and whether they are available for the rest of the cycle? What about sundered equipment? Also, I still have some open items about LPA from above - most notably the customized, elite and advanced allies. Since Kraegin will be active next week - it would be nice to have these ironed out ahead of time.At this time, the allies stay dead (if they actually reach -10 HP during the fight), but sundered equipment is restored. I think the reasoning is that Cat felt that allies needed a nerf.
Traevanon 07-25-06, 08:22 AM	I would like to propose a limit to the time of arena fights. For the sanity of Pitlords and because no Table Top fight I have ever run in my long history of DMing has ever run as long as many of the fights here I would suggest 100 rounds, at which point the match is considered a Draw. Advantages: - Gladiators dont use up more resources than they intended. - Pitlords can remain sane. - Audiences will not fall asleep. - Some fights will no longer exceed by a factor of 10+ the length of normal TT battles. - Some gladiators might have to change tactics slightly. Knowing that they cant just outlast their opponent, they will have to come up with a winning strategy rather than an attrition strategy. Disadvantages: - Some fights dont wind up with a Winner / Loser. - Some gladiators will have to alter their delay strategies. - Other gladiators, faced with an opponent they cannot hope to beat might be able to reach a draw instead. Please consider this change.
SoulLord 07-25-06, 09:57 AM	Reading the new council rules I have a doubt.... Assume the Tao a neutral guild evicts an inactive character and recruits a new character shifting the alignment of the guild from neutral to Lawful good. what happens to the neutral regiments of the TAO? And another thing MQ are limited to 1 * level so what happens to characters who have been inactive for 2 months + because they are in the frozen league?
TelinArtho 07-25-06, 10:43 AM	I would like to propose a limit to the time of arena fights. For the sanity of Pitlords and because no Table Top fight I have ever run in my long history of DMing has ever run as long as many of the fights here I would suggest 100 rounds, at which point the match is considered a Draw. Advantages: - Gladiators dont use up more resources than they intended. - Pitlords can remain sane. - Audiences will not fall asleep. - Some fights will no longer exceed by a factor of 10+ the length of normal TT battles. - Some gladiators might have to change tactics slightly. Knowing that they cant just outlast their opponent, they will have to come up with a winning strategy rather than an attrition strategy. Disadvantages: - Some fights dont wind up with a Winner / Loser. - Some gladiators will have to alter their delay strategies. - Other gladiators, faced with an opponent they cannot hope to beat might be able to reach a draw instead. Please consider this change. I would be against this change. First of all, I have been involved in several prolonged fights. Perhaps not 100+ rounds, but certainly in excess of 6-7 minutes. Sometimes things progress slowly - that's just the nature of some fights. Second of all, it would actually help people who want to use delay tactics. Since you are only "required" to interact with your opponent once every ten rounds - a 100 round draw would very likely be: Character A hides for round 1-10. In round 11, the arena points out his position and he takes a shot at his opponent. In round 12-21 - he hides again. In round 22, he takes another shot... etc. If you have a character who has little ability to overtake his opponent but who has a great shot of lasting 100 rounds (and therefore gain more rewards) - the tendency, I think, would be to aim for that mark. Which means that inadvertantly, the rule you want implemented to "shorten" fights - actually prolongs them. Lastly, while you may see this as a common problem, the fact of the matter is we're talking about a handful of fights that come to that length. Most are "over" long before that - but just take some time to work out. In my 100+ fights (actually closer to 125), I think I've run 2 100+ round fights (and even that I'm not sure about). I have had several 10-15 round fights that took longer to run though. So anyway - I would not suggest implementing this proposed change.
Traevanon 07-25-06, 12:32 PM	I havent run that many fights yet, but the 50 round conflict is plenty ordinary here from what I've seen. In tabletop its more like 5 rounds and people start nodding off. I can see what you mean about delay, the delay penalty aught to be cumulative, but its not. Still, I can tell you this for sure. The more 50+ round fights I have to run, the less fights I'm going to run. That last battle I ran, had both Cure Light Wounds wands been available through the whole match I would probably have called the match off and damn the consequences. It ridiculous to ask a volunteer to put in that much time and effort. Sure, I could run the matches in a less detailed manner and save myself a headache or two, but I believe that a highly detailed 30 round fight is more informative and useful than a 100 round fight with no positions or rolls listed and no maps or maneuvering. So fine... I had a feeling that this wasnt going to get much traction. I would like to continue running high quality detailed fights, but I think if I'm going to do so at some point I'm going to need the right (within the rules) to force the combatants to RESOLVE THE BATTLE.
TelinArtho 07-25-06, 01:53 PM	Well, again I'm going to disagree a little here. How often do you roll initiative before the opponents are able to see or interact with each other? In the standard arena - they start several hundred feet apart, without line of sight in some cases. At the point that rounds start here - the characters are buffing and getting ready. To extend this to say that it wouldn't happen in a table top game is just ignoring that a table top game would have those starting rounds. There's interaction before the fight occurs (or one party closes in to a close range and surprises the other; or some other thing). I suspect, if you narrow it down to the actual rounds of fighting - you'll find that it often is much closer to 5-10 rounds of actual fighting (barring the occasional fight with one of NiQil's wand-wielders or a cat-and-mouse style Zero fight). If you are feeling stressed about the role of a pitlord, I would suggest you find a way to make it a) more easy for you b) more fun for you and c) still as comprehensive. In the time that I've run fights, I've come across a process that is efficient for me. Some of the newer "wants" in fights have slowed me down (like providing maps), while others have increased my efficiency (the new roller). That being said, I cut corners where I feel it is necessary. If I see that one opponent will be attacking the other opponent no matter what while the other opponent will be attacking all the time, except for healing when they reach a certain threshold - you can bet that I'll group a bunch of rolls together. If I can, I try to lump all of the rolls of a particular individual/round into one click of the roller. The difference is that I don't provide much fluff with my fights. This is mainly because not everyone's native language is English and when I first started a number of the issues that people had were in my language describing a situation. I decided that description was getting in the way of the fight - and since I've pared it down it has made my life easier - with fewer complaints and with a faster turn over time. I would like to continue running high quality detailed fights, but I think if I'm going to do so at some point I'm going to need the right (within the rules) to force the combatants to RESOLVE THE BATTLE. As to the comment above - if you look at some of the longer fights - you will see that pitlords will make decisions that will finish the fight faster for them. Sauro's fight this week with Death (I believe) - he just includes the rolls and whether they hit or not is a good example of this. You can pare down the summaries if needed as long as changes are well notated. Lastly, if you feel you might not have enough time each week to run multiple fights - just set yourself up for one per week and then if time allows - offer yourself up for more. That way - you still get pitlord benefits (credits, giving back to the community, etc), but you don't have to write off too much time for it. And if a fight does look too complex, if you offer it up to someone else early enough - I'm sure someone would take it - on occasion.
MindWandererB 07-25-06, 04:56 PM	Comments/Questions on the new guild rules: Firstly, the Guild rules in the Rules of Gladius thread haven't been updated yet. Since this was the only reference in the old rules to certain functions, like taxes and attribute slots, this is important to understanding the new system. For instance, I don't know if there is a limited number of structures per district, other than the 50 Structure Spaces, and I'm not sure whether taxes still exist. Post #23 of the Guild Hall mentions them, but I think that's old. Regarding dismissal from the guild after 2 months: Who writes the PM, the player or the guildmaster? When is the penalty paid? Is this time cumulative with the pre-change rules (for instance, Nexa of the TLT has been inactive for almost 5 months now--is she immediately removed)? What about frozen characters--they have no way of being active except for frozen quests, which not many people do, so do they get booted automatically as well? Or must they do one frozen MQ every 2 months to keep their status? Does guild alignment actually have any function? I can't find one. I gather Guild Attitudes are effectively being reset, since everyone is listed as 2000 with everyone. So no holdover from the past? The font on the new map is kind of hard to read. I'm confused: doe the Guard Post, etc. generate 250 guild points per week, or do they increase guild points by a flat amount? Or is this the amount produced by a GAP of the appropriate type, and you have to "spend" it all in that week (sort of like mana in Magic: the Gathering)? The "Outposts" entry makes mention of the Administrative Office, but there doesn't appear to be such a room. Moving a guildhall: This mechanic seems odd. Why does the old guildhall fall inactive? Shouldn't it just become a chapterhouse--in fact, a Fortress? I would think you'd have to move your guildhall to another Fortress, but keep the old one. We have to report our income in the Guild Hall every week? I guess that's not unreasonable. Does this go in with the weekly GAP post? The CAPs seem rather restrictive. One per 20 ECLs? That's great for CEF and PSI, but the rest of us won't be able to do much, if anything. TLT would have two, at the moment--one if Nexa has to retire due to inactivity. Do characters in frozen leagues gain rewards for CAPs that involve combat? I can't tell if CAPs always use up the activation for that character, or just when they need to fight something. If it's used up regardless, that kind of sucks for the PC, since it's basically a wasted activation for their development. It looks like you can hire only one staff member per 250 Recruitment points. That means it could take months to staff a structure. Am I missing something? It looks like all guilds' home districts start with an attitude of Friendly, giving them a +250 Defense bonus. Again, do I understand this right? "Sell Goods": Say you have 500 Trade points. Can you use them to sell four 250 gp items for full value, or does the GAP only apply to a single item? "Basic Crossbow Technology": Requires: Crossbow Technilogy. I don't think this is right. "If the messenger is a mercenary or character, it will become a Battle of Gladius at a matched EL." How is this possible? If the messenger is an ECL 5 character, and the other guild sends an ECL 9 character to intercept, how is this "matched ECL?" Or is the attacking guild restricted to using characters of no higher ECL than the deliverer? If this is so, then hiring an ECL 1 merc would be invincible (as no one has an ECL 0 character). Also, what if the rival guild's only character of the correct ECL is played by the same player as the messenger? I'm not seeing anything about cooperative Missions between two or more guilds. It looks like you can do this only on Tragedy Missions. I'm concerned about "defensive" actions (i.e. when a rival guild attacks you). If you planned to have a normal fight that week, this could be kind of unfair. I mean, say you have an ECL 3 character and you get attacked by 3 ECL 9 characters. Suddenly you have no hope of winning; your win/loss ratio and powerrating suffer through no fault of your own (although your rewards would be pretty good even for losing). I also worry about the "start a fire" option to raid headquarters. Three characters with high powerratings (average 1667) attacking a rival's headquarters can burn it down in Week 1 of the new system. And since repairs are limited to your Construction points, two weeks of this treatment from three ECL 3 characters with powerratings of 1000 could easily do this. Arson is nearly as bad, although there is a chance of failure in this case. Incedentally, why does the Bucket Brigade help against Arson but not against "start a fire?" Looks like we all need to make new Guildhall maps--and in TLT's case, a new name. Membership: If you enter a new member you have to post it here, then link that post to your "Past GAPs and History" section. If you want to throw a member out, you have to post the request here. If Guildlords (me) gives you the permission, link this permission post to the "Past GAPs and History" section in your guild. Is this still the case? I thought you wanted roster changes done by PM instead (which are unlinkable).
SauroGrenom 07-25-06, 10:49 PM	WOW that's alot of questions. I can answer a few of them, so I will. I haven't gone over every word in the rather large set of guild rules in the guildhall. So some of my answers may be drawn from chatting with Cat, and I'm not sure where the actual reference is at in the rules. Perhaps Cat can pint them out or clarify in any place that I'm wrong. I've served a supporting role to this renovation process, and most of the ideas are his own. So Cat will know them best. Firstly, the Guild rules in the Rules of Gladius thread haven't been updated yet. Since this was the only reference in the old rules to certain functions, like taxes and attribute slots, this is important to understanding the new system. For instance, I don't know if there is a limited number of structures per district, other than the 50 Structure Spaces, and I'm not sure whether taxes still exist. Post #23 of the Guild Hall mentions them, but I think that's old.Taxes are gone. Attribute slots are gone. Every district only has the 50 SS. This space can be filled with either structures or outposts or upgraded outposts or district improvements. Regarding dismissal from the guild after 2 months: Who writes the PM, the player or the guildmaster? When is the penalty paid? Is this time cumulative with the pre-change rules (for instance, Nexa of the TLT has been inactive for almost 5 months now--is she immediately removed)? What about frozen characters--they have no way of being active except for frozen quests, which not many people do, so do they get booted automatically as well? Or must they do one frozen MQ every 2 months to keep their status?The Guildmaster is in charge of keeping his roster up to date. Periodicially a member will fall off the character roster due to inactivity. When that happens, Guildlords will begin to impose a penalty on the guild in question. So as a guildmaster you are responsible with keeping the roster up to date and avoiding any penalties. You need to encourage members to stay active. Frozen leagues are not detailed anywhere as being different. But I think those characters will be an exception and they will not be required to be activated. Does guild alignment actually have any function? I can't find one. It serves as an RP barometer as to the alignment of the guild. This helps new members decide if they will "fit in". I'm confused: doe the Guard Post, etc. generate 250 guild points per week, or do they increase guild points by a flat amount? Or is this the amount produced by a GAP of the appropriate type, and you have to "spend" it all in that week (sort of like mana in Magic: the Gathering)? Defense points have a "Mode" that is set and applies at the value that the points have achieved. the act of setting the mode of defense takes a GAP. Once it is set you do not have to invest more GAP to continue to enjoy the chosen benefit. The magnitude of the benefit will increase as the defense points increase (due to further construction). The CAPs seem rather restrictive. One per 20 ECLs? That's great for CEF and PSI, but the rest of us won't be able to do much, if anything. TLT would have two, at the moment--one if Nexa has to retire due to inactivity. I think frozen PC's are not required to remain active. Also each CAP used will either generate a miniquest, quest or challange fight. So they can tax the pitlord populations. We want to minimize that, but we also want to reward guilds for having many active members. This is the mechanic for allowing characters to get involved in helping a guild with a special activity to perform or oppose an opperation. Do characters in frozen leagues gain rewards for CAPs that involve combat?The result of the CAP is recieved by the guild, not the character. These are basicially two independant rewards. Member's recieve rewards for a quest, and guilds recieve rewards for a completed mission. Tha's just a few of your questions, and I'll try to get to the others later.
Zevox 07-25-06, 11:08 PM	Quick query - when exactly do we start using the new Guild rules? I haven't had enough time to look over them thoroughly yet (that is a lot of reading), so I'm a bit worried I'll miss something I'm supposed to do tomorrow if they start then. Alos, of the things I have read, I have a question (which MWB asked but wasn't answered). Regarding dismissing inactive members, does the timer for that start with the beggining of the new system, or do those who have been inactive for that much time already get the boot right away? The EHTC has several members we'd lose in that case, at least one of which (Va'ria) is only because she has been frozen. Zevox
lonewolf 07-26-06, 01:30 AM	It seems that the options for guilds to make money are rather restricted at the moment. I only see the following options: - characters use Caps to "quest" for money(or goods to sell them). - the guild produces goods and sells them again. Am I missing anything? With that restricted options of how to make money and no regular income for the guilds, I think we should think about cutting the upkeep on buildings, regiments, etc. down, because it would strongly hamper the development of the guilds if you have regular expenses but no regular income.
Guildlords 07-26-06, 06:55 AM	Assume the Tao a neutral guild evicts an inactive character and recruits a new character shifting the alignment of the guild from neutral to Lawful good. What happens to the neutral regiments of the TAO? [We do not even list alignment for regiments. They just always have the same alignment as the guild. This is mostly only important for spells in battle.] And another thing MQ are limited to 1 * level so what happens to characters who have been inactive for 2 months + because they are in the frozen league? [Literally speaking, guilds have no MQs; they either have Missions or Operations which are marked as [G] on the roster and have no limitation.] Firstly, the Guild rules in the Rules of Gladius thread haven't been updated yet. Since this was the only reference in the old rules to certain functions, like taxes and attribute slots, this is important to understanding the new system. For instance, I don't know if there is a limited number of structures per district, other than the 50 Structure Spaces, and I'm not sure whether taxes still exist. Post #23 of the Guild Hall mentions them, but I think that's old. [The Rules of Gladius: Guilds will be updated to give a general overview without any rules. The current version is not up to date but will be soon] Regarding dismissal from the guild after 2 months: Who writes the PM, the player or the guildmaster? [Guildmasters] When is the penalty paid? [When the violation is discovered] Is this time cumulative with the pre-change rules (for instance, Nexa of the TLT has been inactive for almost 5 months now--is she immediately removed)? [No. Startline is Aug 16.] What about frozen characters--they have no way of being active except for frozen quests, which not many people do, so do they get booted automatically as well? [It's not true that they have nothing to do. While they cannot participate in the regular Battles of Gladius, the guild system gives them many oportunities to shine] Or must they do one frozen MQ every 2 months to keep their status? [It's no frozen MQ because such a thing does not exist in the guild system] Does guild alignment actually have any function? I can't find one. [Regiment alignment, Initial attitude of NPC groups, a reflection of the face of the guild] I gather Guild Attitudes are effectively being reset, since everyone is listed as 2000 with everyone. So no holdover from the past? [We didn't have anything in the past that could be concretely expressed in attitude points] The font on the new map is kind of hard to read. I'm confused: doe the Guard Post, etc. generate 250 guild points per week, or do they increase guild points by a flat amount? [They are different from other rooms in that they become active when needed; depending on which mode you chose] Or is this the amount produced by a GAP of the appropriate type, and you have to "spend" it all in that week (sort of like mana in Magic: the Gathering)? [You need no GAP to generate defense points. You use a GAP to change the defense mode] The "Outposts" entry makes mention of the Administrative Office, but there doesn't appear to be such a room. [That's a mistake. Will be deleted. Thanks for seeing that.] Moving a guildhall: This mechanic seems odd. Why does the old guildhall fall inactive? [Because you can have only one 'Capital'] Shouldn't it just become a chapterhouse--in fact, a Fortress? [Ah, I know what you mean. The Fortress doesn't fall inactive. It become a normal headquarter. It just stops to be the guildhall and all special rooms which only a guildhall can have fall inactive] I would think you'd have to move your guildhall to another Fortress, but keep the old one. We have to report our income in the Guild Hall every week? [Yes. That's the best way to audit guilds] I guess that's not unreasonable. Does this go in with the weekly GAP post? [Yes. See Free Action: Confirm Bookkeeping] The CAPs seem rather restrictive. One per 20 ECLs? That's great for CEF and PSI, but the rest of us won't be able to do much, if anything. TLT would have two, at the moment--one if Nexa has to retire due to inactivity. [That's fine. A higher ratio makes CAPs superfluous. We wanted to base the system more on characters] Do characters in frozen leagues gain rewards for CAPs that involve combat? [No. They're frozen.] I can't tell if CAPs always use up the activation for that character, or just when they need to fight something. If it's used up regardless, that kind of sucks for the PC, since it's basically a wasted activation for their development. [Only if it's part of the 3FC. Else it's no activation.] It looks like you can hire only one staff member per 250 Recruitment points. That means it could take months to staff a structure. Am I missing something? [That's 10 Staff. Clarified that.] It looks like all guilds' home districts start with an attitude of Friendly, giving them a +250 Defense bonus. Again, do I understand this right? [Correct. It's a nice side-effect that guilds have a stronger start] "Sell Goods": Say you have 500 Trade points. Can you use them to sell four 250 gp items for full value, or does the GAP only apply to a single item? [You can sell as many as you like] "Basic Crossbow Technology": Requires: Crossbow Technilogy. I don't think this is right. [Yes, that's a copy/paste mistake. Corrected.] "If the messenger is a mercenary or character, it will become a Battle of Gladius at a matched EL." How is this possible? [The matched EL table in the Operations section shows all possible combinations] If the messenger is an ECL 5 character, and the other guild sends an ECL 9 character to intercept, how is this "matched ECL?" [This is not possible] Or is the attacking guild restricted to using characters of no higher ECL than the deliverer? [Basically, yes. Inter-League rules grant tolerance here] If this is so, then hiring an ECL 1 merc would be invincible (as no one has an ECL 0 character). [ELs lower than 3 will automatically succeed. I clarified that.] Also, what if the rival guild's only character of the correct ECL is played by the same player as the messenger? [You cannot fight against your own characters.] I'm not seeing anything about cooperative Missions between two or more guilds. It looks like you can do this only on Tragedy Missions. [Will be added.] I'm concerned about "defensive" actions (i.e. when a rival guild attacks you). If you planned to have a normal fight that week, this could be kind of unfair. I mean, say you have an ECL 3 character and you get attacked by 3 ECL 9 characters. [This is not matched and thus not possible] Suddenly you have no hope of winning; your win/loss ratio and powerrating suffer through no fault of your own (although your rewards would be pretty good even for losing). [b]|Operations\ => )Matched Encounters( I also worry about the "start a fire" option to raid headquarters. Three characters with high powerratings (average 1667) attacking a rival's headquarters can burn it down in Week 1 of the new system. [First of all, they can be intercepted, and then there's the Bucket Brigade and your Defense Points to lower the damage] And since repairs are limited to your Construction points, two weeks of this treatment from three ECL 3 characters with powerratings of 1000 could easily do this. [If you let them pass two weeks in a row and have no defense at all, maybe yes] Arson is nearly as bad, although there is a chance of failure in this case. Incedentally, why does the Bucket Brigade help against Arson but not against "start a fire?" [That's a mistake. Terminology will be streamlined.] Looks like we all need to make new Guildhall maps--and in TLT's case, a new name. [Yep. They must be usable as Battles of Gladius maps. Use Dundjinni, the best program for such things. I can, for instance, add grids to the CEF maps anytime with two clicks] <<<Membership: If you enter a new member you have to post it here, then link that post to your "Past GAPs and History" section. If you want to throw a member out, you have to post the request here. If Guildlords (me) gives you the permission, link this permission post to the "Past GAPs and History" section in your guild.>>> Is this still the case? I thought you wanted roster changes done by PM instead (which are unlinkable). [PM is what you have to do. Where did you get that from?] Quick query - when exactly do we start using the new Guild rules? [Next wednesday. If there are issues, we delay it for a week] I haven't had enough time to look over them thoroughly yet (that is a lot of reading), so I'm a bit worried I'll miss something I'm supposed to do tomorrow if they start then. Alos, of the things I have read, I have a question (which MWB asked but wasn't answered). Regarding dismissing inactive members, does the timer for that start with the beggining of the new system, or do those who have been inactive for that much time already get the boot right away? The EHTC has several members we'd lose in that case, at least one of which (Va'ria) is only because she has been frozen. [From August 16 on, and is reset anytime the character is actively participating in a 3FC guild fight. It's not enough to have a character do a peaceful ops roll once every 8 weeks. It's still 3 weeks time to encourage inactive members. I expect that every guild will lose one or the other PC; especially if I look at the current roster (PCs from LLMadCow, Kaigan, Mitza, Hawkeye... you now know why there is this rule, especially sicne CAPs depend on it)] It seems that the options for guilds to make money are rather restricted at the moment. I only see the following options: - characters use Caps to "quest" for money(or goods to sell them). - the guild produces goods and sells them again. [You forgot the most important one: Structures! Every guild will start with a Class A structure so a good income is guaranteed. I will give more information on new start property later.] Please ask questions if anything is unclear. We will launch the new system next wednesday (Aug 2) so there's some time to make clarifications or perhaps even slight changes.
SauroGrenom 07-26-06, 02:43 PM	Does it take construction points to build rooms for the headquarters? If so all guilds should be required to start with a construction crane. To do otherwise makes them stuck with no ability to build a crane necessary to build anything else.
Caterane 07-26-06, 02:53 PM	Rooms don't need construction cranes. They take one week to complete. Just pay the money.
MindWandererB 07-26-06, 03:09 PM	Thanks for your thorough response. I still have a couple of questions/issues: Or must they do one frozen MQ every 2 months to keep their status? [It's no frozen MQ because such a thing does not exist in the guild system]Do characters in frozen leagues gain rewards for CAPs that involve combat? [No. They're frozen.]These two statements appear contradictory. Many guild actions are effectively MQs. Let me put my concern another way: Can frozen characters, who have no means of making money, use expendables in a guild action for free? If not, this is an economic spiral of death. If so, it presents an unfair advantage, because they can use everything they have without using it up. Either way is a problem. The font on the new map is kind of hard to read. [but it's fantasy-style. We all know which district is which]No, Cat, we don't. Not a single one of us has spent as much time staring at that map as you have. I know the districts close to TLT's former position--Dragor Mounds, Plains of Nestitia, Yurynwood, Luna Marsh, and Chanadar Forest--but I don't know any of the internal districts because I've never had to. For instance, the district of Kelartus (which I had to look up) looked like Refartus to me--and I was honestly trying to read it. Plus, there will be new players who don't know them at all. There's no reason for illegibility--there are plenty of fantasy-esque fonts that are more readable. If this is so, then hiring an ECL 1 merc would be invincible (as no one has an ECL 0 character). [ELs lower than 3 will automatically succeed. I clarified that.] Pardon me, but this seems absurd. Why spend a CAP to send a PC, or spend thousands to send along a guardian, when you can hire an invincible EL 1 merc for 100 gp? Looks like we all need to make new Guildhall maps--and in TLT's case, a new name. [Yep. They must be usable as Battles of Gladius maps. Use Dundjinni, the best program for such things. I can, for instance, add grids to the CEF maps anytime with two clicks]I have tried Dundjinni (the free version), and while I am impressed with its potential, one must literally spend dozens of hours finding and downloading all the components you need to make a decent map--I spent about five hours at it, and I certainly don't have anything good enough to cut it. Unless you can put all your downloads online or something (and I imagine you have hundreds of megs of them), Dundjinni is not a particularly viable option. I happen to be good enough with Paint Shop to come up with decent maps, but not every guild has someone who is. Is this still the case? I thought you wanted roster changes done by PM instead (which are unlinkable). [PM is what you have to do. Where did you get that from?]That's in post 23 of the Guild Hall. But it looks like that whole post is out-of-date. And a couple more questions: Do fractional trait points count? For instance, would a Class A structure with 3.75 total trait points earn (3*125)=375 gp, or (3.75*125)=468 gp? And would that district gain 150 or 187 points of the appropriate type? For Trade agreements, what happens if two guilds try to trade with the same trade region at the same time--like, say, Week 1? I imagine there will be some competition to get to some of the more lucrative sites right off the bat. There's also this, under Trade: "Guilds may choose to have delivered less, only one ressource or both." Let's see if I understand this: Let's say I have 1000 TRA points and I send a messenger to Hevata. I can then set up an arrangement for 600 CON and 400 RES. Hevata then ships 100 CON and 100 RES each week for 4 weeks, then 100 CON each week for 2 weeks, and then the contract is up. Is that right? Do we all start under the "District Defense" defense mode, or do we have to spend a GAP to turn it on? The "Attack Powercenter" CAP--I followed the INFO link, but I still can't find that one.
Caterane 07-26-06, 06:59 PM	These two statements appear contradictory. Many guild actions are effectively MQs. Let me put my concern another way: Can frozen characters, who have no means of making money, use expendables in a guild action for free? If not, this is an economic spiral of death. If so, it presents an unfair advantage, because they can use everything they have without using it up. Either way is a problem. No, Cat, we don't. Not a single one of us has spent as much time staring at that map as you have. I know the districts close to TLT's former position--Dragor Mounds, Plains of Nestitia, Yurynwood, Luna Marsh, and Chanadar Forest--but I don't know any of the internal districts because I've never had to. For instance, the district of Kelartus (which I had to look up) looked like Refartus to me--and I was honestly trying to read it. Plus, there will be new players who don't know them at all. There's no reason for illegibility--there are plenty of fantasy-esque fonts that are more readable. [I could add a small MWB-proof font below the [I]cool :P font] Pardon me, but this seems absurd. Why spend a CAP to send a PC, or spend thousands to send along a guardian, when you can hire an invincible EL 1 merc for 100 gp? [No no, misunderstanding here. If you launch an operation to intercept a messenger, any EL lower than three will automatically be successfully countered. Say the TLT hires Trillian as mercenary (ECL 2) and the PSI launches a intercept operation, PSI automatically succeeds. This obviously means hiring Trillian alone won't get you anywhere.] I have tried Dundjinni (the free version), and while I am impressed with its potential, one must literally spend dozens of hours finding and downloading all the components you need to make a decent map--I spent about five hours at it, and I certainly don't have anything good enough to cut it. Unless you can put all your downloads online or something (and I imagine you have hundreds of megs of them), Dundjinni is not a particularly viable option. I happen to be good enough with Paint Shop to come up with decent maps, but not every guild has someone who is. [I'll see what I can do. It's goes into the 100s, yes.] Do fractional trait points count? For instance, would a Class A structure with 3.75 total trait points earn (3*125)=375 gp, or (3.75*125)=468 gp? And would that district gain 150 or 187 points of the appropriate type? [Yes they count] For Trade agreements, what happens if two guilds try to trade with the same trade region at the same time--like, say, Week 1? I imagine there will be some competition to get to some of the more lucrative sites right off the bat. [There are rules for what happens when two do the same stuff. It's either initiative or a battle, depending on the action and specified in the thread. In case of trade regions, I guess we'll roll initiative] There's also this, under Trade: "Guilds may choose to have delivered less, only one ressource or both." Let's see if I understand this: Let's say I have 1000 TRA points and I send a messenger to Hevata. I can then set up an arrangement for 600 CON and 400 RES. Hevata then ships 100 CON and 100 RES each week for 4 weeks, then 100 CON each week for 2 weeks, and then the contract is up. Is that right? [Correct] Do we all start under the "District Defense" defense mode, or do we have to spend a GAP to turn it on? [I used the name "Default Defense" in my first draft but went for district defense. Yes, that's default in the beginning.] The "Attack Powercenter" CAP--I followed the INFO link, but I still can't find that one. [Will check that] ....
MindWandererB 07-26-06, 07:31 PM	Thanks again for you time, Cat. I would still appreciate one clarification: when a frozen character goes on a fight-style action, are their used expendables still used? The rule for quests is that they're not, unless they have a quest goal that actually gains them something. I'm not sure how to classify guild actions this way.
Caterane 07-26-06, 07:36 PM	No, they do not use up any ressources. They also do not gain any rewards. EDIT: Changed the Font on the map.
NiQil 07-26-06, 10:33 PM	Well.....now seems as good a time as any... It is with some regret that I am going to resign my position as WAR guildmaster. I have been debating this for some time, and now seems the most appropriate time to do it. Though this decision is partially related to some changes happening in my life right now, it is primarily related to the new guild system. I had just begun to get a grasp on the old system, when it was summarily abolished, with little to no input from anyone that I saw. After taking a look at this new system, it appears, at first look, to be three times as complicated as the old system. I have neither the time nor the inclination to devote to learning this system. It may be a great system...but it now seems more trouble than it is worth to me to invest. As such, I am also going to remove my Horsemen from the guild as well. If I am to ever get back the devotion I once had to that guild and the guild system in general, I am going to have to distance myself from it for awhile. It's been fun, but I need to step back from the guilds for a bit. All that being said, with no backup guildmaster, the guild is pretty well wide open for anyone that wants the job. I've tried to keep things fairly up to speed, so hopefully the new guildmaster can step right in with this restart and run with it. However, with the withdrawal of my Horsemen, and the freeze of Sdentch, that leaves the guild with only 5 active characters, one of which is on campaign. So they will need to be prepared to go into recruiting heavily right away. @ Cat: Once you have lined up a new guildmaster, have them drop me a PM and I can give them the password to the account.
King Uther 07-27-06, 01:38 AM	I do have an idea I'd like run across. I wish there was a system of duels for the guilds for the purpose of prestige. Like the EHTC vs the CEF, winner gets XXX guild-based prize. Maybe 3 guild vs guild fights? Granted with the current limited participation here it would be difficult, but I think the idea has some merit. Honestly, I wish guild wars were determined by straight out battles. It would be so much cooler to write stories about the PSI guild's warriors taking on the conventional fighters of WAR. Just a thought.
Caterane 07-27-06, 05:04 AM	@NiQil: That's of course your right to do, and I can understand if you don't want to read the rules (although that'd probably take no longer than an hour or so but anyway). However, what leaves a bad taste to this announcement is that you also remove your characters from the guild for no apparent reason. This looks once again like a boycott from your side. I also didn't realize that the WAR has no backup guildmaster; I expect guildmasters to inform me if their assistent becomes inactive ...because it might happen that the guildmaster unexpectly steps down and thus let's the guild drop into the chasm. @Erithmu: Ayrynthyn doesn't work anymore as backup guildmaster of EYE, does he?
Erithmu 07-27-06, 09:59 AM	@Erithmu: Ayrynthyn doesn't work anymore as backup guildmaster of EYE, does he? No he doesn't. I was having a hard time filling the posistion due to some background things, however I could see the open guild requirements allowing me to fill the posistion with some great ease. I probably won't be able to get to EYE's revamp till Sunday. I dunno if we are startting Aug 2 or Aug 9 but I would request an Aug 9 to make sure that we are all set up right (and to give me a little more time).
Caterane 07-27-06, 10:17 AM	With the WAR having no guildmaster, we will most likely delay till the 9th.
SoulLord 07-27-06, 10:19 AM	So that means that if the TAO earns more money between now and when it gets implemented that it can move up in the ranks? saying yes will probably only increase the amount of active characters in the tao and the next guild.... less than 300 gp set them apart now
MindWandererB 07-27-06, 01:15 PM	@Cat and Erithmu: If necessary, I can be the backup guildmaster for EYE, since Cat said it was okay for a guildmaster of one guild to be the backup for another. Since it is a conflict of interests, sort of, you should probably check with other people first--and if, God forbid, anything happens to Erithmu, I would only hold the fort for as long as it took to find a new guildmaster. @Cat & NiQil: As amused as I would be at Zero becoming the totem guildmaster at WAR, I'm not attached enough to that guild for the job, even though I'm willing to do it for EYE. Sorry. I have to admit, I would appreciate a delay as well. I don't think the new rules are immensely more complicated than the old ones, but the fact that 90% of it is new, and that we have to learn all of it at once, is pretty daunting. This is from a person who will buy a new TT RPG, immediately read it cover to cover, and get a pretty solid idea of how it works. In some ways, the guild system is the antithesis of d20: Instead of using a unified mechanic to accomplish most things, the guild system has myriad mechanics that are used for only one thing. The huge variety of offensive actions one can take, and the variety of defensive measures that are therefore needed (although many defenses overlap), means that a guildmaster who misses one rule leaves themselves open for a backstabbing. I have a feeling there will be a lot of hard feelings and frustration when someone puts tens of hours of effort into learning the rules and setting the guild up, and has the misfortune of having two or three rival guilds spot a hole, exploit it, and raze the guildhouse in a week or two. And the new system is vicious. The old one, you could expand a little, and make friends, and look at all the pretty numbers from your nice income, maybe attacking someone if you felt like it. The new one, you can only win by: 1) Controlling multiple powercenters; since each guild is likely going to dominate one powercenter, the only ways to take it away from them are either to cripple so many of their buildings that they're doomed from loss of income, or flatly conquer them. I know for a pretty certain fact that TLT cannot possibly win this way, because our secondary trait (and the most likely one to take, after NAT) is FAI, and there's no way we're clashing heads with CEF and surviving. 2) Controlling a ton of districts. Again, the only way to do this will be to kick other guilds out--probably involving wiping out at least one guild, probably two or more. 3) Killing everyone. It will be tough to do this without achieving one of the other goals first. Furthermore, if it does get to this point, there will likely be two or three surviving guilds for many, many months, leaving the rest of us out of the loop. And since, unlike the arena, a guild who loses is completely eliminated from the game until the next reset, this is going to be very touchy. I know I'll be feeling pretty bad if someone takes out TLT--and I'd feel even worse if two or more guilds ganged up to do it, and worse still if we were the first to go. And since this is a likely fate for one guild (get attacked, become weak, and get finished off by multiple guilds exploiting their weakness), I can't imagine this will go without general badness in the environment here. I'm not saying this necessarily needs to be changed, but I am saying "look out." Anyone who can't handle this might want to look into getting out of the guild system. I'm tempted myself, but I don't want to place an undue burden because of my absence.
Caterane 07-28-06, 10:46 AM	@MW: The new system is less viscious than the old one. Much less. You remember why we forbid operations? The new system has stronger defensive measures than offensive ones which gives defenders an advantage. I think I can spoil another addition which is ready but will be implemented a bit later, perhaps three months from now. It's the Council of Gladius. This will become an NPC Player, like the computer opponent in a video game. The council will oppose all guilds; there is a chance for intervention each week, and the chance depends on your strength, expansion and your pacts. The stronger guilds will be attacked or hampered more often. The Council is essentially the sum of all powercenters (who all swear loyality for a little gain). If you take out a powercenter, the council loses strength which reflects the progression of the guilds taking over Gladius. It is also a great tool to balance the odds out, at least make it more difficult to become the top guild. It will definately prevent downward or upward spirals. For now though it's not necessary and would only complicate to learn the new system. The fortress with which you start should be almost impossible to raze. If PSI and EHTC gang up against a third guild, the CEF won't sit idly by so I don't think there will be a mass assault without mass defense. The victory conditions are there to create competition instead of a flower-power attitude of let us all be friends. If a guild is kicked out, there is no hope for this guild anyway. We could make the guildhall immune and let the guild rot there but there's no chance to win the game at such a point.
Caterane 07-28-06, 10:52 AM	I am not satisfied with the [EDU/NAT] structure Weather Control. I thought long and hard and this is the best I came up with. If you have a better idea please tell me. I also think the trade system could use some tweeking. Can you store delivered ressources for later use or do you only add the delivered amount if you actually use a GAP to spend them this week? I also think it's better if a region delivers only one ressource. There's no reason why you shouldn't take both. We still have time to make one or the other correction.
lonewolf 07-28-06, 12:18 PM	2 things: what exactly is the formula how much money structures produce? is it a) efficiency * (value of primary trait + secondary trait) or is it b) efficiency * (sum of all traits in the district) I know it was a in the old system and Sauro sadi that it is b in the new system, although I find no proof of that anywhere in the rules. If it is it should be made clearer. and I have also a problem with the name of a structure: Shipyard. only very few of the districts have access to the ocean and it simply doesnt make any sense to build a shipyard somewhere with no access to it. Any ideas how to rename it?
MindWandererB 07-28-06, 02:06 PM	I think I can spoil another addition which is ready but will be implemented a bit later, perhaps three months from now. It's the Council of Gladius. This will become an NPC Player, like the computer opponent in a video game. The council will oppose all guilds; there is a chance for intervention each week, and the chance depends on your strength, expansion and your pacts. The stronger guilds will be attacked or hampered more often. Just one question here: the Council of Gladius is already listed as a Powercenter (POL). This is kind of confusing. ("We control the Council! But they're attacking us!") @lonewolf: I had originally been planning to build a shipyard in the Dragor Mounds, and I was going to RP it up as an airship yard, staffed by artificiers. Since it's IND/NAT, there are other options: Plantation, perhaps, or Herbarium. @Cat: Actually, Herbarium might well be good for that NAT/EDU you want. Or Experimental Orchard ("Growing Station," I think they're called in the modern era), where plant hybrids and grafts are toyed with. I also think the trade system could use some tweeking. Can you store delivered ressources for later use or do you only add the delivered amount if you actually use a GAP to spend them this week? I also think it's better if a region delivers only one ressource. There's no reason why you shouldn't take both.I thought the current system was fine--you can either spend it immediately or use storage space to save it. Both seem reasonable. And yes, there is a reason why you wouldn't take both. Say you set up a trade with Dentinia. You may not need the research points--and you may not have the storage space to save them. Getting a promise of 500 gold over the next 5 weeks isn't bad (if, for example, you have two Trading Posts). However, I do see one problem. A guild can set up one trading contract per Trading Post they have, but there are only 8 trading partners on the list. Competition will get severe for those few partners--and for very little gain, relatively (200 one-time points a week, or no more than 150 gold... not much). Later in the game (i.e. after the first two or three months), few guilds will bother with this--the gain is inconsequential, and the chance of failing to get the contract you want too high (or, if they do bother, there will be three or four guilds fighting for every contract that expires--and you'd better have the mechanic worked out fast!). Although I like the idea of competition in this area, there are just too few partners and too little to gain. Eliminating the competitive aspect would fix this (four contracts for 100-150 gp each is not insignificant)--let each trading partner sign on with multiple guilds, just not twice with the same guild at once.
Caterane 07-28-06, 02:59 PM	Airshipyard, Drydock, Riverside construction, whatever you like. @MW: What if we say you can only trade one ressource per contract, and a region can have a contract for each ressource individually. That effectively doubles the trade options.
MindWandererB 07-28-06, 03:06 PM	@MW: What if we say you can only trade one ressource per contract, and a region can have a contract for each ressource individually. That effectively doubles the trade options.That makes sixteen... that might do it. If we find that it's not enough later on in the game, we could always come up with more. However, I think the weekly gain should be higher in this case. A contract for 50 gold/points per week is close to worthless. There's also no real reason to have both 100/100 and 150/50 partners--the 150s are flatly the best, and the 50s are flatly the worst. I think changing them all to 100/100 or even 150/150 would be good.
Caterane 07-28-06, 03:16 PM	We'll also add two special trade options later. One is the campaign. As a side effect, a guild gains a connection with the region the campaign played in and can establish trade relation. The formula is 10*ECL (all ECL combined who belonged to the guild and participated in the campaign) in ressources, and the duration is equal to the duration of the campaign in weeks. So if TLT has a ECL 6 and 8 PC on a 10 weeks campaign running in Achos, they'd gain 140 of any one ressource for 10 weeks shipped should the campaign succeed. The second add-on will come even later than that. It's oversea trade where you can establish more rentable trade relations but also face the risk of piracy and highwaymen. You can build different ships, the bigger the more cargo, you can arm ships, you can have escort ships, etc It's not worked out yet because I want to see how the system works first.
Book5 07-28-06, 07:04 PM	The font on the new map is kind of hard to read. [but it's fantasy-style. We all know which district is which] No, Cat, we don't. Not a single one of us has spent as much time staring at that map as you have. I know the districts close to TLT's former position--Dragor Mounds, Plains of Nestitia, Yurynwood, Luna Marsh, and Chanadar Forest--but I don't know any of the internal districts because I've never had to. For instance, the district of Kelartus (which I had to look up) looked like Refartus to me--and I was honestly trying to read it. Plus, there will be new players who don't know them at all. There's no reason for illegibility--there are plenty of fantasy-esque fonts that are more readable. Good typography, something everyone sees and no one notices. Well, :rolleyes: he invented fonts as we know them so he might be biased. However I thought is was legible... :shrug: I have every font known to man. Any suggestions? I could spruce it up post haste? Actually the Guild Name Tags Should Deffinitly be altered - I cant read those at all. new guild system analysis A) I like the way that attitudes are changed by actions - but I also think that attitudes should limit the kind of action you can participate in. Leaving one "universal" collaboration action which is "meeting/council" - no benifit other than increase in attitude. B) Call me classical but I would prefer the Guilds to have 6 traits.. consitancy and what not. C) negated by further reading D) CAPS? .... neat. I think the 20 character limit.. might should become a % of total participants... ?? but other than that cops look mega. E) I likey the unified structure bennifit/costs by class - though why have "class b and class 3" when they mean the same thing? F) More Special Structures? Hehe, whatever happened to those "structure" descriptions we wrote? Wasent there "crime" back then? I remember ... huh weird - but that would make 8 traits. Never mind - we are going to make a few more "special structures" right? OOOOH! "Standing Structures!" Like the Arena! Standing Structures are those things that will never die. Arena, city park, etc. That give the ole - special bonus and if they are not valid "targets" for ruinations because the populace would turn against you. G) Points. Trade, Constructions.. I am going to have to look through this more thouroughly but seems like a good way to allow one guild to interfere with the buisness of the other guilds. - I would suggest a political/military manuever "betrayel" - requires non-aggression pact and costs like 4 caps or something absurd that allows you to pull a real stinker "haha" move. thinkn hmm, Trade seems somewhat confusing.. H) okokok - regiments? "roll 1dX+1 (...): if the roll is a 1... now.. I am bad with my 'rithmatic and all but something is wrong there. No matter how you slice it the result is 2. Or am I that bad with math. --- hmmm, will return to analysis later (switching machines)
Caterane 07-28-06, 08:00 PM	@Prof.Book: Here's your betrayal action Backstab: If you engage in warfare with a guild of friendly attitude, the attitude of all guilds drop by 1000; by 2000 if attitude was helpful, and by 3000 in case of a fanatic attitude. Double that number for the attacked guild. Crime is gone because it had an alignment; evil. Good guilds would be stuck with only 6 available traits. Roll x+1: I just described it not very well. Let's say you have 10 units in a regiment, and one clown as support unit. If the regiment is hit, you roll 1d11 (which is 10+1, and 10 is X which mean X+1) and 1 is a dead clown.
Erithmu 07-28-06, 09:13 PM	Been putting some typing into my revamp and I have a few questions/clarifications: Do the structures in the production point line (Construction Crane) take up SS in the Chapterhouse/Fortress/etc or in the district? Lemme make sure I have this right, since it is slightly confusing to me: For our GAP we have 7 sub GAPs that are related to each of the production points (Con,Pro,Rec,etc). We can use them to do any of the activies listed under each sub heading Now do the structurs produce those points every week, or do we have to use our sub GAP to produce points? EX:for my DEF GAP I can have Defend location set up or do I have to use it to get more DEF points? if this is confusing I'll try to clarify.
bluemage55 07-28-06, 09:31 PM	Crime is gone because it had an alignment; evil. Good guilds would be stuck with only 6 available traits. Why is crime considered evil? It makes more sense for it to be chaotic, since the morality behind breaking the law only depends on the laws in place. Robin Hood isn't committing an evil act when he robs the unjust king's tax collectors, he's committing a chaotic one (and specifically a chaotic good act since he's bringing the money to the downtrodden poor).
lonewolf 07-29-06, 12:56 AM	2 things: what exactly is the formula how much money structures produce? is it a) efficiency * (value of primary trait + secondary trait) or is it b) efficiency * (sum of all traits in the district) I know it was a in the old system and Sauro sadi that it is b in the new system, although I find no proof of that anywhere in the rules. If it is it should be made clearer. I am still missing an answer fo the above and have a new one: Are we allowed to by additional structures with our starting money? It is stated that this money can used to improve our Headquarter, but its not clear to me if that excempts structures or not.
MindWandererB 07-29-06, 01:01 AM	Are we allowed to by additional structures with our starting money? It is stated that this money can used to improve our Headquarter, but its not clear to me if that excempts structures or not.No. That was exactly the point. Do the structures in the production point line (Construction Crane) take up SS in the Chapterhouse/Fortress/etc or in the district?The crane is considered a room; it takes up space in the chapterhouse.
Guildmaster (TAO) 07-29-06, 04:29 AM	I have noticed an oversight... When reviewing the starting traits for region/guilds I noticed that most guilds have structures that match both of their traits. Example: there is a faith/politics class A structure and CEF has the traits faith/politics. The only two guilds that do not have a double trait structure of A class are PSI and TAO. This may mean nothing (I'm still not understanding the entire system), but it looks a bit odd.
Caterane 07-29-06, 04:39 AM	Are we allowed to by additional structures with our starting money? It is stated that this money can used to improve our Headquarter, but its not clear to me if that excempts structures or not. [I really thought I made that clear. Here's the relevant text again.] GOLD: That's the excess money you can spend to upgrade the guildhall. When the system starts, no guild may have more than 2000 gold in its treasury. Anything not spend on upgrades will be lost. You may not spend this money on anything other than headquarter or guildhall upgrades (rooms, countermeasures, fortifications, walls). [To answer your question... no you are not allowed to buy structures with your start cash] Been putting some typing into my revamp and I have a few questions/clarifications: Do the structures in the production point line (Construction Crane) take up SS in the Chapterhouse/Fortress/etc or in the district? [Structures and Headquarters use up district SS; rooms and countermeasures use up headquarter SS only] Lemme make sure I have this right, since it is slightly confusing to me: For our GAP we have 7 sub GAPs that are related to each of the production points (Con,Pro,Rec,etc). We can use them to do any of the activies listed under each sub heading [Actually, those sub GAPs are the actual GAPs. I just added them into drawers to make it easier to see and find the relevant information] Now do the structurs produce those points every week, or do we have to use our sub GAP to produce points? EX:for my DEF GAP I can have Defend location set up or do I have to use it to get more DEF points? [Structures only produce them when you activate them with a GAP. Else they're idle. The common sense background is that the structures produce their stuff for themselves or the market, and when the guild needs something the structure produces only for the guild.] Why is crime considered evil? It makes more sense for it to be chaotic, since the morality behind breaking the law only depends on the laws in place. Robin Hood isn't committing an evil act when he robs the unjust king's tax collectors, he's committing a chaotic one (and specifically a chaotic good act since he's bringing the money to the downtrodden poor). [But if the laws are just, crime is unjust ie evil. And chaotic is an alignment too so we can't use that either.] ...
Guildmaster (TAO) 07-29-06, 05:21 AM	Chapter House: You upgrade an Outpost to a Chapter House. A Chapter House adds +3 SS, hitpoints of the Headquarter increase by +3000 hp. Price: +3000 gold; +30 Upkeep; +10 Staff, Requires: Outpost Keep: The Chapter House is expanded and reinforced with stronger materials. The Keep adds +5 SS, hitpoints of the Headquarter increase by +5000 hp and Security increases by 1. Price: +5000 gold; +50 Upkeep; +10 Staff, Requires: Chapter House Fortress: The Keep is expanded and reinforced with stronger materials. The Fortress adds +5 SS, hitpoints of the Keep increase by +5000 hp and Security increases by 1. Price: +5000 gold; +50 Upkeep; +10 Staff, Requires: Keep Citadel: The Fortress is expanded and reinforced with stronger materials. The Citadel adds +5 SS, hitpoints of the Fortress increase by +5000 hp and Security increases by 1. Price: +5000 gold; +50 Upkeep; +10 Staff, Requires: Fortress What is the total upkeep for a fortress? is it 50 total, or does the "+50" mean an addition on the upkeep of a Keep (which would end up as 150)? # Basic Living Quarters: This room holds 5 low-level PCs (ECL 3-6) Price: 2000 gold; Upkeep: 20 gold; Size: 1 SS Upgrade: Fancy Living Quarter +2000 gold; Upkeep +10 gold # Fancy Living Quarters: This room holds 5 mid-level PCs (ECL 7-11) Price: 3000 gold; Upkeep: 30 gold; Size: 1 SS Why is it cheaper to build new fancy quarters than to upgrade a basic one? Storage: You can store proviant to resist sieges and famine. A storage has 10 Proviant Slots (PS) which can be divided as the guild sees fit (eg. it could support a single regiment for 10 weeks of siege, or 5 regiments for 2 weeks, etc). The storage is automatically refilled if the siege or famine ends. Alternatively, you can store excess ressources from your trade agreements. One PS can hold an amount of 100 Ressources but in this case, the PS is not filled with Proviant. Price: 1000 gold; +10 Upkeep; Size: 1 SSCan you only store resources from trade? Can you store your own resources if you have no use for them?
Caterane 07-29-06, 05:46 AM	Upkeep Fortress: 150 + Rooms Fancy Upgrade: Mistake. Will be corrected. Storage: Good idea. Let me thing about it.
Guildmaster (TAO) 07-29-06, 05:58 AM	Another random idea... This guild system reminds me of the origional 'Master of Orion' game for PC (you can download it free). You produce things and devide your total production into various catagories. There are also a couple ways to win; Kill everyone, hold the largest mass of the galaxy, or by vote. My idea is to add another way to win, by voting. Every so often the guilds could hold a vote to elect one of the guilds to replace the council. If the winner got 5/7 of the total (or whatever number), then they would win. This creates a way to win without troops. An advantage I see is that if the game progresses to a point where there is an obvious winner, but it will take months to finally finish the game, it could be ended quickly. Possibly a city wide vote, where the votes are based on district attitude.
Caterane 07-29-06, 10:48 AM	That is an interesting proposal there. A Diplomatic Victory; the city has elections just like any nation has once in a while and the guilds are like political parties. You gain one 'vote point' per friendly district, two per helpful, and three for a fanatic district. We would need to agree on a victory sum, and how often elections are held. We could even add a new election as Special Mission: "Enforce New Election".
Zevox 07-29-06, 11:03 PM	Quick query that'll be important for those of us picking out our structures. Lonewolf asked a couple of times, but theres been no answer, and its rather important: What exactly is the formula for structures producing income? The entry about them says only that it is "Efficiency * District Traits". It does not, however, mention whether this is all district traits (which is what Sauro claimed over in the PSI Guild thread) or just the traits related to that structure (as it was before). Which of those is it? To put an example out, say the EHTC chooses to start with a Harbor in Vilis. With it, the district traits, and the Guild's traits we would have +5 Commerce, +2 Industry, and +1 Nature. Does the structure generate 1,000 gp per week (125 efficiency * 8 [the sum of all 3 traits]) or 750 gp per week (125 efficiency * 6 [the sum of its 2 related traits - 5 commerce + 1 nature])? Edit: Found a couple more, less-urgent questions I'd like to pose. Under Covert Operations it lists three steps for completing them: first guards, second traps, third the guardian. Obviously the first always occurs (the hide/ms checks), and the second is specified to occur only if the target Guild has purchased traps for the target building. The third however is less clear, since the rules regarding guardians seem to indicate that you must hire a one for it to help you, yet the step description makes no mention of the possibility that the target will not have a guardian. So is the guardian step an always-happens event or does it indeed only occur if the guild has hired one? And if it only occurs if the Guild has hired a guardian, does the operator gain any rewards for that operation themselves in spite of the lack of a battle? Also, to make sure I'm clear on how character actions occur: I'm getting that we post our CAP uses by the Friday deadline, then wait until the tuesday deadline to see if they are countered by anyone, and if not they occur normally as part of the following wednesday's pairings; or if they're countered the ensuing battle occurs and the CAP is either lost in defeat or occurs the wednesday after that as a result of the delay. In any event the character must be set to ready for that action for the wednesday after the CAP is announced. Is this correct, or is there something I'm missing? And if its correct, what happens if the intended character was fighting in the arena the week the CAP was announced and has thier fight held over into following week, and thus cannot be set to ready for it even though the CAP is already used up? Zevox
Caterane 07-30-06, 07:00 AM	What exactly is the formula for structures producing income? The entry about them says only that it is "Efficiency * District Traits". It does not, however, mention whether this is all district traits (which is what Sauro claimed over in the PSI Guild thread) or just the traits related to that structure (as it was before). Which of those is it? [It is ALL district traits. This is to give all guilds the option to build all structures with equally good chances. Else you'd only build one type of structures all the time.] Under Covert Operations it lists three steps for completing them: first guards, second traps, third the guardian. Obviously the first always occurs (the hide/ms checks), and the second is specified to occur only if the target Guild has purchased traps for the target building. The third however is less clear, since the rules regarding guardians seem to indicate that you must hire a one for it to help you, yet the step description makes no mention of the possibility that the target will not have a guardian. So is the guardian step an always-happens event or does it indeed only occur if the guild has hired one? [Only if you've hired one] And if it only occurs if the Guild has hired a guardian, does the operator gain any rewards for that operation themselves in spite of the lack of a battle? [No, you gain rewards for battles only. There are some exception but they're explicitely noted; eg. a trap counts as 'ally' of the guardian if you have faced both. Or you gain rewards for disabled traps (disabled with skills). Such things.] Also, to make sure I'm clear on how character actions occur: I'm getting that we post our CAP uses by the Friday deadline, then wait until the tuesday deadline to see if they are countered by anyone, and if not they occur normally as part of the following wednesday's pairings [Correct. Can be a miniquest or monster fight; depends on the CAP. It will appear in the next pairings]; or if they're countered the ensuing battle occurs and the CAP is either lost in defeat or occurs the wednesday after that as a result of the delay. [Correct. If a CAP Action is countered, the challenge battle will be automatically occur next pairings; if the operator succeeds, he proceeds with his original CAP action the pairings thereafter] In any event the character must be set to ready for that action for the wednesday after the CAP is announced. [Obviously. I expect communication between guildmaster and the players he sends on CAPs before the battle takes place] And if its correct, what happens if the intended character was fighting in the arena the week the CAP was announced and has thier fight held over into following week, and thus cannot be set to ready for it even though the CAP is already used up? [Hm, that's a problem I didn't take into consideration. We should look out for late battles that have a logged CAP, and immideately reassign it to Telin :D ...or another reliable pitlord] Hope that helps.
MindWandererB 07-30-06, 08:07 AM	What exactly is the formula for structures producing income? The entry about them says only that it is "Efficiency * District Traits". It does not, however, mention whether this is all district traits (which is what Sauro claimed over in the PSI Guild thread) or just the traits related to that structure (as it was before). Which of those is it? [It is ALL district traits. This is to give all guilds the option to build all structures with equally good chances. Else you'd only build one type of structures all the time.]This confuses me. You're saying that there is almost no reason to build structures for which your guild or location has an affinity (except for the mandatory starting one). So CEF would make just as much money from an Inquisition[B-FAI/POL] as from a Casino[B-COM/LEI]. The only way it would help to go with your guild/district traits is by helping you earn a Powercenter.
Vathelokai 07-30-06, 08:37 AM	Structures also increase your district traits, which gives you some bonus points to use. It's in post 6 of the guildhall - the district traits sblock and the rules above it. They can be helpful for powercenters or for contruction/recruiting/production etc. *EDIT* As for focusing on your affinity, that really depends on what your primary trait is, and how far we are in the game.
Caterane 07-30-06, 08:41 AM	That's correct. The difference comes in guild points. If WAR decides that it doesn't need a boost in recruitment points, it can build other structures instead. If we focus on home/synergy only, you'd be stuck with the same trait combination. Let's say we use home/synergy only. TLT (NAT+3/FAI+2) would have no reason to build anything other than NAT/FAI. If you have a better idea, please tell me.
MindWandererB 07-30-06, 08:55 AM	No, not really. It's just one of those things that I think most of us kind of assumed would be the same, and we didn't realize how important the change was. ...and I also didn't notice that you can double up on structures now--there's no restriction on building the same thing twice. So yeah, this way is pretty much necessary. Edit: Question about district attitudes: I'm confused about the mechanic. Clearly, a Hostile district (Value 0-999) improved by +3 for a guild's trait affinity becomes Friendly. But what happens if you improve that Value by 1000? Is it: A) District is automatically Friendly (3000), to which you add 1000 (total 4000, still friendly), or B) District starts off at Unfriendly (1000), and is then upgraded 3 steps to Helpful? Edit 2: Question about CAP reactions: If we spend our CAPs on Friday, but it costs a CAP to try to intercept another guild's action, does that mean you have to save a CAP on Friday to have the option to do this?
Pitlords 07-30-06, 10:04 AM	Quick note: The sorcerer has been removed from teh list of special power tags because the new 3FC rules removes all handicaps for this class we had before.
Guildlords 07-30-06, 10:10 AM	Question about district attitudes: I'm confused about the mechanic. Clearly, a Hostile district (Value 0-999) improved by +3 for a guild's trait affinity becomes Friendly. But what happens if you improve that Value by 1000? Is it: A) District is automatically Friendly (3000), to which you add 1000 (total 4000, still friendly), or B) District starts off at Unfriendly (1000), and is then upgraded 3 steps to Helpful? [If your traits match for three points, the district is not hostile in the first place. The district attitudes are applied from the beginning on and are changed by your actions afterwards. You probalbly thought they're first applied when you move in but that's wrong. I just wait till there's an attitude change before I enter the attitudes. Just saves some time.] Edit 2: Question about CAP reactions: If we spend our CAPs on Friday, but it costs a CAP to try to intercept another guild's action, does that mean you have to save a CAP on Friday to have the option to do this? [Yes. No CAPs, no reactions.]...
Vathelokai 07-30-06, 11:22 AM	I worked this up for TAO, then figured I could cross post it here. Let me know if I'm misreading anything. I hope it's handy to somebody (writing it at least helped me understand it better)... There is no longer a guild tax. Take it off your sheet. Traits and Points The seven types of guild traits now produce points O==- -=====================================O |INDUSTRY | Production Points | O==- -=====================================O |FAITH | Negotiation Points | O==- -=====================================O |COMMMERCE | Trade Points | O==- -=====================================O |LEISURE | Recruit Points | O==- -=====================================O |EDUCATION | Research Points | O==- -=====================================O |NATURE | Construction Points | O==- -=====================================O |POLITICS | Defense Points | O==- -=====================================O Everything you can do with these points is listed here. Every week the district produces these points. If you do not use them that week, they disappear. Structures also add to the districts traits, just like the guild does. For every trait point you have in a district, you get 50 of these points. You also get bonus points from building specific rooms in the headquarters. So, for example, Arcadivius (where the TAO university is) has 5 in education; we get 250 research pts. per week. If we build a laboratory (+250 research) at the university, then we will get 500 per week. Each type of points are used differently. (The two key points to start with are bolded.) Production(Industry): Build items that we have researched (for no gold cost), or build some types of countermeasures (also no gold cost). Negotiation(Faith): Spend these points on a guild, group, or district to make them more friendly, make alliances with other guilds, lower the cost of bail for captured and imprisoned PCs. Trade(Commerce): Exchange trade points for other types of points and gold (note: these also disappear if not used unless you have a storage room), hire mercenaries or regiments for money, buy countermeasures for the HQ and equipment for your troops (you must spend a number of trade pts. equal to the gold you spend), or sell countermeasures and equipment for more than 1/2 their value. Recruit(Leisure): Enlist troops, officers, and mounts at no cost, increase said troops and officers levels, Hire staff for structures, draft people for immediate district defense, create some types of countermeasures at no cost. Research(Education): Develop new equipment for our troops (still have to pay for the stuff later), build alchemical items and potions for our troops (with no gold cost), or build some countermeasures (the last three on the list) Construction (Nature): Build and repair by spending an ammount of gold equal to the ammount of construction points you have that week. Defense(Politics): Defense points are always on. By default they protect all your structures and HQ, but you can change them to protect one district, protect against one NPC group, or to increase the damage done durring a successful operation. Any action that does not finish in one week is saved and can be continued at any later point. For example, if you build half of a structure, you can continue investing gold and construction the next week to finish it, or just let the structure sit half finished until later. Action Points There are Guild Action Points(GAP), Character Action Points(CAP), and free actions. You get one GAP. You can get more by building a main hall. YOu get one CAP per 20 ECL of characters in the guild. You can also convert your GAP to a CAP. You can use GAP to do any of the actions listed above in the points section. Technicly, you use the GAP to activate the points, which you combine with money if nessicary, then the action occurs. You can also use GAP to send orders to your troops. CAPs can be missions or operations that PCs embark on. Missions are three week quests that don't effect other guilds. Operations are actions taken against other guilds. Operations can become battles, miniquests, or simply succeed/fail. Missions come in many variaties. You can quest for cash or items to put in the treasury, or you can quest to contact/befriend a group, guild or district. There are also special missions that will be announced as random events. Missions can be ambushed by other guilds. The opposing guild sends some PCs, and the questers must defeat them or abort the mission. Missions can be undertaken by multiple PCs, even PCs from different guilds. There are tons of operation types. You can interupt anyone elses operation or mission. You can kidnap PCs or NPCs. You can attack structures, bases, PCs, guilds or groups. You can steal things from other guilds. You can use intimidaiton, forgery, diplomacy, slight of hand, bluff, or gather info to cause various types of intrigue damages to a guild. You can also hold protests, contests, and festivals. Basicly anything action you can imagine doing to another guild has a type of operation. Operations are usually resolved by opposed rolls, or battles. The timing for operations is strange. Week 1 you declair your operation. Later in week 1 any other guild can counter your operation. Week 2 a countered operation is resolved, either by combat or quest or rolling etc. Sometimes circumstances can push the resolution of an operation to week 3. The ECL of the PCs in two clashing operations must be close to each other. The slightly weaker PC/team gains suprise rounds if it comes to a fight. Operations are considered a normal part of the 3 Fight Cycle. In weeks where there is a counter action that delays the operation, the PC can fight in the arena normally. In odd circumstances, an inactive PC can be involved in an operation. If the Player is not present to write their own tactics, either default tactics are used, or the guildmaster writes tactics for that PC. There is one rule that is very important to operations...A guild cannot send a character on the same type of Operation twice in a row. Example: Character A and B are sent on a Covert Operation. These two characters may not go on another Covert Operation before a new Covert Operation has been executed by the guild. However, during that time, they may go on a different type of operation, an Assault or Intrigue for example. This is to prevent that guilds use only one specialized master for a certain type of Operation all the time. Assault Ops How its resolved Kidnap PC arena battle vs the victem Kidnap NPC miniquest EL=NPC rank = district security Raid structure miniquest EL=3 x structure security Raid HQ miniquest EL=HQ security Raid Traderoute miniquest EL=Traderoute EL Raid Caravan (reaction) arena battle/monster battle EL=Caravan EL Intercept Message (reaction) arena battle vs messanger Ambush Quester (reaction) arena battle vs questers Weaken paramilitary group miniquest EL=groups EL Covert Ops Steps Step 1 - move silent and hide vs DC 10 + district security Step 2 - evade traps Step 3 - defeat guardians Step 4 - cause damage Covert Ops What it does Arson PowerRating minus district defense = damage to structure Burglary PowerRating minus district defense = gold stolen (or one single item from treasury) Rescue Release a prisoner Sabotage PowerRating minus district defense = damage to a countermeasure (if damage exceeds cost, then its'destroyed) Steal Development PowerRating minus district defense = max research cost of stolen development blueprints Steal Guardian Pay 500 gp to end a guardian contract or change it to another guild Remove Corrupt Official Remove corrupt official next week as a free action Intrigue Steps Step 1 - Announce Operation Step 2 - See if another guild intercepts you Step 3 - Can take an optional miniquest. The EL of a successful quest = bonus to your intrigue rolls Step 4 - Guildlords makes Intrigue rolls; they are opposed rolls between the two best skilled members of a guild Intrigue Ops Attacker Skill Defense Skill What it does Plant Corrupt Official (in a structure) Forgery Forgery + Dist. Security Structure looses % of income Encite Mutiny Diplomacy Diplomacy + Dist. Security Steal troops Jail Character Slight of Hand Spot + Dist. Security Send PC to jail for a few weeks Accuse Guild Bluff Sense Motive + Dist. Security Lowers district attitude Release Rumors Gather Info Gather Info Chance that each CAP next week autofails Peaceful Ops Host a Contest - make a contest of 5 str or dex skills. Other guilds can enter the contest as a reactive CAP. Winner gets +5 to non combat rolls. All participants increase attitudes of their districts. Interogate Staff - One PC makes sense motive checks to find corrupt official. Can miniquest to improve odds Intimidate Citizens - Make intimidate check to cause one district to resist being drafted. Host Festival - Spend money and make perform check to increase district attitude Headhunt Staff - Make bluff check (vs opposing guilds best bluff check + dist. security) to steal staff from another guild. Organize Protest (reaction) - Use diplomacy to start a protest that causes attitude of district to drop each week. Size and Spaces Every District has 50 Structure Spaces (SS). A basic HQ takes up 5. Don't be misled; the starting guild fortress takes up 15 SS. The HQ in a district has it's own SS, which is equal to the SS that it fills in the district. For example, you place an HQ in a district - now there is 5 filled SS and 45 open SS for the district. Inside the HQ, there are 5 SS that can be filled. For this, the HQ can be thought of as a partition more than a building. You can exceed the SS inside your HQ by spending more gold. For example, the first 5 rooms on a new Headquarter with 5 SS cost their normal price. The next 5, however, cost double because you exceeded the 5 SS limit. If you want to build even higher, you pay the triple price for 11-15 SS, quadruple for 16-20 and so on. Headquarter rooms and Guildhall rooms go in the HQ; structures take up SS outside of HQ in the district; wall sections overlap the HQs spaces. Pretty much every room takes up 1 SS of the headquarters. So the guildmaster quarter and the treasury take up two. Most guilds are getting basic and fancy PC quarters which is two more. That leaves plenty of space to customize. Winning the Game There are three ways to win (and possibly a fourth) Military - Kill all other guilds. Powercenter - Get three of your guild traits up to 12 and keep them there for a month. City Control - Control 7 districts for a month. Diplomatic (under discussion) - get friendly or fanatic ratings from most of the city Military: This involves loading up on troops, either by trade (commerce) points or recruitment (leisure) points. Being that each regiment has an upkeep of 50 x ECL², a hiring price of twice that, needs a leader that costs 3-4 times that, three SS each (barracks, stable, armory), and equipment + expendables + siege engines on top of that, armys are freaky expensive. A decent regiment is going to need its own Class A or B structure just to support it. Powercenter: getting a trait up to 12 is daunting. There's the +2 from the guild, the +1 from the district, the +2 from your first Class A structure, and if your lucky a + from the trophey room. The only other way to get the traits up for a month straight to buy more structures. Since the ratio of trait boost to SS is the same for all structures, I'll use Class A as an example. To get one trait up to twelve you will need a total of 4 Class A structures, the next trait will need 5 structures, and the third trait will need 6. A total of 15 Class A structures. Each one takes up 20 SS, so you need 300 SS for structures plus the SS for your HQs. That's 7 districts, unless of course you are willing to pay x7 to stack them all in the same district. City Control: There are 21 districts and 7 guilds. That means that once you take over that 3-4th district you are going to be rubbing elbows with somebody. And you can bet money that if you try to push into a 7th, that everyone and their dogs are going to operation/counteroperation you into the ground. Diplomatic: Still working on details for this one. Basicly it requires lots of negotiation (faith) points spent on districts, and lots of missions to befriend districts. Both of those can be countermeasured. And on top of that there are a couple operation types that lower attitudes. Also a suprise attack that requires drafting citizens just before an election will hurt. Assault Ops How its resolved Kidnap PC arena battle vs the victem Kidnap NPC miniquest EL=NPC rank = district security Raid structure miniquest EL=3 x structure security Raid HQ miniquest EL=HQ security Raid Traderoute miniquest EL=Traderoute EL Raid Caravan (reaction) arena battle/monster battle EL=Caravan EL Intercept Message (reaction) arena battle vs messanger Ambush Quester (reaction) arena battle vs questers Weaken paramilitary group miniquest EL=groups EL Covert Ops Steps Step 1 - move silent and hide vs DC 10 + district security Step 2 - evade traps Step 3 - defeat guardians Step 4 - cause damage Covert Ops What it does Arson PowerRating minus district defense = damage to structure Burglary PowerRating minus district defense = gold stolen (or one single item from treasury) Rescue Release a prisoner Sabotage PowerRating minus district defense = damage to a countermeasure (if damage exceeds cost, then its'destroyed) Steal Development PowerRating minus district defense = max research cost of stolen development blueprints Steal Guardian Pay 500 gp to end a guardian contract or change it to another guild Remove Corrupt Official Remove corrupt official next week as a free action Intrigue Steps Step 1 - Announce Operation Step 2 - See if another guild intercepts you Step 3 - Can take an optional miniquest. The EL of a successful quest = bonus to your intrigue rolls Step 4 - Guildlords makes Intrigue rolls; they are opposed rolls between the two best skilled members of a guild Intrigue Ops Attacker Skill Defense Skill What it does Plant Corrupt Official (in a structure) Forgery Forgery + Dist. Security Structure looses % of income Encite Mutiny Diplomacy Diplomacy + Dist. Security Steal troops Jail Character Slight of Hand Spot + Dist. Security Send PC to jail for a few weeks Accuse Guild Bluff Sense Motive + Dist. Security Lowers district attitude Release Rumors Gather Info Gather Info Chance that each CAP next week autofails Peaceful Ops Host a Contest - make a contest of 5 str or dex skills. Other guilds can enter the contest as a reactive CAP. Winner gets +5 to non combat rolls. All participants increase attitudes of their districts. Interogate Staff - One PC makes sense motive checks to find corrupt official. Can miniquest to improve odds Intimidate Citizens - Make intimidate check to cause one district to resist being drafted. Host Festival - Spend money and make perform check to increase district attitude Headhunt Staff - Make bluff check (vs opposing guilds best bluff check + dist. security) to steal staff from another guild. Organize Protest (reaction) - Use diplomacy to start a protest that causes attitude of district to drop each week.
Guildlords 07-30-06, 11:43 AM	I've added rules for campaigns with guild members: /INFO\ Added Diplomatic Victory condition: /INFO\ Could need some playtesting though. I also think Elections can be a bit more in-depth. What if a guild gains a benefit depending on how many voices it scored in the last election? Ideas for a benefit?
Vathelokai 07-30-06, 07:17 PM	I've added rules for campaigns with guild members: /INFO\ --- Unique Alliance: A guild can form a military alliance with the region around which the campaign ressolved. The alliance lasts as long as the campaign lasted in weeks. During this time, the region sends one regiment of militia per Guild ECL on the campaign to assist the guild in warfare. These can be used offensively, or defensively but they must be drafted for any action. Destroyed regiments are not replaced. Does this change the attitude of the ally at all, or is this a 'free' conscription of troops. Added Diplomatic Victory condition: /INFO\ Could need some playtesting though.With the votes as you have them, you would need 14 districts at fanatic, or all districts at helpull to win. It seems that the other victory conditions are set up to require about 7 districts to win. Was this intentional? I'd suggest lowering the votes to 30 (10 fanatic districts). Although you can increase district attitude even without being in the district, I think influincing half the map is a bit much. I'm guessing you were thinking that at the end of the game it would take more than 50% of the vote to win Maybe you could make it a % of the vote instead of a fixed ammount. Like, if there are 7 guilds you need x votes, if there are 5 guilds you need x+2 votes and if there are two guilds then you need x+5. I also think Elections can be a bit more in-depth. What if a guild gains a benefit depending on how many voices it scored in the last election? Ideas for a benefit? -bonus to traits -evade a counteraction from the council of gladius -Evade or pick a random event
Vathelokai 07-30-06, 07:40 PM	No, not really. It's just one of those things that I think most of us kind of assumed would be the same, and we didn't realize how important the change was. ...and I also didn't notice that you can double up on structures now--there's no restriction on building the same thing twice. So yeah, this way is pretty much necessary.Actually there is Competition: If the exact trait combination of a Standard Structure exists twice in the same district, the efficiency of both structures is reduced by an amount equal to the upkeep of the rival structure. For example, a Nunnery [FAI/EDU] and a Cloister [FAI/EDU] would be in competition. The Nunnery would lose 40 Efficiency, and the Cloister 30 Efficiency. If there are even more structures of the same trait combination, the efficiency decreases further. It doesn't matter to whom the structures belong.
Vathelokai 07-31-06, 06:03 AM	Every guild starts the game with a Guildhall including a Fancy Living Quarter, a Treasury, and the Guildmaster Room. The Guildhall is actually a regular Headquarter upgraded to a Fortress (incl 30 staff)This does not match with the last post by guildlords. Is it a typo, or do we get a fancy quarters for free? A Chapter House can only be built if you have a headquarter in an adjactent district but once finished, it stays active even if you lose control of the adjactent district.So does this mean that multiple guilds can own structures/bases in a district? If another guild has an HQ in a district, can you just build an HQ there anyway? Who controls the district and gets the district benefits? Do you split up the SS from the district, or is it 'first come first served'? Is there a section on multiple guilds controling one district? Also, can you build any structure anywhere in the city. HQ are specificly noted as only buildable in adjacent districts; does this apply to structures as well? A Structure falls inactive at 25% hitpoints and becomes a ruin. All personnel leaves a ruin and must either be stationed in another headquarter or abandon the guild. In case of staff, it can be stationed in the same slot as a regiment should the guild desire to keep it for later use, or they can use the 'Station' GAP option to cling to it until you have room.I don't think I understand this mechanic. If the staff retreats from a structure you can transfer them to an HQ? Can you transfer them to a different structure? If you have an identical structure in a different district can they be transfered there, and end up with an overstaffed structure? If you station them in an HQ, do they stay there or do you have to spend GAP every week? I thought the 'station' GAP placed troops in a district, not in a structure/hq. Grainery: A granary is a huge silo that stores grain, rye, and wheat for times of need. In everyday's life, this safety measure is lost to most citizen but that changes drastically when a famine hits the district. During this random event, the attitude improvements rises, and the deed done by the guild will not be forgotten lightly. Does this also apply to sieges and feading troops, in the way that the storage rooms do? GAPs must be announced in the Guild Hall of Gladius and will be logged at Wednesday 9 PM CET along with the pairings. You cannot change a logged GAP nor can you post your GAPs retroactively because you now know what the other guilds are doing. There will be no exceptions.The problem with this is that the last guild to post has an advantage against other guilds. Waiting for others to post GAP first gives the same problem/benefit as retroactive GAP. I'm at work when pairings are done, so my guild has to post early. It could be posted by secret PM, but there is a conflic of interest since guildlords is also a guildmaster. Also, is there a rule against editing the post - there are sometimes legitimate errors to fix, but a guild could post a fake GAP and change it after other guilds have posted. # Alchemist Fires: You know how to produce Alchemist Fire Flasks. Research: 200 # Tanglefoot Bags: You know how to produce Tanglefoot Bags. Research: 500; Fabrication: 2000 (Research) # Antitoxin: You know how to produce Antitoxin. Research: 500Why are tanglefoot bags the only item that can be fabricated? Cut and paste error? It looks like there are no fabrication entries on most of the developments. Found all the fabrication information at the bottom of the post. Are alchemical items stored in the armory just like other equipment? How many vials of X take up an armor slot (AS) in the armory? Hand Ram: You can equip your regiments with Hand Rams. Research: 250Shouldn't this be in the weapons section, since it can be equiped by a regiment (as opposed to siege weapons which are 'equiped' with a regiment)? Does it work like the regular battering ram in the SRD? # Message to Guild: You send a message to an allied guild and request assistance within the limits of the agreement. # Message to Group: You send a message to a group with a helpful or fanatic attitude and request assistance within the limits of the agreement.I can see this working for NPCs but, why would a guild send a messanger to another guild when they can post in the other guilds thread, read their guild thread, or send a PM. Unless the messages do something more then convey info, I doubt anyone would ever send a message to another guild. One of the latest discoveries is a unique planar mercenary company known as <name> that works completely different than the many sellsword companies on Othala. The mercenary is not hired right away but is sent when he/she/it is needed; the conditions are defined in the contract. If the condition is met (for example, a guild caravan is under attack), the <name> teleports a 'Guardian' (as they call their mercs) to the battlefield; the type of guardian is based on the threat and the availability of guardians. Technically, this is a random monster fight at a matched EL.Anybody have ideas for the Guardian Merc Company's name? The EL of a Para-Military Group determines its strength. It has one leader of an ECL equal to the EL of the group. Additionally, the group itself has a number of regiments equal to its EL. Group regiments use Military stats, equipped with any light armor and any simple weapon that suits the group. WHAT?! The church of Denth on the edge of town has 16 regiments and is lead by a 16th lv cleric?! Why isn't the city council doing something about this? ;) If a guild controls 12 or more trait points, it gains control over the associated powercenter for as long as it has enough trait points.What if two guilds have 12 in the same trait? Does the 'disrupt powercenter' special mission effect this? A guild cannot send a character on the same type of Operation twice in a row. Example: Character A and B are sent on a Covert Operation. These two characters may not go on another Covert Operation before a new Covert Operation has been executed by the guild. However, during that time, they may go on a different type of operation, an Assault or Intrigue for example. This is to prevent that guilds use only one specialized master for a certain type of Operation all the time.Can a character go on an operation with a skill they are not trained in? For example, TAO has only one character with intimidation, Zodiac. Zodiac intimidates the district of Gawane so that the CEF cannot conscript militia regeiments there. Since another character has to do the next intimidation before Zodiac does it again, he will never be able to do another intimidation mission (unless characters can do it untrained). The unskilled operator would be doomed to failure, but it would keep low skill guilds from being effectively banned from operations. I understand that by 'type of operation' you mean all intrigue operations, but what of guilds that (for some reason or another), only have one caracter trained in one of the 5 intrigue skills? Raid Structure: This is a raid against a structure under control of another guild. Up to three operators go on a Miniquest with an EL equal to "3x Security" of the structure. Normally, this means Class A (EL 12), Class B (EL 9), Class C (EL 6), and Class D (EL 3) but certain events can modify security points (EL 1 or 2 are rounded down to 0). Raids against structures with no EL automatically succeed and need no miniquest. If the Miniquest is successful, the operators remove the income of this structure for this week from the treasury. If the Miniquest fails, the operators are imprisoned. Raid Headquarter: This is a raid against a headquarter of another guild. Up to three operators go on a Miniquest with an EL equal to the Headquarter Security. If the Miniquest is successful the headquarter is raided. If the EL is lower than 3, the Miniquest automatically succeeds. If the Miniquest fails, the operators are imprisoned. The following options are open against a raided headquarter (pick any one). (PR-DEF) means you use the Base Powerrating of the operators and deduct the Defense Points generated in this district to get the damage you may deal. Remove Gold (PR-DEF) Remove Equipment (PR-DEF=production cost) Steal Guardian Contract (any one) Remove Artefact (any one) Rescue Prisoner (any one) Arson (PR-DEF=damage)When you say 'remove' you men transfer the gold from the defending guild to the attacking guild, correct? SUCCESS: If the Operator has passed all obstacles, the operation is a success, and the Operator can now pick any of the options listed below.So is this the only type of operation that you get to declair the goal after you succeed or fail? An operator can use his Sleight of Hand skill to make a member of an enemy guild look guilty. The target character uses his Spot check to oppose the attempt and also gains a bonus equal to the District Security in the Guildhall district.This is the only type of intrigue where a target character makes the defense roll instead of the guild member with the best defense skill. Is that intentional? Irregular Regiments are spcialized troops that are only available if you control a district. Every district of Gladius has its own Irregulars.... Notes: Regiments with NPC Classes have special advantages: - Dark Cultists: are considered ECL 1 (Tiefling and Adept evens out). - Residents: cost half upkeep and half recruit points. - Aristocrats: You can assign two developments you have researched for free. - Bandits: are considered ECL 1 (Hobgoblin and Warrior evens out).How does the Aristocrat advantage work? When you hire the regiment? When they perform it as a special action? As a free action every week? Guild Wars are the actual military operations of the guilds. Guild Wars begin as soon as one guild moves its troops into a district that belongs to another guild. A guild has the following options in Guild Wars, each costing one GAP.Can these actions be countered by CAPs? Arrow Volley: With this command, a regiment fires as a full-round action in a high arc at a square instead of doing a direct shot. It must make a ranged attack (with the officer's rank as a bonus) vs AC 15 or the target regiment's flatfooted AC, whichever is higher. It is possible to fire out of LOS in this way (eg over a wall) but then the regiment suffers a -6 penalty to its attack. Because of the high arc, range increments are halved. [/b]Arrow Volleys ignore concealment and any cover that does not specifically protect against attacks from above[/b].Arrow volleys counters a blur spell? Or Darkness? Also, there dosn't seem to be any thing in the guild game that protects against attacks from above. Also, it seems the Prereqs for learning advanced commands have not been finished. Operations against headquarters use the temple map or any other suitable map provided by the Questlord. The Guildhalls have their own individual maps which must be kept up to date by the guildmasters.So only the guildhall needs a map? What is the size of one SS? I would like to know so that I can make an appropriate map (I'm quite sure that I would make it larger than it should be). How much leway do we have in design? Is there a requirement on open space? Could it be a tight maze? The TAO Guildhall is one of the buildings on the camps, so it could be filled with smalll class rooms and hidden passages. Is that OK?
TheMagister 07-31-06, 07:47 AM	Plea toward common sense (I know, I know...this is DnD. But work with me, here): In the sewer map, there are a two effects that aren't mentioned (but should be) relating to the environment: 1) Balance checks. A little over 1/2 the map is covered with water in some form or another. A quick read of the "Balance" skill description shows that wet floors should be considered "lightly slippery" and force a balance check (DC mod +2). Since the floors are considered rough terrain, that would mean that anyone that HAS to walk in the water squares should have to make balance checks to cross the water. Large creatures would have a hard time. So would platemail-clad, tower-shield wielding characters with crappy jump checks (even though its a class skill). 2) Scent. "Overpowering odors" render scent useless. I think a sewer should qualify as one entire "overpowering odor". This would be one environment where a scented creature would not (SHOULD not) have this advantage. What do you guys think of this? I'll cross-post in the Ask an Elder thread, and the Tavern thread. TM
Vathelokai 07-31-06, 08:09 AM	I gather Guild Attitudes are effectively being reset, since everyone is listed as 2000 with everyone. So no holdover from the past? [We didn't have anything in the past that could be concretely expressed in attitude points] I've been thinking about this and I'm not happy with it. TAO fell behind in every are except quests, where we outpaced most everyone. We have run multi guild quests with everyone except EYE. I volunteer to go through the old guild quests and apply the current mechanic to them to discover where the attitudes would be if we had it from the begining. Any multiguild quest being treated as an 'increase guild attitude' mission, and any single guild quest being treated as a 'increase district attitude' mission. This would keep with the idea that we should keep the previous work of the guilds intact. Please consider it.
Caterane 07-31-06, 08:28 AM	This does not match with the last post by guildlords. Is it a typo, or do we get a fancy quarters for free? [No, that's a mistake. Will be corrected] So does this mean that multiple guilds can own structures/bases in a district? [Yes] If another guild has an HQ in a district, can you just build an HQ there anyway? [Yes] Who controls the district and gets the district benefits? [All with a headquarter] Do you split up the SS from the district, or is it 'first come first served'? [Split] Is there a section on multiple guilds controling one district? [No because it has no special rules] Also, can you build any structure anywhere in the city. [Yes] HQ are specificly noted as only buildable in adjacent districts; does this apply to structures as well? [No] I don't think I understand this mechanic. If the staff retreats from a structure you can transfer them to an HQ? [Staff can be stationed in barracks if you want to use them later but have no place for them now. Unassigned staff leaves after two weeks] Can you transfer them to a different structure? [No] If you have an identical structure in a different district can they be transfered there, and end up with an overstaffed structure? [They can be transferred to identical structures but you cannot overstaff it] If you station them in an HQ, do they stay there or do you have to spend GAP every week? [You can station them in barracks without a GAP, or with a GAP anywhere] I thought the 'station' GAP placed troops in a district, not in a structure/hq. Does this also apply to sieges and feading troops, in the way that the storage rooms do? [No because it's outside the headquarter] The problem with this is that the last guild to post has an advantage against other guilds. Waiting for others to post GAP first gives the same problem/benefit as retroactive GAP. I'm at work when pairings are done, so my guild has to post early. It could be posted by secret PM, but there is a conflic of interest since guildlords is also a guildmaster. [We can make that all PM stuff and I just don't read PMs with a certain title until the deadline is up.] Also, is there a rule against editing the post - there are sometimes legitimate errors to fix, but a guild could post a fake GAP and change it after other guilds have posted. [As long as the deadline isn't up you can edit as you wish] Why are tanglefoot bags the only item that can be fabricated? Cut and paste error? It looks like there are no fabrication entries on most of the developments. [Old mistake] Found all the fabrication information at the bottom of the post. Are alchemical items stored in the armory just like other equipment? How many vials of X take up an armor slot (AS) in the armory? [For simplicities sake, one like any equipment] Shouldn't this be in the weapons section, since it can be equiped by a regiment (as opposed to siege weapons which are 'equiped' with a regiment)? [No, it's siege equipment as the title says] Does it work like the regular battering ram in the SRD? [No] I can see this working for NPCs but, why would a guild send a messanger to another guild when they can post in the other guilds thread, read their guild thread, or send a PM. Unless the messages do something more then convey info, I doubt anyone would ever send a message to another guild. [You can talk freely anytime. The message is only for official pact help requests] Anybody have ideas for the Guardian Merc Company's name? [Right, we need one for them] WHAT?! The church of Denth on the edge of town has 16 regiments and is lead by a 16th lv cleric?! Why isn't the city council doing something about this? ;) [Perhaps TAO wants to intervene? I think Auburn has recently taken one of their temples down.] What if two guilds have 12 in the same trait? [Perhaps we add a section that says 'and 2 more than any other guild'] Does the 'disrupt powercenter' special mission effect this? [No. It's just a short time anyway.] Can a character go on an operation with a skill they are not trained in? [If you can do it untrained, then yes] For example, TAO has only one character with intimidation, Zodiac. Zodiac intimidates the district of Gawane so that the CEF cannot conscript militia regeiments there. Since another character has to do the next intimidation before Zodiac does it again, he will never be able to do another intimidation mission (unless characters can do it untrained). The unskilled operator would be doomed to failure, but it would keep low skill guilds from being effectively banned from operations. [I know] I understand that by 'type of operation' you mean all intrigue operations, but what of guilds that (for some reason or another), only have one caracter trained in one of the 5 intrigue skills? [Probably not an intruiging guild :P ] When you say 'remove' you men transfer the gold from the defending guild to the attacking guild, correct? [Yes] So is this the only type of operation that you get to declair the goal after you succeed or fail? [Hm, no that's a mistake] This is the only type of intrigue where a target character makes the defense roll instead of the guild member with the best defense skill. Is that intentional? [Yes. Spot is generally available] How does the Aristocrat advantage work? When you hire the regiment? When they perform it as a special action? As a free action every week? [Assign 2 you know for free when hiring them] Can these actions be countered by CAPs? [No GAP can be countered] Arrow volleys counters a blur spell? Or Darkness? [Yes they attack squares] Also, there dosn't seem to be any thing in the guild game that protects against attacks from above. [It's also hard to attack from above] Also, it seems the Prereqs for learning advanced commands have not been finished. [I'll check that] So only the guildhall needs a map? What is the size of one SS? [Nothing concrete. Perhaps 20x20? It really doesn't matter that much; just use common sense when designing a Fortress] I would like to know so that I can make an appropriate map (I'm quite sure that I would make it larger than it should be). How much leway do we have in design? [A lot] Is there a requirement on open space? [As I said, make it operational. A labyrinth will be rejected.] Could it be a tight maze? [No] The TAO Guildhall is one of the buildings on the camps, so it could be filled with smalll class rooms and hidden passages. Is that OK? [No. Keep in mind a poor fellow must run a battle on it. There should be at least one big open space. Look at the CEF map. Something like that.] ...
Caterane 07-31-06, 08:30 AM	I've been thinking about this and I'm not happy with it. TAO fell behind in every are except quests, where we outpaced most everyone. We have run multi guild quests with everyone except EYE. I volunteer to go through the old guild quests and apply the current mechanic to them to discover where the attitudes would be if we had it from the begining. Any multiguild quest being treated as an 'increase guild attitude' mission, and any single guild quest being treated as a 'increase district attitude' mission. This would keep with the idea that we should keep the previous work of the guilds intact. Please consider it. That's a hell of work but if you volunteer to do that, and do it for all guilds, all quests, then we will take it over. @TM: The sewer map needs no additional complication. Think about the pitlord.
Guildlords 07-31-06, 10:29 AM	Construction Points could become a problem as it is now. A Mainhall, ten cranes and two training halls allow a guild to construct Class A structures in 2 weeks anywhere in the city. This is especially bad if you do that from a highly protected district. For that reason, I've added a slight extra rule for Construction Points: Cross-District Constructions: All Construction points can only be used in the district where they are generated. It is, however, possible to use such points in another district by using a caravan to transport it to the destination district. This must be announced with the Free Action following the Construction GAP, and can be interrupted normally. Trade Agreements ship the ressources whereever the guild wants them. This makes it risky to follow the described tactic above and also weakens CONstruction a bit. You can now also store CON, RES, or PRO points in a Storage. A Storage has 1000 Ressource Slots which can alternatively be filled with Proviant. Proviant is actually one week of trail rations. Staff doesn't leave a guild if not assigned but it costs 5gp/1staff until assigned to a structure.
MindWandererB 07-31-06, 04:58 PM	Re: Diplomatic Victory: it looks like if the first vote is held early enough, the Council will win. I should hope that votes will only occur after that is no longer the case. Also, another question: if you have a Main Hall, can you activate the same points twice in the same week? What if they're used for different things (like building two structures at once)?
Caterane 07-31-06, 05:01 PM	The Council is already the government so the best it can get is a confirmation of its rule. The NPC player rules need to be written before we can see the big picture.
Abyssal Stalker 08-01-06, 08:02 AM	Anybody have ideas for the Guardian Merc Company's name? [Right, we need one for them]Invisible Hand! :fight!:
Caterane 08-01-06, 10:35 AM	It seems like most guilds want to send their members on as many missions as possible. We do, however, not have that many questlords. I'm thinking of increasing the mission cost to 2 CAPs per PC.
SoulLord 08-01-06, 12:31 PM	Some guilds don't have so many CAPS Why not having each character on a quest count as two characters active instead; that should free up the pitlord population. Also Questlords must be secured before the characters want to take a quest so no matter if the Tao and War want to send all their characters on a joint mission; if there is not a questlord who will take it then that is not going to happen.
Caterane 08-01-06, 01:17 PM	2 activations doesn't prevent those with credits to spare going on missions. That'd be a metagame solution which isn't optimal. It also empties the roster in favor of quests which is not what we want. If a guild doesn't even have 2 CAPs then it should look out for players quickly because you can't really win with 1 CAP. Issue: CAP Actions/Reactions Should we use hidden CAPs, ie guildmasters send a PM to Guildlords who posts them after the deadlines?
Guildmaster (TLT) 08-01-06, 03:05 PM	Re: Hidden CAPs: That may work best. Otherwise, a guild may choose to reserve one of their CAPs when they see that another guild is doing something they want to counter. (Sidenote: it appears that disrupting another guild's actions does not hinder relationship status. That's a bit odd.) Re: Mission CAPs: I'll agree that one-PC missions are a drain on resources. But 2-PC missions aren't (1 PL:2 PC ratio), and 3-PC missions actually help the situation. Granted, quests are harder to run when there are more players, but not so much harder as to make it not worthwhile. Also:Embark on Mission: As a CAP Action, a guild can send up to three member characters (all within 1 ECL) on a mission.This seems to state that it's one CAP per mission, not 1 CAP per character. Please clarify. An increase in cost from 1 CAP to 6 for a 3-PC mission is pretty extreme, and would mean that only CEF and EHTC can perform 2-PC missions at all, and no one can do 3-PC missions (unless it's collaborative). Speaking of CAPs, when are the first ones due--this Friday or next? If they begin next Friday, we have a week where no characters are doing anything, but if we begin this Friday, that effectively pushes our start date up. On that subject, I found another error: Free Actions must be announced along with GAP Actons and cannot be changed after they have been logged.CAP Actions must be announced (along with Free Actions) on Friday 9 PM GMT at which time CAP Actions will be logged by Guildlords Board Avatar. And yet more questions: If you spend money, do you have to have all the money at the beginning of the week, or is it okay as long as your total balance for the week is no less than 0? For instance, if you have 800 gp and a weekly income of 400 gp, can you buy a 1000 gp room (net worth 200 gp)? Can staff be assigned to an incomplete structure?
Vathelokai 08-01-06, 04:02 PM	I also vote for hidden CAPs. It would just make me feel better. If it wouldn't be too much of a burden, I imagined we would be sending the entire accounting post to guildlords, and they would be posted as one post. Should only CAPS be sent this way, or everything (since knowing GAPs ahead of time could cause similar problems). As for Questlords, I assumed it would fall on the guildmasters to cover it. Of all the quests lined up for TAO, I've volunteered to do all of them (and TelinArtho was planned to run the WAR/TAO mission a month ago). I know everyone can't do that. I see the operations that end in miniquests being the larger drain on pitlords.
Guildmaster (TLT) 08-01-06, 04:37 PM	Vath brings up a good point: if we combine GAP, CAP, and Free actions into a single PM, it will 1) cut down on the workload, and 2) Give more time to see and respond to CAPs. I try to run TLT as a democracy (assuming people speak up!), so more discussion time would be great.
Caterane 08-01-06, 06:33 PM	Re: Hidden CAPs: That may work best. Otherwise, a guild may choose to reserve one of their CAPs when they see that another guild is doing something they want to counter. [Yes, that'd be a gamble but that's not a bad thing] (Sidenote: it appears that disrupting another guild's actions does not hinder relationship status. That's a bit odd.) [The reason behind this is to not disencourage people to intercept operations. Intercepted Operations result in Battles of Gladius and that's good. They also increase interaction] Re: Mission CAPs: I'll agree that one-PC missions are a drain on resources. But 2-PC missions aren't (1 PL:2 PC ratio), and 3-PC missions actually help the situation. Granted, quests are harder to run when there are more players, but not so much harder as to make it not worthwhile. [Quests are played outside the Battles system and this is not good for interaction. A Mission only becomes connected if interrupted and that only happens once, if at all. We want to increase interaction, and missions don't do that.] Also:This seems to state that it's one CAP per mission, not 1 CAP per character. Please clarify. [Per character] An increase in cost from 1 CAP to 6 for a 3-PC mission is pretty extreme, and would mean that only CEF and EHTC can perform 2-PC missions at all, and no one can do 3-PC missions (unless it's collaborative). [If we make it one CAP per mission there's no reason not to send the maximum of characters; after all, the rewards are based on the combined ECL. One thing that balances this out a bit is that questing characters cannot be used to counter CAPs which leaves a guild vulnerable if it sends too many PCs away.] Speaking of CAPs, when are the first ones due--this Friday or next? If they begin next Friday, we have a week where no characters are doing anything, but if we begin this Friday, that effectively pushes our start date up. [Let's start the first week slowly. We start wednesday with the GAPs] On that subject, I found another error: [Mistake. It's GAPs and Free Actions.] And yet more questions: If you spend money, do you have to have all the money at the beginning of the week, or is it okay as long as your total balance for the week is no less than 0? For instance, if you have 800 gp and a weekly income of 400 gp, can you buy a 1000 gp room (net worth 200 gp)? [You need the money at the time you post the GAP. You cannot rely on money you don't have; might be stolen] Can staff be assigned to an incomplete structure? [No. An incomplete structure with 2000/5000 hp has a different status than a damaged one with 2000/5000 hp.] Vath brings up a good point: if we combine GAP, CAP, and Free actions into a single PM, it will 1) cut down on the workload, and 2) Give more time to see and respond to CAPs. I try to run TLT as a democracy (assuming people speak up!), so more discussion time would be great. [I can see no reason not to do that. GAPs have nothing to do with CAPs as far as I can see] ...
MindWandererB 08-01-06, 06:55 PM	Can staff be assigned to an incomplete structure? [No. An incomplete structure with 2000/5000 hp has a different status than a damaged one with 2000/5000 hp.]So this means that you can't hire staff before building the structure, because unassigned staff leave after 2 weeks, right? This is an important consideration. Couldn't they hang around longer if they see that you're working on the structure?Re: Mission CAPs: I'll agree that one-PC missions are a drain on resources. But 2-PC missions aren't (1 PL:2 PC ratio), and 3-PC missions actually help the situation. Granted, quests are harder to run when there are more players, but not so much harder as to make it not worthwhile. [Quests are played outside the Battles system and this is not good for interaction. A Mission only becomes connected if interrupted and that only happens once, if at all. We want to increase interaction, and missions don't do that.]What about multi-guild missions, then? They increase interaction and only cost each guild one CAP.
Caterane 08-01-06, 07:11 PM	So this means that you can't hire staff before building the structure, because unassigned staff leave after 2 weeks, right? This is an important consideration. Couldn't they hang around longer if they see that you're working on the structure? [Actually, they do not leave. They just cost 5 gp/staff that is unassigned so you can hire them in advance.] What about multi-guild missions, then? They increase interaction and only cost each guild one CAP. [With interaction I rather meant the roster in the Characters thread, including opposition rather than cooperation like on multiguild missions but it's a little step] ...
MindWandererB 08-01-06, 07:19 PM	Unassigned staff leaves after two weeks.[Actually, they do not leave. They just cost 5 gp/staff that is unassigned so you can hire them in advance.]Please tell me which of these statements is correct.
Caterane 08-01-06, 07:34 PM	The second one. I changed that yesterday when you asked me about staff. It's easier than the barracks/GAP version.
Zevox 08-01-06, 07:42 PM	We start wednesday with the GAPs This being wednesday the 2nd (aka tomorrow) or the 9th? I believe we were waiting until the 9th due to WAR's lack of a Guildmaster until recently, correct? Zevox
Caterane 08-01-06, 07:44 PM	Stormwind took over at WAR and we start next week. I will ask to send me a post with your starting stuff, current PCs, bought rooms, such things which I will then log in the Guildhall. Let's say that should be sent by next monday. Gives me two days to check all guilds.
MindWandererB 08-01-06, 08:03 PM	TLT is nearly done except for the map and some last-minute discussion of strategy. Regarding the map: any progress on getting your Dundjinni files disseminated? I don't want to start building a map in Paint Shop until I know that option isn't going to happen.
Zevox 08-01-06, 08:34 PM	*winces* Speaking of which (maps), I seem to be up the creek without a paddle in that regard. I tried that AutoRealm thing MWB said would be easy to use, and I can't begin to figure out how I could possibly work it. Unless theres something out there with pre-made images of tiles and objects and such I could just put in place, I'm afraid I may not be able to make a map myself... Zevox
Guildlords 08-02-06, 05:13 AM	I changed the rules so that you send GAPs, Free Actions, and CAP Actions till wednesday by PM to Guildlords at which time they will be logged. That's our package idea combined with the hidden activity request. Reactions are also hidden and will be logged on tuesdays. I also set a mission to 2 CAP/PC. Before MW and Zevox jump at me, this is only temporary. It should prevent 2 things: that we see a flood of missions on week 1 which we cannot handle, and that a guild gains a kickstart by sending their highest PCs on missions. The CEF, for example, could send six characters with a combined ECL of 58 on missions and bring home tons of gold after three weeks. As we've seen from the previous incarnation, an early boost has a considerable impact. Inter-guild cooperation allows for multiplayer missions which in turn allows for higher ELs and rewards. The CAP cost will be lowered to 1 after some weeks but we also need an alternative safeguard by then. I think it's best to watch and learn before thinking about that.
Guildlords 08-02-06, 05:24 AM	@Guildmasters! It is time to send me the information about your start property. I set the deadline to next Monday 9 PM CET which gives me 2 days to check everything. I need the following things: The class A structure The rooms you bought The treasury Guild Alignment (incl the numbers) Up to date list of characters I will also check your guild thread if you have everything right. Accoutning section, district information, headquarter information, attitudes, alignment, map, etc etc. Please note that I will make a character check on August 16. Any PC inactive for more than 2 months will enact a fine on the guild of a cumulative 100 gold per week. That's also the case for any violation in the embassy! Backup Guildmaster: I want to encourage all backup guildmasters to freely use the account and repair or update things if you see something's missing or out of date or can be improved. Map note: I'll give you 2 more weeks to complete the map till Aug 16. If you haven't found an artist till then, you can always draft it by hand and scan it, or you could use a code block with dashes: | - / \ O PM Format: You can make my job much easier by sending your stuff in the proper form. If one of your members leveled up, you need to send me this information. If you add a new member, use this format: [ECL09] Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) including link please. The Title should read: Guild Activities PSI (Aug16) or CAP Reactions PSI (Aug16) where you use the date of the last wednesday even though its the tuesday. That way I know which week you mean.
Zevox 08-02-06, 11:46 AM	Wait a second here, I think I may have misunderstood something before... Please note that I will make a character check on August 16. Any PC inactive for more than 2 months will enact a fine on the guild of a cumulative 100 gold per week. That's also the case for any violation in the embassy! I had originally thought that you meant that the 2-month timer started on the 16th, but this seems to indicate that it ends then (meaning we either boot them or take the penalty on that day). Which is it? Zevox
Caterane 08-02-06, 12:48 PM	I never said that, Zevox. It would mean that you could drag your corpses - who are inactive for months up to today even - drag them on for another 2 months, and gain free CAPs for nothing. I explicitely said you have time till the 16th to encourage the guys to activate their PCs.
Zevox 08-02-06, 12:54 PM	I never said that, Zevox. It would mean that you could drag your corpses - who are inactive for months up to today even - drag them on for another 2 months, and gain free CAPs for nothing. I explicitely said you have time till the 16th to encourage the guys to activate their PCs. A misunderstanding on my part, then. But in that case, I have to ask: does Va'ria's recent crafting activity count for that? Because if not, I need to make sure Sindorin gets her doing something next week, or we'll lose her, which would be rather annoying considering shes a major character in the guild RP-wise and has only been inactive for so long due to being frozen. Zevox
Caterane 08-02-06, 01:49 PM	No, crafting is not really an activity. I always check the last fight entry and count the weeks. If Varia is inactive for another week you'll pay a fine of 100; that's giving Steve another week to ready her. I wouldn't let go on a ECL 10 character so easily if I would run the EHTC.
lonewolf 08-02-06, 02:37 PM	I always check the last fight entry and count the weeks. That may be ok for non-frozen characters, but if you do it that way 90% of the ECL10 characters will be fined since the only thing they could do in the old system(frozen quests/miniquests) are not visible on the charactersheet. I propose giving the ECL10 characters an additional week in the new guild system to be activated, because now they actually have something to do again.
MindWandererB 08-02-06, 03:11 PM	I would actually suggest more than an extra week for them: they should be going on guild stuff, and with two CAPs per mission, it may take a while to get them all out in the field. I think ECL10's should be given a fresh timer starting on August 9.
Caterane 08-02-06, 03:31 PM	It's the player's fault that he played up to a frozen league j/k I think you have a point here. Let's say ECL 10 PCs start with the timer on Aug 9 along with the system.
MindWandererB 08-02-06, 04:31 PM	Two interesting issues/problems/side effects just occurred to me. 1) When the weekly CAPs are revealed, it is also revealed which characters are doing what. Since opposing guilds can respond knowing that, they can send a character deliberately designed to defeat the operator in question. In fact, they can even do their shopping for the week (if between cycles) with that in mind. The defending character is thus at at least a partial disadvantage, if not a severe one. For instance, if Telin's ill-fated Bleargh went on a CAP, WAR could send Zero after him, capitalizing on that racial Paralysis immunity. I'm not sure this is a desirable situation. It may be unavoidable, but we'll see how bad it gets. 2) Characters who get into fights based on CAPs (challenges, missions, etc.) lose out on their free actions, right? (Missions, certainly; the others, maybe not.) For characters who are designed to make a lot of money off of Profession/Craft, mission involvement thus puts them at a disadvantage compared to arena battles. Again, I'm not sure this is avoidable, but it's a concern to think that many characters will choose to avoid missions (including global quests) for this reason.
MindWandererB 08-02-06, 05:57 PM	@ All guildmasters: I've been experimenting with the demo version of Dundjinn, without all the downloaded material. And I have to say, it will fill the basic needs of a map just fine. It really can't create much more than floors, walls, and doors without the downloads or the full version, but what more do you really need? It looks daunting at first, and I have to admit that you need the help file to figure anything out at all, but now that I've read most of it, it's actually quite simple and powerful to use. So for those of you who have been having trouble making maps, go to http://www.dundjinni.com/ and download the demo. But please do read the help file, or you'll be lost. Edit: You'll still need a paint program of some sort, because you can't save with the demo version. Just do a screen shot of your finished product and paste it into Photoshop or Paintshop or whatever.
Guildmaster (WAR) 08-03-06, 02:51 PM	@Caterane: I've just been reading through the Guild rules again and I can't seem to find any requirement of any type of Guild points for the construction of rooms in a headquarter. Does this mean that headquarter rooms can simply be bought through the expenditure of the correct amount of gold?
Caterane 08-04-06, 06:00 AM	Two interesting issues/problems/side effects just occurred to me. 1) When the weekly CAPs are revealed, it is also revealed which characters are doing what. Since opposing guilds can respond knowing that, they can send a character deliberately designed to defeat the operator in question. [That happens to all characters. And there is only a limited number of possible interceptors because of the ECL requirement] In fact, they can even do their shopping for the week (if between cycles) with that in mind. [You said it: only in 1/3 of all case is that possible at all, and not everyone will do that. It's also not that expendables win you a fight like you make it sound] The defending character is thus at at least a partial disadvantage, if not a severe one. [I think you overestimate that but we'll see how it goes. If your concerns prove to be right we'll find a solution] 2) Characters who get into fights based on CAPs (challenges, missions, etc.) lose out on their free actions, right? [Why's that? You set your character ready normally] (Missions, certainly; the others, maybe not.) Re Dundjinni: I have hundreds of MB of files although I can't let you download all of them at the same time. If anyone is interested in them, send me a PM and what you need and I upload it. @WAR: I'll add something that clarifies it. You don't need guildpoints for rooms at all.
Vathelokai 08-04-06, 06:56 AM	@WAR: I'll add something that clarifies it. You don't need guildpoints for rooms at all. Then what stops someone from just saving a load of cash and taking over the neighboring distrct with a full HQ in a week?
lonewolf 08-04-06, 07:29 AM	Then what stops someone from just saving a load of cash and taking over the neighboring distrct with a full HQ in a week? If I understood it correctly you need no guild points but you do need a GAP for each room.
Caterane 08-04-06, 07:51 AM	Then what stops someone from just saving a load of cash and taking over the neighboring distrct with a full HQ in a week? - You need to construct headquarters with construction points - You need to staff headquarters with recruitment points - You have to improve the attitude with negotiation points - You have to buy extra rooms with a GAP per room - You really need a load of cash. A big load for your endeavour. - You should protect your existing headquarters first before expanding else we'll soon see many TAO ruins. @all: Please ask on if something is unclear. I've added clarifications to any thing you asked a question about. It helps to improve the rules for guilds.
Caterane 08-04-06, 12:49 PM	After reading through the guilds, it seems no one focuses on research since it is deemed unnecessary in the beginning. I think we should increase the importance of research. No guild can survive without construction, negotiation, or recruitment points. Without defense points, you're an easy target; I'd even say you cannot survive without a solid defense either. Production points let you produce all kind of things for free, and trade points are also something no one can ignore. Compared to all that, research is not crucial to survival. For that reason, I'm considering adding the following developments: - Class D Construction: You can construct Class D structures. - Class C Construction: You can construct Class C structures. - Class B Construction: You can construct Class B structures. - Class A Construction: You can construct Class A structures. - Special Construction: You can construct Special Structures. - Advanced Architecture I: You can fortify a structure up to 120% - Advanced Architecture II: You can fortify a structure up to 140% - Advanced Architecture III: You can fortify a structure up to 160% - Advanced Architecture IV: You can fortify a structure up to 180% - Advanced Architecture V: You can fortify a structure up to 200% - Advanced City Planning I: Your structures take up one SS less. - Advanced City Planning II: Your structures take up two SS less. - Wood Walls: You can build wooden walls - Stone Walls: You can build stone walls - Metal Walls: You can build metal walls - Fortification Keep: You can upgrade your headquarter to a keep. - Fortification Fortress: You can upgrade your headquarter to a fortress. - Fortification Citadel: You can upgrade your headquarter to a citadel. - Fortification Castle: You can upgrade your headquarter to a castle. - Fortification Palace: You can upgrade your headquarter to a palace. Comments? Another addition I have in mind is "Plant Spy". With our hidden CAPs and GAPs, this operation allows a guild to know CAPs and GAPs of the spied guild in advance. One problem remains: The guildmaster would have to send the information to the other guild at least one day in advance. We could say this is an additional drawback of having a spy in your headquarter. Removing him would be similar to the corrupt official.
MindWandererB 08-04-06, 01:54 PM	I think that may be too much, Cat. You can't construct any kind of structure without researching it first? So much for all the plans every guild has made so far; I, for one, would probably need more than a week to re-do plans from square one (since we were planning on working toward a Class-B structure as our first goal). And my map, which was 90% done, I'd have to change a lot of, since we'd need massive research to build anything decent. And frankly, I'd be pretty discouraged with the whole system at that point, since it would mean a lot of wasted effort for me. So let's put structures aside for now. I think they're way too critical to handicap that way. Requiring research for structures changes it from the least important type of points to the most important by a landslide. And it will also result in stagnation of the guild sub-game for many months as we all conduct nothing but research for months. I like all the other ideas a lot. Especially the Advanced City Planning--that one's going to make a lot of difference in the long run, I think. (Although I'd reverse the mechanic: ACP I: You may exceed the SS cap on districts by 5; ACP II: You may exceed the SS cap on districts by 10. Since all structures require multiples of 5 SS, ending up with 1-4 SS left over is useless.) Other ideas that would make Research points much more useful: · Guard Training I: Guard posts produce an additional 25 Defense points. · Guard Training II: Guard posts produce an additional 50 Defense points. (And so on for the other types of points.) · Industrial Organization I: The Efficiency rating of all your structures that have Industry as their home trait improves by 10. · Industrial Organization II: The Efficiency rating of all your structures that have Industry as their home trait improves by 20. (And so on, again.) · Improved Security I: The success chance of Escape Attempts is reduced by half. · Improved Security II: The success chance of Escape Attempts is reduced by 2/3. · Improved Architecture I: Rooms that exceed the SS cap on a headquarters cost only 150% the normal cost, not 200%. · Improved Architecture II: Rooms that exceed the SS cap on a headquarters cost only 125% the normal cost. Furthermore, just because Research isn't useful early on doesn't mean it won't be later. A guild who hasn't been conducting research by the mid-game will be easy prey to attack (even a legion of naked dudes with clubs won't be too scary). Other types of points are less useful in the early game, as well; in fact, all you really need to get started is CON and REC. Negotiation will be useful only later; Production can be useful but is hardly essential; Trade can provide an early advantage but can safely be ignored completely for the whole game (especially if you have research and production instead). ... And, I have another question regarding Trade: Say you enter into a contract for 100 CON a week for 250 points. Can you "renew" the trade agreement in week 2 of the contract to ensure uninterrupted delivery (so you don't get 100, 100, 50, 100, 100, 50, but rather 100 every week)? Assuming it doesn't get interrupted by another guild, of course.
MindWandererB 08-04-06, 06:01 PM	I came up with this chart when planning for the future. I thought other people might find it helpful, too, so here it is. The color indicates the home trait of the structure. IND FAI COM LEI EDU NAT IND A - (PRO) B - C - D - FAI A Temple - (NEG) B Glassworks - C Brewery - D Orphanage - COM A Mint Moneylenders' Guild - (TRA) B Market Square Occult Sect - C Bazaar Mission - D Slaughterhouse Herbarium - LEI A Arena Hospital Festhall - (REC) B Spinningmill Tournament Site Casino - C Goldsmith Bathhouse Brothel - D Junkyard Graveyard Fishing Port - EDU A University Oracle Trading Center Bard College - (RES) B Paper Mill Cloister Academy Museum - C Witches' Kitchen Nunnery Scrivener Tower School - D Bookstore Library Sage Hut Post Office - NAT A Shipyards Monastery Harbor Aqueduct Weather Control - (CON) B Lumber Mill Sacred Grove Caravanserai Zoo Observatory - C Watermill Shrine Farmsteads Gem Mine Explorers' Guild - D Windmill Hermitage Logging Camp Circus Animal Kennels - POL A Foundry Order of Knights Garrison Town Hall Archmage Tower Prison (DEF) B Courthouse Inquisition Watchtower Theater Printing Press Fort C Magistrate Parish Hall Black Market Mercenary Guild Brotherhood Freemasons' Guild D Blacksmithy Mayor House Toll Bridge Tavern Herald Tower Ranger Station
Caterane 08-05-06, 12:35 PM	@MW: We can leave structure constructions aside. Anyway, you agreed that research is the least important sector and we have to change that. I like all the other ideas a lot. Especially the Advanced City Planning--that one's going to make a lot of difference in the long run, I think. (Although I'd reverse the mechanic: ACP I: You may exceed the SS cap on districts by 5; ACP II: You may exceed the SS cap on districts by 10. Since all structures require multiples of 5 SS, ending up with 1-4 SS left over is useless.) +5 SS per district can become problematic. When does it apply? When you control a district? If yes, then what happens if a 60 SS district loses its Chapter House? There are now too many structures. What about other guilds in that district? They would be able to use the new SS aswell. That's why I focused on the structures instead of district SS. Furthermore, just because Research isn't useful early on doesn't mean it won't be later. A guild who hasn't been conducting research by the mid-game will be easy prey to attack (even a legion of naked dudes with clubs won't be too scary). With just one Trading Post and a single GAP, you can buy shortspears for 25 regiments.
MindWandererB 08-05-06, 02:54 PM	Re: Advanced City Planning: If we allow structures to take 1 or 2 less SS than usual, we have situations like this: District contains 1 Fortress, 1 Class A, and 1 Class B (normally 50). With 1 less SS each, that's 47. There's no advantage at all, since nothing takes 3. With two less each, that's 44, and you can squeeze in two Class D structures, but anything else and you end up with wasted space. Alternatively, district contains 1 basic HQ and 9 Class D structures (again, normally 50). At 1 less SS, that's 40; at 2, that's 30. The result: it's monetarily advantageous to create loads of crappy structures. The fact that they're less defensible is offset by the massively greater amount of income they produce. Probably not the desired mechanic. My alternative proposal: I didn't mean to actually increase the cap by +5 or +10, but rather, you can exceed the cap by that amount. The cap itself doesn't change. It's an important distinction: If a district already has 50 SS in it, you can still add 5 or 10 more. Doesn't matter if you control it or not. In fact, you could even slap a structure into a district completely filled by someone else. The only part of the mechanic I'm unsure about if if two guilds who both have that upgrade share the same district (it doesn't really work to allow them each 27.5 SS--perhaps the extra 5 would just be on a first come, first served basis). Re: Trading Posts vs. Research: True. All right, so no clubs, probably, as long as you have Trade and money. But I think it's a reasonable balance: Trade points alone allow you to spend money to get stuff; Research and Production allow you to get stuff for free. The balancing factor will be the whole "breakthrough" mechanic, which I have a very bad idea of how it's going to work. We may need to just make research easier.
Zelck 08-05-06, 03:17 PM	By the way, are lost equipment/allies on guild ops recovered after the fight is over? If not, this could be abused very easily. Heck, I'd also argue that we should provide some compensation for lost items in quests. A fighter who loses his Flaming Shocking Ghost Touch Greatsword +3 in a quest is suddenly going to be VERY behind or very useless. Finally, I'd also like to see some form of compensation for used consumables on quests/guild ops for frozen characters. Otherwise, they have no way of recovering those losses. Depending on how long they remain frozen, those characters may have to do without consumables and can put them behind on gp. Maybe give them a gp compensation for total consumables used under a certain gp value, or just have the consumables not be used up if the total used is under a gp value? EDIT TO ADD: As for city planning, another way to design it is to reduce the SS value of all structures by, say, 10%/20%. Fractions would be counted, so it effectively adds 5/10 SS to each district.
Zevox 08-05-06, 06:41 PM	Finally, I'd also like to see some form of compensation for used consumables on quests/guild ops for frozen characters. Otherwise, they have no way of recovering those losses. Depending on how long they remain frozen, those characters may have to do without consumables and can put them behind on gp. Maybe give them a gp compensation for total consumables used under a certain gp value, or just have the consumables not be used up if the total used is under a gp value? This is a non-issue - items used up in Frozen quests/campaigns/missions are already automatically restored to the character afterwards to maintain exactly this balance. Zevox
MindWandererB 08-06-06, 02:09 AM	Just noticed this:- You have to buy extra rooms with a GAP per roomBuilding rooms isn't among the list of GAPs. Apparently it should be.
Caterane 08-06-06, 07:56 AM	By the way, are lost equipment/allies on guild ops recovered after the fight is over? If not, this could be abused very easily. [It's an age-old coco rule that sundered and lost items are restored. Don't worry.] @MW: Added. Also added: Architectural Technology The following developments have various 'levels' which is expressed in the numbers behind the name. You must research each level individually, and you must know all lower levels before being able to research a new one. Structure Fortification I-V: You can fortify your structures. You can exceed the maximum hitpoints by +20% per technology level. Research: 250*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Headquarter Fortification I-V: You can build headquarter fortifications. The levels are I-Keep, II-Fortress, III-Citadel, IV-Castle, V-Palace. Research: 250*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Wall Construction I-V: You can construct walls. The levels are I-Wooden, II-Stone, III-Iron, IV-Mithral, V-Adamantine. Research: 250*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Advanced Architecture I-V: Whenever you use Construction Points, you pay 5% per level less in gold. Example: with level II tech and 1000 CON, you construct 1000 hitpoints but pay only 900 gold. Research: 250*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Advanced City Planning I-V: You can exceed the district space by 5 SS per level but any structure built beyond the base SS costs double its price in gold and construction points (hitpoints and all stays unchanged). Research: 250*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Organizational Technology The following developments have various 'levels' which is expressed in the numbers behind the name. You must research each level individually, and you must know all lower levels before being able to research a new one. <Trait> Organization I-III: Pick one trait, eg Industry. All structures belonging to that home trait gain +(5*Class Level) to efficiency per technology level. Each trait organization must be researched individually (so if you have Industrial Organization III, you're still at level 0 for the other six traits). Research: 500*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Improved <Guild Point> I-III: Pick one guild point type, eg Trade. All rooms associated with this type produce an additional +25 points per level. Each type must be researched individually (so if you have Improved Negotiation III, you're still at level 0 for the other six guild point types). Research: 500*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Improved Security I-III: The ECL multiplier to break out of your prisons decreases by 1 per level (ie I-2*ECL, II-1*ECL, III-0*ECL). Research: 500*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Improved Escape I-III: The ECL multiplier to break out of rival prisons increases by 1 per level (ie I-4*ECL, II-5*ECL, III-6*ECL). Research: 500*Level Requires: All lower technology levels I changed the formula for breakthroughs. It's now much easier to gain one. Thanks to Vathelokai, who retrieved all past multi-guild quests, we already have some increase in attitude between one or the other guild. O====O====O====O====O====O====O====O |CEF |TLT |EYE |PSI |WAR |TAO |EHT | O=====- ====O====O====O====O====O====O====O | CEF <| |2000|2250|2000|2000|2000|2000| O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | TLT <|2000| |2000|2000|2000|2000|2000| O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | EYE <|2160|2000| |2000|2000|2000|2000| O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | PSI <|2000|2000|2000| |2000|2490|3230| O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | WAR <|2000|2000|2000|2000| |2640|2000| O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | TAO <|2000|2000|2000|2360|2450| |2000| O------ ----O----O----O----O----O----O----O | EHT <|2000|2000|2000|2650|2000|2000| | O=====- ====O====O====O====O====O====O====O What about my Plant Spy idea? Another addition I have in mind is "Plant Spy". With our hidden CAPs and GAPs, this operation allows a guild to know CAPs and GAPs of the spied guild in advance. One problem remains: The guildmaster would have to send the information to the other guild at least one day in advance. We could say this is an additional drawback of having a spy in your headquarter. Removing him would be similar to the corrupt official.
Guildlords 08-06-06, 08:51 AM	@Guildmasters! It is time to send me the information about your start property. The deadline is August 7, Monday 9 PM CET which gives me 2 days to check everything. I need the following things: The class A structure The rooms you bought The treasury Guild Alignment (incl the numbers) Up to date list of characters I will also check your guild thread if you have everything right. Accoutning section, district information, headquarter information, attitudes, alignment, map, etc etc. Please note that I will make a character check on August 16. Any PC inactive for more than 2 months will enact a fine on the guild of a cumulative 100 gold per week. That's also the case for any violation in the embassy! Backup Guildmaster: I want to encourage all backup guildmasters to freely use the account and repair or update things if you see something's missing or out of date or can be improved. Map note: I'll give you 2 more weeks to complete the map till Aug 16. If you haven't found an artist till then, you can always draft it by hand and scan it, or you could use a code block with dashes: | - / \ O PM Format: You can make my job much easier by sending your stuff in the proper form. If one of your members leveled up, you need to send me this information. If you add a new member, use this format: [ECL09] Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) including link please. The Title should read: Guild Activities PSI (Aug16) or CAP Reactions PSI (Aug16) where you use the date of the last wednesday even though its the tuesday. That way I know which week you mean.
Guildmaster (WAR) 08-09-06, 09:52 AM	<snip> What about my Plant Spy idea? I like the basic premise of the Plant spy idea ... perhaps modify it slightly as follows: Covert Operations Plant Spy: The operators guild can plant a spy in the target guild. A guild that successfully plants a spy in a target guild gains an additional 24 hours to post/PM GAP's or CAP's that relate to the target guild. Each guild may only plant one spy in a target guild. To remove a spy, a guild can either fire all staff (and hire new ones), or use a covert operation, or interrogate its staff with a peaceful operation. For example: If the EHTC successfully plants a spy at the CEF then the EHTC has until Thursday 9 PM CET to PM any GAP's or CAP's that relate to the CEF. The EHTC must still PM GAP's and CAP's that relate to any other guild (in which they do not have a spy) by Wednesday 9 PM CET. Remove Spy: The operator looks for secret documents which reveal a spy. The operator's guild can remove one spy with its next Free Action. This would prevent the problem of a guildmaster having to send information to the other guild a day early, and in addition would remove the dependance of this ability on other guildmasters.
Caterane 08-09-06, 10:00 AM	Perfect! Thanks Stormwind! I'll add it later after I'Ve converted the Harvester who loses 2/3 of his expendables :weep: :weep: :weep:
Guildlords 08-09-06, 07:13 PM	It seems some confused the start dates for activities. GAPs start the same week they're posted. If you use a GAP to generate 1000 CON-PTS, the structure will have these points at the end of the week. Free Actions and CAPs start the following week as do CAP Reactions. I am considering dividing up GAPs and CAPs for simplicities sake so that CAPs and Free Actions are posted on Thursday. I am too busy on wednesday anyway due to the pairings.
MindWandererB 08-09-06, 07:47 PM	Okay, I am now completely confused as to how Trade works. Can you walk me through it? It looked from the list of GAP actions like you had to spend a GAP to begin a trade agreement. If that's not the case, we totally screwed up this week; would it be possible to change our GAP to something else? Also: Why not just move the whole guild deadline to Thursday?
Caterane 08-09-06, 08:22 PM	Week 1: You use a Free Action to establish contact. If you ain't opposed or succeed in sending the message, the contact is established. The delegation from the region arrives next wednesday. Week 2: You use a GAP to form a trade agreement. From next wednesday on, the ressources will be shipped. Sure, you can change the GAP, no questions asked.
MindWandererB 08-09-06, 08:27 PM	In that case, please have TLT use a Construction GAP: Generate 1000 CON-PTS for a Fort in Dragor Mounds [1000/4000].
DSugui 08-09-06, 11:17 PM	Crossposting from the Tavern by Pittbull's request: I was looking over the allies rules trying to findo one my bard/cleric Dudael could take when he gets a couple more levels. I found something deeply disturbing (that I think was intensively discussed before, btw) and I want to verify if I am understanding this right: At 6th level, Dudael could take the Leadership feat. He then could choose to have a 5th level cohort due to his Leadership score, but in that case he wouldn't be able to have him in any fight (maxCA = 6-2 =4), so he would have to have a 4th level cohort. Making a note for future reference: a worg is listed as ECL 5 in the leadership cohorts table. If, instead of Leadership, Dudael takes Skill Focus (Diplomacy), he would have Diplomacy +22, what gives him the right to take 2 +11BaseCD Diplomacy allies (ignoring the modifiers for now). These allies would have to be CR 2, so he would be able to bring both to a fight. The interesting thing is: a worg is a +11 BaseCD ally with CR 2. So, if I take the Leadership feat, I could take one worg as cohort, but then wouldn't be able to bring it to a fight, while if I use Diplomacy, I can have not one, but two worgs, and can bring both of them to a fight! It's just me, or there's something really weird with these allies rules?
Usurpator 08-10-06, 04:53 AM	Regarding the allies issue: the allies system is not perfect, nor is the ECL system. Some options are stronger than others. Besides, a Worg Cohort may mean a Psychic Warrior/Fighter/Barbarian/Monk Worg somewhere down the line. A Worg diplomacy ally has none of those options. Additional ability points, freedom in choosing feats and level progression is not to be discounted advantage of cohorts. And yeah, some allies suck, some are quite powerful for their ECL/CR. Same goes for cohorts. Just pick and choose the best option. I don't see any need to change or re-discuss the rules based on the Worg example alone.
Pittbull 08-10-06, 05:18 AM	I dislike the ally system depending on diplomacy. I believe it is too strong. But if the majority likes it, we should go on.
hogarth 08-10-06, 06:58 AM	I dislike the ally system depending on diplomacy. I believe it is too strong. But if the majority likes it, we should go on. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the idea of having diplomacy allies, but I think the formula used (i.e. Sum(ECLi)+Sum(CRi)) should not be comparing CR and ECL on an equal basis. Note that it is always true that ECL >= hit dice, but rarely true that CR >= hit dice. I think it would be better to use max(CRi,HDi) (for example) instead of CRi in the formula above. That would cut the number of Smal air elementals used in half, for instance.
MindWandererB 08-10-06, 02:50 PM	Fairly urgent question: As you all know, Cyra Val is burglarizing us this week. She's currently ECL 9. However, she's pretty close to levelling, and may do so as a result of this week's fight. Is she still considered ECL 9 for the purposes of trying to counter her? What about any counter-agents we may use--we won't know what level they'll be next week until the end of the week, which may be after we choose to send them. This is going to get wacky in any event. I see only two feasible possibilities: 1) CAPs and CAP reactions are determined based on current ECL, no matter what. This means that if you cleverly send someone who levels up in the intervening week, you are at an advantage. 2) If your CAP/Reaction results in a fight, and you would have levelled up during the week, you may not apply your level until after the CAP is resolved. This is more fair in some ways but complicated in others. Obviously, a swift answer would be good. I'm going to assume option 1 unless told otherwise.
Caterane 08-10-06, 03:25 PM	@DSugui: Your non-elite, racial HD worgs will have little chance against a 25 pt-buy class level worg, especially since the latter levels automatically with the character while the worgs stay weak as they are. The system is good as it is. @MWB: A valid concern. We'll use option A. Anything else is too complicated.
Caterane 08-10-06, 04:01 PM	I think it's time to address this. With the guild system we've finally an option for frozen characters to shine again but that might not be too satisfying in the long run to fight without rewards. We all want to see these 6th and higher level spells, mighty warriors, and exotic races. In order to do that we have to make three big steps. (1) The Iron Man Tournament We have a lot of characters accumulated at ECL 10. With our new rules for matched encounters (ie surprise rounds) and the inter-league rules (ie teams), we easily have 32 characters for the Iron Man Tournament. We pair 16 vs 16, then 8 vs 8, then 4 vs 4. Before the Semi-Final, you can rest and replenish your stuff, then it goes on to the semi-final, the final and the fight for 3rd place. The last 2 fights will be only fight 1 and 2 of the 3FC so if you have a better idea on how to incorporate it into the 3FC, please speak up. The winner gains a Custom Avatar and the title "Core Coliseum Iron Man" or "CoCo Iron Man Winner" (haven't decided yet). You also gain a [GOLD] [SILVER] and tag behind your character name which grants you a bonus to leadership (+1 to +3) but we'll have better uses later. During the Iron Man Tournament, we'll free characters from campaigns, since 4 ECL 10s are currently participating in Warriors of Light. After the Iron Man Tournament, we do the next step: [b](2) Opening the Higher Leagues We cannot support 20 leagues, that's clear. We cannot even support 15 leagues. But we can combine the higher leagues! That means we'll have ECL 10-11 ECL 12-13 ECL 14-15 We'd add 3 new leagues but we'll get 6 levels of Battles of Gladius in return. Later we can perhaps open the epic leagues in that way too. One requirement for that is that we get more pitlords and players. Which leads us to the next point. (3) The Hypertext SRD We've lost quite some players because of the three failed board upgrades. Full five weeks of pairings were lost. I could launch a new advertisment campaign (a banner throughout all forums). The last time we did that the ECL 3 roster was filled with 90 PCs. We cannot do that though because we do not have enough pitlords. Pitlording is closely tied to credits, and I think I have a great new way to spend them on: the Hypertext SRD. Before I continue, I want to make clear that not everything in there can be used. Gestalt or Buying back LA is nothing that works in the coco. However, there are some things in there that perfectly fit into our board. We'd start with races and class variants and see how it goes. From there we can slowly expand the range. Everything will be closely checked before allowed and if it proves to be unbalancing we just kick it out again. To prevent a flood of new stuff we charge 10° per race or class variant picked (one time fee). I remember when we talked about allowing psionics in the coco and some had big reservations but it was soon clear how much it had enrichened our board, and I couldn't imagine the coco without psi stuff. I think it will be the same with the hypertext srd. Since this is a big step, I'd like to hear the opinion of everyone. EDIT: For those who don't know what I'm talking about, here are the links to the hypertext stuff: Hypertext SRD => Variant Rules (http://www.d20srd.org/) Variant Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantClasses.htm) Variant Races (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantRaces.htm)
Myrridin 08-10-06, 04:08 PM	I, for one, would love to see those sections of the SRD opened up. What about allowing the Bloodlines in, would we let that happen as well? I think this would really allow us to expand the CoCo, and try out a bunch of new ideas and mixes. Not to mention it does give a large incentive to Pitlord again.
MindWandererB 08-10-06, 04:25 PM	(3) The Hypertext SRD We've lost quite some players because of the three failed board upgrades. Full five weeks of pairings were lost. I could launch a new advertisment campaign (a banner throughout all forums). The last time we did that the ECL 3 roster was filled with 90 PCs. We cannot do that though because we do not have enough pitlords. Pitlording is closely tied to credits, and I think I have a great new way to spend them on: the Hypertext SRD. Before I continue, I want to make clear that not everything in there can be used. Gestalt or Buying back LA is nothing that works in the coco. However, there are some things in there that perfectly fit into our board. We'd start with races and class variants and see how it goes. From there we can slowly expand the range. Everything will be closely checked before allowed and if it proves to be unbalancing we just kick it out again. To prevent a flood of new stuff we charge 10° per race or class variant picked (one time fee). I remember when we talked about allowing psionics in the coco and some had big reservations but it was soon clear how much it had enrichened our board, and I couldn't imagine the coco without psi stuff. I think it will be the same with the hypertext srd. Since this is a big step, I'd like to hear the opinion of everyone.By which you mean "Unearthed Arcana." Took me a couple of reads to realize that's what you meant. It's... possible. I'll start there. I can't say I don't have reservations. Here are the reservations I can think of right now: 1) Credits != Power. That's been the rule from the day the credit system was implemented: credits give you options, but not more powerful options than normal. Much of the UA material is simply more powerful. Take the Water Halfling as one example: if you want to play a halfling, and you have the credits to spare, a Water Halfling is simply a more powerful halfling. Of course, that's an obvious example, as are a few others (like druid domains), but some are much more subtle, and would be discovered only through playtesting--and it's very hard to distinguish an over-powerful option from a build that just takes very good advantage of it. 2) Complexity. If you pull a highly variant rule--say, spontaneous divine spellcasting--the pitlord has a high probability of screwing it up, and your opponent will likely misunderstand your potential as well. 3) Time & Effort: Since every single option in UA would have to be approved item-by-item, this would be one hell of a task. We'd have to compile a list of all the various options and flag them with one of the following: A) Not available yet; B) Available but has not been tried; C) Available, has been tried, and seems balanced; D) Was tried and deemed unbalanced, and is no longer available. B and C could be combined, but it's a useful distinction so that someone doesn't come up with this fantastic idea, saves credits for it, then gets shut down after trying it for two weeks.
TelinArtho 08-10-06, 04:27 PM	Okay - here goes: 1. Iron man tournament: How many distinct players are represented at or near ECL10? While we may have 32 characters up there, we are likely only talking about 15-20 players - which is pretty limited. How soon were you thinking about having it run? In general, I think the Iron Man tournament is a great idea. I would personally be honored to be involved in it either as a player or as a mediator. I haven't read much on what has been discussed about it previously and perhaps it would be good to dredge that up in its own topic for finalization so that everyone is clear on it. 2. Opening the higher leagues: While I'd like to see players that are ECL10 and above get some play time (especially with 2 of my characters almost there), even with expanding the leagues there are a very limited number of players and characters at that level. If we were to open them up, we might need to reduce the credit cost for starting at a high level back down some (back to 4/ECL like it was). Still, I think it will be a while before those characters will have a lot of variety in player opponents. Monster fights can always be an option - but those can be a little boring at the end of things. Another alternative would be to create a certain number of static NPCs at that level that would be run by the players who create them for little/no credits - but the character would be like a mercenary in never getting rewards, nor using up expendables. Since the creator would still write up tactics for the character, it would still be involvement from the players and is a little more interesting (in my opinion) than a straight out monster fight. 3. The Hypertext SRD: Having never really gone through this stuff I don't have much to comment on. Assuming that we would only allow things with an actual check for balance and give it a period of review, I think I am fine with it. This also assumes everything there is easily read (as in available for free online). Some of the things that are not in the SRD will continue to trip me up (Yuan-ti opponents, oriental weapons, etc) since I don't have any of the 3.5 sourcebooks, but at least this optional stuff won't be unavailable. I will hold opinions on it depending on when/if I get time to look it over. 4. Pitlord shortage: I have deliberately maintained my "low" pitlording status because when I left in February I saw the place almost fall apart because of it. I can easily, at the moment, return to 5+ fights per week, but at the same time, I want to encourage others to pick up just one fight a week. I feel that all we see are the people who complain about pitlording, and it may be all that's out there. No amount of credits will change the fact that pitlording is pretty much a thankless job. I still enjoy it, but that doesn't mean I don't find it difficult from time to time. As to how to resolve it, I'm not entirely sure. Getting more players into the CoCo will help, because people will desire to see their characters fight, and without more pitlords that won't happen. I'd love to implement a "Pitlord at least once" rule - that is - for anyone who wants to start a character, they must have pitlorded at least once - but I am concerned it would produce people who felt forced into doing it - and I'm not real fond of that idea either. Perhaps creating a "support network" would help. Right now, if a pitlord is having problems, s/he has to "admit" to it in the FotW thread - essentially before the entire community. If we set up a helper network (people who would volunteer like myself, DSugui, MWB or Erithmu (just a few off the top of my head) - who have all taken extra fights in the past and who have taken extra time for new players and pitlords), perhaps that would help lighten the load off of some of the troublesome spots. Duties would include picking up fights that can't be completed on time, review new pitlord fights to check for errors and resolving questions from pitlords in a faster and more official tone than is done in the FotW thread. I'm just rambling now - so I think I'll let all this germinate and think on it some more.
DSugui 08-10-06, 04:37 PM	@DSugui: Your non-elite, racial HD worgs will have little chance against a 25 pt-buy class level worg, especially since the latter levels automatically with the character while the worgs stay weak as they are. The system is good as it is. At higher levels, maybe. But at the moment the are acquired, I think two average worgs are stronger than one 25 pt worg (who will not have class levels yet). I won't question that the system is good - at least, better than what it was - but it's still unbalanced, and I think a little more adjustments wouldn't hurt. For example: why only white dragons are available as Diplomacy allies? Why not black, green, brass or bronze dragons, all of which could fit in the CR+HD range in the table? Why not include average orcs, goblins, kobolds, elves, dwarves, halflings or other races, as they are shown in th MM? I think the system can be improved if work on it. Related question: Does cohorts come with some kind of equipment? The DMG says that "The cohort has gear as a NPC" but I don't know if this is true here. If not, why? IMO gear is part of the ECL of the character, so it would be reasonable that a ECL 4 cohort should come with ECL 4 gear. Regarding the Hypertext SRD: I think it's a great idea. Starting with races and classes is a good option, providing more options with unbalancing the system.
hogarth 08-10-06, 04:57 PM	@DSugui: Your non-elite, racial HD worgs will have little chance against a 25 pt-buy class level worg, especially since the latter levels automatically with the character while the worgs stay weak as they are. The system is good as it is. I think a worg is kind of a poor example since it has such a low +LA and its CR and hit dice aren't that far apart. Consider a CR 3 very young white dragon (dragons are notable for having CRs which are probably too low). On the one hand, the rules say that it's suitable for a level 7 character to have one as a Diplomacy ally; in fact, a level 8 character could bring two very young white dragons as allies. On the other hand, as a cohort a very young white dragon would be ECL 9, suitable for a level 11 character. I don't think the 25 point buy for abilities and the ability to shift around ability scores is worth that much; by level 11, the diplomacy using character has probably moved on to a hill giant or a huge air elemental or maybe even a young white dragon based on the elite array plus a variety of other allies.
TelinArtho 08-10-06, 05:04 PM	Let's not forget though that there are costs associated with diplomacy allies now - the MQ that you use to gain the ally gives you NO GP rewards and must by your EL or higher. So, while you are level 7, you spend a MQ to gain a White Dragon diplomacy ally - gaining you 2100xp and 0gp. Your 7th level counterpart goes on a MQ to gain a leadership ally and gains 2100xp and 2600gp. When the character becomes 8th level and wants to gain a 2nd white dragon ally - he loses 3400gp. The gp loss is very significant here and is definitely worth noting - especially since the dragon as a cohort will improve on his own without any cost. The leadership ally is much stronger (as it should be - it costs a feat versus just a few skill points).
TelinArtho 08-10-06, 05:09 PM	With regards to Myrridin's asking about bloodlines - I think I would rather not see those implemented. As near as I can tell, a minor bloodline carries benefits without penalty until the character is 12th level (which if they want to continue - then they have the penalty). The penalty isn't really all that serious either, especially for multiclass characters, since the bloodline level seems to give you CL and special ability boosts as if the bloodline level were a regular level. You'd miss out on a few skill points or feats, but with the benefit of some nice things from what I can tell. Looking over the variant races - I can't say that any of them are all that groundbreaking. While MWB is correct in saying a halfling in the arena would be worse than a water halfling - the benefit is pretty minor, since we have limited fire creatures and limited water hazards. The only problem I have with the variant races is that they are essentially no flavor type changes - just sweeping add this, remove this from your existing race - without much explanation. Of course, I've never been fond of the 14 thousand different elf types anyway... I guess I'm a purist.
MindWandererB 08-10-06, 05:17 PM	Looking over the variant races - I can't say that any of them are all that groundbreaking. While MWB is correct in saying a halfling in the arena would be worse than a water halfling - the benefit is pretty minor, since we have limited fire creatures and limited water hazards.Actually, it was the free +2 Con that makes the big difference. That would make it an LA+1 race by any other standard.
Stormwind 08-10-06, 05:21 PM	@Cat: I was reading over the section of rules regarding operations and missions again, and it occured to me that there is one specific use of CAP's that cannot be intercepted with the current rules, sending characters on a campaign. I have an idea for intercepting campaigns as follows: Campaign Ambush: Once per campaign, campaigners can be ambushed by characters (Total EL less than or equal to that of the campaigners) from rival guilds to spoil their campaign. If the rival guild uses such a CAP Reaction, the campaign is interrupted for a week as the characters from the rival guilds teleport in and attack. After 1 round per ECL of the attackers, the attackers are automatically teleported back to Gladius. Each of the campaigners that is killed reduces the possible rewards the guild may receive by that characters ECL; If all the campaigners are killed, then the campaign is aborted. However note that the campaigners do not have to kill their attackers, they just need to survive. Comments?
Usurpator 08-10-06, 05:24 PM	(1) The Iron Man Tournament Great idea, unfortunately, I don't have any characters at that level, or even a team at ECL 8, so it really doesn't mean much to me currently. (2) Opening the Higher Leagues Sure, go ahead and try this, if it doesn'r work, nothing is lost. Combining leagues seems a decent idea. But about our member base, in the CoCo you don't just need more Pitlords and players, you need to have them to stay for more than 6 months to get them involved in higher level stuff. I'm here for about a year, and my highest level characters are 7. (3) The Hypertext SRD I was attracted to the boards by the fact that only core rules were used. With enough rules added it can become more of a game of 'who finds the best rule loophole or combo', and that's not a game a like to play. My primary interest is in winning on tactics, not just on builds that abuse lopsided rules. If I had seen it advertised as Core Rules + Unearthed Arcana + other options etc. etc., I probably wouldn't have joined. The CoCo cleverly avoided the 'more options and additions = more fun' philosophy that spawned all the splat books and creates power creep. I applaud people like King Unther who keep on coming with new and interesting builds just using the Core Rules. I'd rather we put effort into reclaiming players we have lost, or at least investigating if we lost them due to board upgrade or CoCo rules issues (and what those were), and not IRL issues. There were many active people I'd like to see return, even if only occasionally, to Pitlord a fight every other week or so. Also, as stated above, I very much dislike the credits = more power philosophy, and very much like the credits = more options philosophy. This is especially true for beginners who see experienced people here with loads of credits and might think 'I'm never going to beat these guys, because there credits buy them advantages I cannot hope to reach for a long time'. Just ask any MMORPG newbie coming into an established game. The advantage of long-time players seems insurmountable and even unfair to them. When I first read the rules I was only really concerned about the credits = custom items/allies (and still am concerned about that), not at all about the credits = higher level characters/campaigns/quests etc. I'm afraid this move would scare more players away than it would gain.
DSugui 08-10-06, 05:39 PM	Actually, it was the free +2 Con that makes the big difference. That would make it an LA+1 race by any other standard. And so it would the +2 STR for earth dwarves and the +2 CON for water orcs. But I'd like very much to see Paragon classes implemented. Also, as stated above, I very much dislike the credits = more power philosophy, and very much like the credits = more options philosophy. This is especially true for beginners who see experienced people here with loads of credits and might think 'I'm never going to beat these guys, because there credits buy them advantages I cannot hope to reach for a long time'. Just ask any MMORPG newbie coming into an established game. The advantage of long-time players seems insurmountable and even unfair to them. Well, I can say that wasn't true to me. When I first come to the CoCo, the credits systems in fact seemed unfair, because experienced players could have all those cool stuff. But it was that what made me pitlord my first fight. Today I run fights because they are fun (mostly) and I enjoy it, since I really don't spend that much credits. I think most people like to have choices that be restricted to Core, so credits = more options is a good think: it will not unbalance the game (hopefully), and at the same time will attract new players and will incentive them to pitlord fights.
Zevox 08-11-06, 12:49 AM	@Cat: I was reading over the section of rules regarding operations and missions again, and it occured to me that there is one specific use of CAP's that cannot be intercepted with the current rules, sending characters on a campaign. I have an idea for intercepting campaigns as follows: Campaign Ambush: Once per campaign, campaigners can be ambushed by characters (Total EL less than or equal to that of the campaigners) from rival guilds to spoil their campaign. If the rival guild uses such a CAP Reaction, the campaign is interrupted for a week as the characters from the rival guilds teleport in and attack. After 1 round per ECL of the attackers, the attackers are automatically teleported back to Gladius. Each of the campaigners that is killed reduces the possible rewards the guild may receive by that characters ECL; If all the campaigners are killed, then the campaign is aborted. However note that the campaigners do not have to kill their attackers, they just need to survive. Comments? I must say I do not like the above-bolded part. The campaignlord put a lot of effort into making the campaign, and the campaigners paid 5o to go on it - I do not feel there should be any way to stop the campaign outright against the will of the camapignlord and campaigners. I know if such a rule were implemented and someone decided to attack "The Liberation of Achos" just to stop Featylec or Solan from helping thier Guilds I would not be happy at all, and that would have nothing to do with the affect on the Guilds. If such an operation is to be implemented, that should not be part of it. Re: The Iron Man - Telin raises a very good point. There are currently 22 characters in the ECL 10 league, but of those fully 4 are Cat's, 2 are Huans, 2 are Malither's (and he disappeared a couple of months ago, so they may not even be available for it), 3 are Pittbull's, 2 are Sindorin's, and 2 are Sunwolf's. We actually only have 13 different players with ECL 10 characters, and two of those (Mitza and Malither) are MIA. Plus in the ECL 8 league its still many of the same people - lonewolf, King Uther, Huan, and Sindorin make 5 of the 11 ECL 8s who also would be in via ECL 10s. Thats worth considering. Oh, and I'm kinda hoping it at least doesn't happen until I can get Asran into it in 6 weeks too, but thats just me ;) . Re: Higher Leagues - Sounds fine to me. That would mean I won't lose Destra for a long time when he jumps from ECL 9 to ECL 13 for becoming a Werewolf :D . That'll probably be another half a year at this rate of course, but I like to plan for such things. Re: Unearthed Arcana - I'll have to take a closer look at that before giving an opinion, but I must say my gut reaction is somewhere between MWB's hesitance and Usurpator's outrigh dislike. The little looking over I gave it when it was added (before noticing the "this is not technically part of the SRD" note) did not look pleasing. Zevox
Salrantol 08-11-06, 05:27 AM	I find myself highly opposed to the inclusion of Unearthed Arcana materials, simply because the ideas contained therein are even less compatible with the balance of core items than those of the splatbooks, but are offered for inclusion simply because they're reprinted in an SRD document.
lonewolf 08-11-06, 07:16 AM	I just wont to note that I am one of the clear supporters of including UA material into CoCo. Of course we have to look at each part seperatly, but I highly doubt that the material in there is more powerful than Core or Psionics on average.
hogarth 08-11-06, 07:18 AM	I won't question that the system is good - at least, better than what it was - but it's still unbalanced, and I think a little more adjustments wouldn't hurt. For example: why only white dragons are available as Diplomacy allies? Why not black, green, brass or bronze dragons, all of which could fit in the CR+HD range in the table? As far as I can tell, the only monsters listed have an Int score in the 3-6 range. I guess anything smarter would be a mercenary instead. I don't know why lantern archons and belkers aren't listed, though. Let's not forget though that there are costs associated with diplomacy allies now - the MQ that you use to gain the ally gives you NO GP rewards and must by your EL or higher. So, while you are level 7, you spend a MQ to gain a White Dragon diplomacy ally - gaining you 2100xp and 0gp. Your 7th level counterpart goes on a MQ to gain a leadership ally and gains 2100xp and 2600gp. When the character becomes 8th level and wants to gain a 2nd white dragon ally - he loses 3400gp. So it costs 2600 gp to get a young white dragon at level 7. How much does it cost to hire an ECL 9 mercenary for one battle? 1500 gp, and you can't do it at level 7. Or look at the cost of getting a bearded devil ally at level 9 -- 4,500 gp. That's the same cost as 4 scrolls of Summon Monster V, useable to summon a bearded devil. However, a summoned bearded devil can't use its summon ability, it can be dispelled, it only lasts 9 rounds, etc. I guess I just don't like the idea of: (a) bringing in allies sooner without using a feat than if you had taken Leadership (or levels in thrallherd, druid, paladin, etc.), (b) being able to bring in more hit dice of allies than your character has, and (c) characters backed up by a small army of inexpensive creatures. I realise that this is just my opinion, though. I took a look through the non-frozen characters on the roster with 6-9 character levels; about 6 had diplomacy allies (or undead allies) and one had the Leadership feat (and one was a thrallherd). Of course, most had either no allies, or a familiar/animal companion or a warhorse (or three) so I guess no one's really abusing the system yet.
Caterane 08-11-06, 07:37 AM	As said, we'll check everything beforehand. Those things that are too powerful are to be forbidden; if there's a minor advantage, like the water halfling with +2 CON, then we can either assign a LA (although I'd dislike fudging the material) or we can just see it as a small benefit of having a costly race. The latter wouldn't be too bad, IMO. A compromise would be to give out less start wealth, or better: a reward penalty. That would be no fudging with material nor would it be a house rule, but it would be a board rule that such characters gain a maybe 5-10% penalty to their rewards. With this technique, we could even allow material that is clearly more powerful. We just assign a constant penalty to rewards for such characters.
Usurpator 08-11-06, 09:05 AM	As said, we'll check everything beforehand. Those things that are too powerful are to be forbidden; if there's a minor advantage, like the water halfling with +2 CON, then we can either assign a LA (although I'd dislike fudging the material) or we can just see it as a small benefit of having a costly race. The latter wouldn't be too bad, IMO. A compromise would be to give out less start wealth, or better: a reward penalty. That would be no fudging with material nor would it be a house rule, but it would be a board rule that such characters gain a maybe 5-10% penalty to their rewards. With this technique, we could even allow material that is clearly more powerful. We just assign a constant penalty to rewards for such characters. I thought you wanted to hear opinons about if the community likes the idea in general, and not yet discuss how it's going to be implemented? I apologize if I am jumping the gun here, but I would not like it if we already get into a discussion of 'we are going to do it, we just have to discuss and solve the possible problems'. I am sure the community can agree on rules that will make the new content more or less balanced. It will just be a heapload of extra work, and for what exactly? I thought your premise was that adding the rules would attract more Pitlords/members. Why do you think this? If your premise proves to be untrue, what would then be the main reason be for introducing these additional rules? ---- About your idea to promote the CoCo: I would like extra players and Pitlord as well in the CoCo. I think you draw player's by strenghtening and promoting your main attractive qualities and by lowering your entry barriers. CoCo's main attraction is that you can have well-run fair fights on a regular basis with your favorite character concept, and friendly support by level-headed people with a wealth of rules knowledge. CoCo's main entry barrier is the fairly extensive number of house rules, arena procedures and rules exceptions. Building a character and properly getting him on the roster and into a fight can be a pretty daunting task. Maybe we can create a number of 'quick-play' characters, with well-designed character sheets and battle tips. Newcomers are allowed to fight their first battles with these PCs, while they familiarize themselves with the rules and take their time to build a character? Don't know if that will work, but it might be a good addition to a new ad campaign?
TelinArtho 08-11-06, 12:55 PM	So it costs 2600 gp to get a young white dragon at level 7. How much does it cost to hire an ECL 9 mercenary for one battle? 1500 gp, and you can't do it at level 7. Let's compare a VYWD from diplomacy and an ECL9 merc VYWD. The VYWD diplomacy ally will cost you a one-time fee of 2600gp, skill points to acquire it and additional money to equip it if you want it to use something. It would also have impressive ability scores equal to those listed in the SRD - as in all 10s and 11s modified by the racial adjustments. The VYWD merc would cost you 1500gp for one battle, no skill points or feats. It would come with a substantial amount of its own equipment (12000gp worth). In addition, it would have a 25 point buy that will make its abilities much more potent. If you decided to take the VYWD as a leadership cohort - it would be just like getting it as a merc - except you get it without the 1500gp/battle, you can customize that 12kgp worth of equipment and you can customize the point buy, skill points and feats. Or look at the cost of getting a bearded devil ally at level 9 -- 4,500 gp. That's the same cost as 4 scrolls of Summon Monster V, useable to summon a bearded devil. However, a summoned bearded devil can't use its summon ability, it can be dispelled, it only lasts 9 rounds, etc. A summoned bearded devil for 9 rounds cannot even be compared to an ally - diplomacy or otherwise. A summoned devil can't use its summon ability, can be dispelled, lasts for only 9 rounds, is warded by a protection from alignment spell, and only comes with the equipment listed in its description. An ally would cost you 4500gp up front, can use all of its abilities and is not warded by a protection from alignment spell. However, it would not come with any equipment - and you need the skill points to pick it up at level 9. A +16 diplomacy is only attainable by a fair amount of work (12 skill points, +4 cha bonus if it is a class skill - or substitute a feat to cover some of that or an item to cover some of it - but that's additional cost). I guess I just don't like the idea of: (a) bringing in allies sooner without using a feat than if you had taken Leadership (or levels in thrallherd, druid, paladin, etc.), (b) being able to bring in more hit dice of allies than your character has, and (c) characters backed up by a small army of inexpensive creatures. I realise that this is just my opinion, though. People who make use of animal allies are getting a much bigger bang for the buck. Compare Anakala - who has 2 small air elementals - to say Imperi - who had half a dozen eagles or even someone with a light warhorse. While elementals are a little more versatile - the eagles are a much bigger asset - and for a smaller cost. Air elementals as a whole are nice to have in order to cut down an aerial threat, but they are still very fragile. An air elemental would have little hope against a trained warhorse (that is one with the improved attack trick). I took a look through the non-frozen characters on the roster with 6-9 character levels; about 6 had diplomacy allies (or undead allies) and one had the Leadership feat (and one was a thrallherd). Of course, most had either no allies, or a familiar/animal companion or a warhorse (or three) so I guess no one's really abusing the system yet. Don't underestimate the cost of allies. Getting a diplomacy ally early on is likely a cost that will need to be replaced over and over again. And, since you'll need to constantly be improving your diplomacy score - that's an additional cost. Getting a leadership ally that comes with its own equipment, has better stats to begin with and improves as you level is FAR better. When the diplomacy allies were first introduced (before they had a cost like they do now), I tried to formulate a way to abuse them. Delaria - one of my summoners - was able to do that and had a nice selection to choose from. However, with the rules for them in place - she is no longer viable. Why? Because the rules make the diplomacy cost too high to have as many diplomacy allies as she had, because she has to prebuff her allies (a relatively new rule as well). At level 6, she had a small air elemental, a small fire elemental, a medium fire elemental (not usable until level 7), and a thoqqua (no longer a valid diplomacy ally without telepathy). To get all of these on a level 7 character would be nigh impossible: +10 Sm. Air Elemental (Base +8, +2/other ally solitary, -2 native language, -2 knowledge) +10 Sm. Fire Elemental (Base +8, +2/other ally solitary, -2 native language, -2 knowledge) +8 Thoqqua (Base +10, -2 knowledge) +14 Med. Fire Elemental (Base +12, +2/other ally solitary, -2 native language, -2 knowledge) So to get the four, you would need a total diplomacy bonus of +42 at level 7. However, note that you need to have at least a knowledge (the planes) of +12, and at least 2 languages (auran and ignan). If you miniquested for them, the air elemental at level 3, the sm. fire elemental at level 4, the thoqqua at level 6 and the med. fire elemental at level 7 - you have spent: 900gp + 1200gp + 2000gp + 2600gp = 6700gp. In summary - having a single diplomacy ally requires a bit of work on the average character and it will become obsolete if you don't get new ones over time; having a selection to choose from or even keeping your ally up to date with your level is expensive over time and will be very limiting.
MindWandererB 08-11-06, 01:56 PM	A compromise would be to give out less start wealth, or better: a reward penalty. That would be no fudging with material nor would it be a house rule, but it would be a board rule that such characters gain a maybe 5-10% penalty to their rewards. With this technique, we could even allow material that is clearly more powerful. We just assign a constant penalty to rewards for such characters.I strongly oppose this suggestion. Anyone remember how more powerful races were handled in 2E? That's right, they used this method (an XP penalty). The idea was scrapped in favor of LA. There's a reason for that. There's another argument against UA: How many of us joined because we wanted to master the set of rules we could be sure would be used in every TT game? That's why I did--for practice. Using UA defeats that purpose, because it's very rarely used. If I come up with some awesome build involving an Aspect of Nature, domain-using druid, that's great, but I'll probably never be able to apply those principles outside the CoCo. And on the flip side: if someone beats me using those rules, I write it off, thinking, "that would be an illegal character in most TT games anyway, so I don't care if I lose to it." I completely agree with Usurpator. I think including UA material would, if anything, be a hindrance to recruiting new players (too much knowledge of what is allowed or not would be required). "Dumbing it down" is the best way to prevent new players from getting intimidated. It wasn't so long ago that I joined here, that I don't remember my own hesisitancy. There were a lot of house rules, every single one of which was a deterrent to me (and I almost didn't join up). Things like not allowing a 5-foot step to be combined with a ready action, I understood and accepted. Things like the totally house-ruled "Listen matrix," I disliked but could accept. Spending credits to get odd-numbered ability bonuses I strongly disagreed with, but was willing to accept as a handicap (and yes, I felt like this was a firm handicap in favor of those with credits). I would feel much, much worse to be pitted up against an Earth Dwarf, who has a +2 Str that they bought with credits. If your goal is to increase membership, here are my suggestions: ·Anything that involves credits is bad. Bad, bad, bad. It makes people feel like they're at a disadvantage, which would make fights simply less fun. People want to be able to build a character, dive into the arena, and have a fair chance of winning. ·Increasing the "must-know" material is bad. For instance, if I were a new player, and got Burglarized in my first fight, having not seen that rule in advance (and would have been able to just block it with my unused free activity that week had I know about it), I would be pretty upset. ·Even increasing optional material is a deterrent. I remember looking through the fights of successful characters when I first joined, seeing lots of Diplomacy allies (many of which were customized), and thinking, "I don't know how that works, and I really don't want to figure it all out before I get started... and I wouldn't be able to without credits, anyway, so I guess I'll just be prepared to lose and suck it up." That is not a feeling which will encourage folks to join. Even now, if I run into an opponent with 20+ credits worth of custom items and allies, my feeling is, "If I win, I'm a badass, but if I lose, it's because I'm at a disadvantage, and I won't have learned anything." See what I'm getting at? Adding more material makes things more fun for the veterans (arguably), but less fun for the newcomers. And another thing: if you want to increase membership, you will have to accept that new players will come in with one or two ECL 3 characters, and won't pitlord. Yes, they will increase the burden, until they're willing to run fights themselves. We were all there at one point. But it's the only way to fight attrition. If you want the CoCo to grow, it will mean a rough "induction period" while we get the new players up to speed. Perhaps you can create some kind of incentive for the veterans to cut down on their active characters for a while to help with the load. But this is a cost you can't avoid.
hogarth 08-11-06, 02:19 PM	Telin, I have to admit that all of your comments about the superiority of Leadership allies vs. Diplomacy allies would be a little more persuasive if I had actually found more characters with the Leadership feat (or if I had found fewer characters with allies). People who make use of animal allies are getting a much bigger bang for the buck. Compare Anakala - who has 2 small air elementals - to say Imperi - who had half a dozen eagles or even someone with a light warhorse. While elementals are a little more versatile - the eagles are a much bigger asset - and for a smaller cost. Air elementals as a whole are nice to have in order to cut down an aerial threat, but they are still very fragile. An air elemental would have little hope against a trained warhorse (that is one with the improved attack trick). I'm against all of the "armies of peons", whether they're gained through Diplomacy or Handle Animal; however, the way Diplomacy/Handle Animal allies work, an army of weak creatures is encouraged (because each individual ally has to be quite a bit below your overall limit). Somehow having a bunch of cannon fodder fighting for you seems a bit...un-D&D-like to me. In my personal opinion, it would seem much more in the spirit of D&D characters to limit allies to a _maximum_ of: -one horse/riding dog -a familiar and/or psicrystal and/or animal companion -one cohort/thrall _or_ one "pet" that is weaker than a cohort/thrall. I can understand the appeal of acting as a general for all your flunkies, though. :D (Of course, your mileage may vary. It just "feels" weird to me.) Getting a leadership ally that comes with its own equipment, has better stats to begin with and improves as you level is FAR better. Of course; it cost you a feat after all! But by the time you get your own kick-ass baby dragon/devil/demon sidekick, the diplomacy ally version has been aiding its master for 4 or 5 levels worth of fights. That's nothing to sneeze at. In summary - having a single diplomacy ally requires a bit of work on the average character and it will become obsolete if you don't get new ones over time; having a selection to choose from or even keeping your ally up to date with your level is expensive over time and will be very limiting. Of course I agree that the value of an ally will decrease over time, but it generally won't reach zero. Even a weak ally can always be used for: -scouting -throwing alchemist's fire/acid/beads of force/whatever -providing cover -grappling -boxing people in -absorbing one hit that would have otherwise hit you ...and so forth. And all this can be done with a 25 gp skeleton, a trivial investment at any level! Even just for its breath weapon alone, a very young white dragon is comparable in power to a CL 3 wand of Burning Hands (2250 gp), but it fires itself while you can concentrate on other things. At any rate, I concede defeat -- I think the majority of people here don't care much one way or another, and the people who like the system like it too much to change it now. Cheers! hogarth
MindWandererB 08-11-06, 02:25 PM	At any rate, I concede defeat -- I think the majority of people here don't care much one way or another, and the people who like the system like it too much to change it now.It's not that we don't care or that we like it, it's just that this is perhaps the singly most hotly contested house rule in the CoCo, and we're sick to death of arguing about it. Every few months it comes up, there are two or three supporters of it and five or six detractors, at which point Cat steps in and says, "we're keeping the system no matter what" and the discussion is over as soon as everyone realizes that Cat isn't changing his mind.
TelinArtho 08-11-06, 02:54 PM	Telin, I have to admit that all of your comments about the superiority of Leadership allies vs. Diplomacy allies would be a little more persuasive if I had actually found more characters with the Leadership feat (or if I had found fewer characters with allies). Well, don't take lightly that characters that are level 6 and above are much more scarce than characters who have allies. In some of the cases of diplomacy allies they may be there explicitly to cover those levels before gaining leadership. As to having an army of allies - they are pretty rare overall anyway. The only ones that come to mind are pretty much quirky builds like Tan or Imperi and then undead animators like Ariel and Anixx. If you wanted to restrict people to their class allies plus one mount/guard-animal and leadership allies - I think you'd find maybe a half-dozen or so who make use of the other types or have multiples. I'll also say that I'm not really in support of all the different rules for allies, however I do like them from another point of view because they allow for some of the diversity that I'd want to play around with. If I want to make a build using 6 custom-trained monkeys - the rules have a way to allow that. If we restricted characters to one mount or guard-animal - then a player who wants to try out his horse-master is out of luck. While I don't think I would ever have a PC with an air elemental ally in a campaign, as a DM, this situation could very well come up - so I like to play around with it.
NiQil 08-11-06, 09:10 PM	Let me go ahead and go on record as being against including the UA material. I own UA, and I have used UA stuff regularly in my games. UA stuff increases the overall power level of most things it touches. I won't go so far that it is overpowered, but it is definitely high-powered. As an example, one of the varient classes is a rogue who loses his sneak attack but gains bonus feats like a fighter. This varient is extremely powerful in a tabletop game. I used this varient to build a rogue archer that was ridiculously powerful vs a ranger or fighter archer of the same level. What it sacrifices in hit points, it gains back in skill points, making it uber-useful all the way around. From another standpoint: This is the Core Coliseum. In my opinion, one of the biggest draws of this forum is the fact that it is an arena setting that does not include every splatbook known to man. Psionics, though not a core rulebook, has been around since 1E, and enough people already consider it core that we can get away with it here. To go outside of that premise, and begin to include material that no one considers core material would, in my opinion, push people away, rather than bring them in. Some will say that we already do this with the Divine portion of the SRD, but the material there is a very small quantity, and not used very often. So, in short, line me up with MWB and Usurpator in the no category.
TelinArtho 08-11-06, 09:16 PM	The more I look into the UA stuff myself the more I dislike the idea of including it - so I would be another who would not like it added.
MindWandererB 08-11-06, 09:24 PM	Some will say that we already do this with the Divine portion of the SRD, but the material there is a very small quantity, and not used very often.(Just my two cents: I agree that the Divine stuff really shouldn't be here. Divine Might, okay... it's appeared in at least four accessories that I know of, so it's pretty standard. But Blacklight is just fugly. Nothing else in there gets any use that I've seen.) Edit: Yeah. Some other good ones below. Energy Substitution could be abused even more than it is. Fleet of Foot is just ridiculous, especially compared to Psionic Charge. Knockdown I haven't seen anyone use yet, and the Charm domain I've only seen once. The Darkness domain isn't a huge deal, except again for that Blacklight spell, although many choose it for the Blindfight.
Zevox 08-11-06, 09:28 PM	(Nothing else in there gets any use that I've seen.) (*whispers* Energy Substitution. Knockdown. Fleet of Foot. Charm and Darkness Domains.)
Erithmu 08-11-06, 09:33 PM	For all useful purposes I ditto Niqil's comments. The below comments are in regards to things that 'could' appear in the CoCo 'if' we decide to include it. I think UA is a great book for some new spice in a game. I have played a few variants and used a few of the classes within the book. I don't think everything in there is 'overpowered' but there are a few things that allow for some nifty role reversals. I think Niqil's feat rogue archer would bring back the rogue to the arena and the skills uses that we have developed to try to bring th rogue back (with some success) would come into full play. One of the things I am learning in my masters program is to see both sides of the arguement. I stand for the most part in 'do not add UA to the CoCo.' One of the pulls for myself was to try out some of the bases classes when all I have been draw to recently were the new splat books. I think the addition of the material would have some major complications as most people are not willing to give away their builds until it is fully realized, and the new material would cause more problems than it would create if simply due to the nature of RAW interpretation, and the inconsistency there of.
Caterane 08-12-06, 05:07 AM	This discussion reminds me of the time when we talked about psionics. The same arguments came up, the examples were just called "Elan", "Ego whip", and such things, always combined with a vision of impeding doom. In reality, psionics proved to be a valuable addition to the coco; and unlike psionics the Unearthed Arcana stuff brings no new rules. Just new options. Fact is, that it will bring new options into the otherwise restricted coco. The Unearthed Arcana is the only and also the last option for us to expand. There's no other open material out there. Fact is, that it will broaden the range of builds. It is clear that the bard and the rogue are not as popular as clerics or wizards. Here's the example NiQil mentioned: Rogue The rogue who favors martial training over stealth and cunning can profit if she chooses her fights carefully. Gain: Bonus feats (as fighter). Lose: Sneak attack. Sorcerer/Wizard A sorcerer or wizard might desire a more durable companion to accompany him on excursions into the wilderness. Gain: Animal companion (as druid; treat sorcerer or wizard as a druid of half his class level). Lose: Familiar. Wizard Some wizards trade their knowledge of magic and craft to improve their combat prowess. Gain: Bonus feat list (as fighter; bonus feats gained at 1st level and every five levels as wizard). Lose: Scribe Scroll, wizard bonus feat list. This is a good example on how we can create new character concepts without increasing the workload in any way. The rogue loses his sneak attack but gains bonus feats instead; for those who'd like to build a combat oriented rogue this is a great option. Pitlords know the feats so there's no additional material. To a pitlord it doesn't matter if a wizard has instead of scribe scroll the powerattack feat; this doesn't increase our workload in any way but allows for a better battle mage instead of the 'enforced' scholar mage. We'll just open up nice cool options to modify your character a bit. I have meanwhile seen all builds and few can surprise me. These new variants would bring fresh air. But also the Variant Classes are no problem at all. Here's an example: Bear Totem Class Features A barbarian dedicated to the bear totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, trap sense, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features, and instead gains the following abilities. A 1st-level bear-totem barbarian gains Toughness as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, a bear-totem barbarian gains Improved Grapple as a bonus feat, even if he doesn't meet the normal prerequisites. A 3rd-level bear-totem barbarian gains Great Fortitude as a bonus feat. Beginning at 5th level, a bear-totem barbarian gains a +4 bonus on grapple checks when raging. Again, a good example for a modified barbarian. I am personally a bit tired of always seeing the same builds all over again. Here's the grapple barbarian; you could also build a stealth barbarian (Serpent Totem Barbarian) or a barbarian who gains a climb speed and specializes in that (Ape Totem Barbarian). I don't see how this could be problematic in any way. The bard sucks in the coco. We haven't seen more than 10 of the thousands of builds we had. Now we have the option to include the Bardic Sage, the Divine Bard, and the Savage Bard. Finally! A way to make a favorite core class attractive. This is true for all classes who appear over and over again. With the variant class features, this would change. It's considerably less problematic than psionics (which we allowed and value). Unlike psionics, these class variants are no new rules but known class features applied differently. It opens new options to make new creative builds without bringing new rules into the coco. To me, this looks like a treasure and we should be happy that there is open game material we can use and implement so easily.
Usurpator 08-12-06, 05:45 AM	This discussion reminds me of the time when we talked about psionics. The same arguments came up, the examples were just called "Elan", "Ego whip", and such things, always combined with a vision of impeding doom. In reality, psionics proved to be a valuable addition to the coco; and unlike psionics the Unearthed Arcana stuff brings no new rules. Just new options. Does this mean you are going to implement it regardless of the opinions you asked for? Fact is, that it will bring new options into the otherwise restricted coco. The Unearthed Arcana is the only and also the last option for us to expand. There's no other open material out there. To me the restriction *is* the mean attraction of the CoCo. How many different builds have we seen here? Hundreds, and there are thousands of good builds still possible. There are already plenty of options. Are you bored with the current options, do you need new toys? Fact is, that it will broaden the range of builds. It is clear that the bard and the rogue are not as popular as clerics or wizards. And why do you think certain builds and options aren't as popular? It is because the CoCo does not simulate an adventure. It simulates one-on-one battles. Bard are best in groups as support, thus they suck in CoCo, because there are no groups to support. Bards are best in social encounters, they suck in CoCo because there are no social encounters. CoCo cannot and should not simulate an adventure, if I want to have my builds go on an adventure I will do so, I don't need the CoCo for that. We'll just open up nice cool options to modify your character a bit. I have meanwhile seen all builds and few can surprise me. These new variants would bring fresh air. Well, if the air is stale in the CoCo to you, please come out and say so. I noticed you didn't get any character into a fight for a lot of months now. Why is that? Because you are bored with the options available? I do think being bored with the options is a good reason to introduce new ones. If enough people are bored to the point of considering to quit or reduce their involvement, and that boredom is alleviated by introducing the new rules, then by all means, do so. Don't know if we reached that point already. It opens new options to make new creative builds without bringing new rules into the coco. To me, this looks like a treasure and we should be happy that there is open game material we can use and implement so easily. I have a different opinion. And you can argue the reverse easily. With the water halfling, we won't see any regular halflings anymore, thus not bringing any more options at all in that regard. Also, with sneak attack very difficult to use in the CoCo we won't see any old-school rogues anymore, just the new variants. Cat, to me it seems you are often trying to introduce new rules, make new games and add new options. Most of them well-thought out and generally balanced. It seems to me that this is big part of the *fun of CoCo* for you is always trying out new things. And indeed, that can be a lot of fun! I am just confused because you rarely say this, while you do come with a host of other arguments like 'strengthening the Bards in the CoCo', which appear not the real reasons for you to do those things. It was the same with the Guild Rules. You repeated you wanted to 'stimulate role-playing', but by the way the guild rules came together it looked like you wanted a 'cool new game to play next to the CoCo'. As I said, absolutely nothing wrong with the second motivation, only its rather pointless for us to argue about stimulating role-playing when your strongest motivation lies somewhere else. Are you bored with the Core Rules build options? Do you want cool new options and tools? If so, then I agree with you that the UA material is an ideal source (a treasure) for this. It's just that I'm not bored yet......
Vathelokai 08-12-06, 06:00 AM	I swore I'd stay out of these type of arguements, since I over react so badly, but I must chime in. 1 - put me in the camp against UA. I'm here for the core rules. I'd be on the real adventures (or something) board if that wasnt the case. 2 - I find it irritating when Cat brings in a new rule 'to discuss' when what he really means is that he has a new rule to 'discuss implimentation of.' It makes me feel as though my imput on the topic will not be considered. Honestly, what use is a compromise to me if I'm not interested? I compromise to the xp penalty for UA material; the people who want UA win and I have to learn more rules and builds. That isn't a compromise. I'll stop myself now. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm saying that makes the coco more complex and less 'core'. Those are things I don't like. It has nothing to do with power or balance to me.
NiQil 08-12-06, 02:28 PM	This discussion reminds me of the time when we talked about psionics. The same arguments came up, the examples were just called "Elan", "Ego whip", and such things, always combined with a vision of impeding doom. In reality, psionics proved to be a valuable addition to the coco; and unlike psionics the Unearthed Arcana stuff brings no new rules. Just new options. Fact is, that it will bring new options into the otherwise restricted coco. The Unearthed Arcana is the only and also the last option for us to expand. There's no other open material out there. Fact is, that it will broaden the range of builds. It is clear that the bard and the rogue are not as popular as clerics or wizards. Here's the example NiQil mentioned: Rogue The rogue who favors martial training over stealth and cunning can profit if she chooses her fights carefully. Gain: Bonus feats (as fighter). Lose: Sneak attack. Sorcerer/Wizard A sorcerer or wizard might desire a more durable companion to accompany him on excursions into the wilderness. Gain: Animal companion (as druid; treat sorcerer or wizard as a druid of half his class level). Lose: Familiar. Wizard Some wizards trade their knowledge of magic and craft to improve their combat prowess. Gain: Bonus feat list (as fighter; bonus feats gained at 1st level and every five levels as wizard). Lose: Scribe Scroll, wizard bonus feat list. This is a good example on how we can create new character concepts without increasing the workload in any way. The rogue loses his sneak attack but gains bonus feats instead; for those who'd like to build a combat oriented rogue this is a great option. Pitlords know the feats so there's no additional material. To a pitlord it doesn't matter if a wizard has instead of scribe scroll the powerattack feat; this doesn't increase our workload in any way but allows for a better battle mage instead of the 'enforced' scholar mage. We'll just open up nice cool options to modify your character a bit. I have meanwhile seen all builds and few can surprise me. These new variants would bring fresh air. But also the Variant Classes are no problem at all. Here's an example: Bear Totem Class Features A barbarian dedicated to the bear totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, trap sense, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features, and instead gains the following abilities. A 1st-level bear-totem barbarian gains Toughness as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, a bear-totem barbarian gains Improved Grapple as a bonus feat, even if he doesn't meet the normal prerequisites. A 3rd-level bear-totem barbarian gains Great Fortitude as a bonus feat. Beginning at 5th level, a bear-totem barbarian gains a +4 bonus on grapple checks when raging. Again, a good example for a modified barbarian. I am personally a bit tired of always seeing the same builds all over again. Here's the grapple barbarian; you could also build a stealth barbarian (Serpent Totem Barbarian) or a barbarian who gains a climb speed and specializes in that (Ape Totem Barbarian). I don't see how this could be problematic in any way. The bard sucks in the coco. We haven't seen more than 10 of the thousands of builds we had. Now we have the option to include the Bardic Sage, the Divine Bard, and the Savage Bard. Finally! A way to make a favorite core class attractive. This is true for all classes who appear over and over again. With the variant class features, this would change. It's considerably less problematic than psionics (which we allowed and value). Unlike psionics, these class variants are no new rules but known class features applied differently. It opens new options to make new creative builds without bringing new rules into the coco. To me, this looks like a treasure and we should be happy that there is open game material we can use and implement so easily. Before you get all excited about the UA material...let me pose a question to you. The SRD that you are pointing to that carries this information is run by a private person who has taken it upon themselves to add that information. The official WotC SRD does not include this information. So what would happen if you implement some or all of the UA material, and then the SRD you are looking at for it decides to close down? Anyone using that material who does not own the book now has a character that is unable to be advanced properly. The error reporting in the prison now becomes exponentionally more difficult if the source material for what we are using here is not around for others to examine to see if someone is doing something wrong with their build. We should never lock ourselves into this type of situation here, in my opinion.
Caterane 08-12-06, 02:43 PM	If it comes, I intend to post it in the Rules of Gladius. That's easier than sayign 'this is allowed but without that etc'
ayyiniwindryder 08-12-06, 02:48 PM	not sure if this is the right place, but - what, exactly, are the mechanics on a light horse crossing the stream? 1 - log? 2 - stones? 3 - just wade through? 4 - jump over? what would be the bonuses/penalties therein? does it have to be "pushed?" thanks all
lonewolf 08-13-06, 06:59 AM	I propose a change on the Monster encounter list. I really dont think that the CR of the encountered Monster should be changed because of the dices. I also dont think that since those example enemies (for example ghost fighter 5) are only in the MM and not in the SRD, those entries should also be removed from the list. On the other hand we could add a few psionic monsters onto the list and thus make knowledge(psionics) useful again. I would volunteer to make a first draft of such a modified monster list if there is any interest.
Caterane 08-13-06, 07:31 AM	It's a good idea to redo the list. We should have 100 different entries to broaden the options and make it harder to guess the monster based on the description. Therefore we can eliminate the % chance to roll on a higher/lower league. We should also keep the variables. If we don't then you can just ignore any number that doesn't match. For example, the pitlord says "3 biped flyers" then you can eliminate all entries without 3 opponents. And from these, you just check all biped flyers. That's bad. The DMG, p49 suggests a range of creatures within a EL. For example, CR 4, 5, and 6 are all EL 5. That is reflected in the dice roll to determine the numbers. If you make such a list, include the CR of the monsters in parenthesis. And we'd need a complete list from ECL 3 to 10. Later even up to 20. The list should be a mix of monsters and races with class levels, and yes, psionic versions should be in there. You gain 1° for every complete league list with 100 monsters encounters.
Traevanon 08-13-06, 08:00 AM	Cant you also see if or if they do not have weapons? Example: "Large biped with club."
lonewolf 08-13-06, 12:03 PM	It's a good idea to redo the list. We should have 100 different entries to broaden the options and make it harder to guess the monster based on the description. Therefore we can eliminate the % chance to roll on a higher/lower league. We should also keep the variables. If we don't then you can just ignore any number that doesn't match. For example, the pitlord says "3 biped flyers" then you can eliminate all entries without 3 opponents. And from these, you just check all biped flyers. That's bad. The DMG, p49 suggests a range of creatures within a EL. For example, CR 4, 5, and 6 are all EL 5. That is reflected in the dice roll to determine the numbers. If you make such a list, include the CR of the monsters in parenthesis. And we'd need a complete list from ECL 3 to 10. Later even up to 20. The list should be a mix of monsters and races with class levels, and yes, psionic versions should be in there. You gain 1° for every complete league list with 100 monsters encounters. 100 monsters per CR is a challenge but I will try. Im starting with CR3 and go upwards if someone else also wants to earn some of those credits.
Caterane 08-13-06, 12:17 PM	Try to make an interesting list. We could probably increase the credit reward to 1° per 50 encounters. Since we're at it, you could add the individual CR in parenthesis as well as the amount of equipment in gold so that pitlords can immideately see that.
lonewolf 08-13-06, 04:09 PM	Ok Ive finished the CR3 list and it is ready for inspection. I do not know how to format this list best here in the forum. Can anyone help me with this? Also I´d like some input from you guys before making additional lists. I will also add the equipment money to the list later. Number Monsters CR 1 1 Allip 3 2 1 doppleganger 3 3 1 wyrmling brass dragon 3 4 1 ethereal filcher 3 5 1 ethereal marauder 3 6 1 ettercap 3 7 1 violet fungus(fungus) 3 8 1 ghast(ghoul) 3 9 1 grick 3 10 1 hell hound 3 11 1 howler 3 12 1 human werewolf warrior1(lycanthrope) 3 13 1 ogre 3 14 1 gelatinous cube(ooze) 3 15 1 phantom fungus 3 16 1 rust monster 3 17 1 shadow 3 18 1 locust swarm 3 19 1 wight 3 20 1 yuan-ti pureblood 3 21 1 medium air elemental 3 22 1 large animated object 3 23 1 ankheg 3 24 1 juveline arrowhawk 3 25 1 assassin vine 3 26 1 centaur 3 27 1 deinonychus(dinosaur) 3 28 1 dire ape 3 29 1 dire wolf 3 30 1 dryad 3 31 1 giant eagle 3 32 1 medium earth elemental 3 33 1 medium fire elemental 3 34 1 formian warrior 3 35 1 magmin 3 36 1 mephit(roll 1d10 to determine type) 3 37 1 mephit(roll 1d10 to determine type) 3 38 1 giant owl 3 39 1 pegasus 3 40 1 flamebrother salamander 3 41 1 juveline Tojanda 3 42 1 unicorn 3 43 1 medium water elemental 3 44 1 minor Xorn 3 45 1 Yeth hound 3 46 1 Crysmal(psionic) 3 47 1d3+1 Pseudodragons 1each 48 1d3+1 gnolls 1each 49 1 Temporal Filcher(psionic) 3 50 1 halfling wererat rogue 1 3 51 1 goblin fighter 1 + Worg mount 1&2 52 1d3+1 2nd level Astral Constructs(psionic) 1each 53 1 4th level Astral Construct(psionic) 3 54 1 Drow Fighter2 3 55 1 Blue Telepath3 3 56 1d3+3 Orc Warrior1 1/2 each 57 1d3+3 Hobgoblin Warrior1 1/2 each 58 1d3+1 Orc Babarian1 1each 59 1 Hobgoblin Fighter2 & Goblin rogue1 2&1 60 1 Kobold Adept2 & 1d3+1 Kobold Warrior1 1&1/2each 61 1 Troll skeleton 3 62 1 Wolf skeleton & 1 Halforc Cleric2 1&2 63 1d3 Wolf skeletons 1each 64 1d3+3 Stirges 1/2 each 65 1 Ogre Zombie 3 66 1d3+1 Troglodyte Zombies 1 each 67 1d3+3 Human commoner Zombies 1/2 each 68 1d3+1 Hyenas(animals) 1 each 69 1 Lion(animal) 3 70 1 huge viper snake 3 71 1d3+1 wolves 1 each 72 1 giant praying mantis 3 73 1 giant wasp 3 74 1 large monstrous scorpion 3 75 1d3+1 medium monstrous scorpion 1 each 76 1d2 medium animated object 2 each 77 1d2 Azer 2 each 78 1d2 Blink dogs 2 each 79 1d2 Bugbears 2 each 80 1d2 Chokers 2 each 81 1d2 latern archons 2 each 82 1d2 Dretches(demon) 2 each 83 1d2 Quasit(demon) 2 each 84 1d2 Dire Badger 2 each 85 1d2 Dire Bats 2 each 86 1d2 Dire Weasel 2 each 87 1d2 Hippogriffs 2 each 88 1d2 Satyrs 2 each 89 1d2 Shocker Lizard 2 each 90 1d2 Skum 2 each 91 1d2 Rat Swarm 2 each 92 1d2 Bat Swarm 2 each 93 1d2 Thoqqua 2 each 94 1d2 Triton 2 each 95 1d2 Varguille 2 each 96 1d2 Imps(devils) 2 each 97 1d2 Worg 2 each 98 1 Celestial Blackbear 3 99 1 Celestial Bison 3 100 1 Fiendish Boar 3
King Uther 08-13-06, 09:16 PM	The key to Unearthed Arcana is the balance. A lot of it is pure rubbish and should be thrown away. And I do not allow it in any of my RL games. True, it is not Core material. But it does allow us to expand the options here substantially. I cannot truly say I am 100% for it, but I am definitely willing to try it out on a trial basis. Since it will likely constitute a credit cost to use it anyways, only a few will be able to use it at first. And if we discover it throws off the balance entirely, nothing is stopping us from getting rid of it.
King Uther 08-14-06, 02:09 AM	Although, as far as balance is concerned, consider the races and classes in comparison. Races: Most of the races that would be added would be basically equal, with some getting a small stat change but most of them getting changes in skills. Things to worry about: Jungle Goblins and Halflings: Both have Barbarian as a favored class and a climb speed Water Orcs: An additional +2 Con Fire Elves: Identical to Grey Elves, but a -2 to CHA instead of STR Earth Dwarves: Better than regular dwarves There are about 3-5other races that could give more advantages than just the base races. Class variants: This is complicated. Which variants do we allow? And what about the paragons? These variants warrant discussion as far as fairness: Wolf Totem Barbarian: Improved Trip at 2nd without INT requirement All Paladin variants: Divine Grace and Auras could be bad, especially Slaughter Paladin. Specialist variants: Look at the necromancer. Replace the familiar with an advancing human skeleton. The conjurer can cast summon spells with 1 standard action. Druidic Avenger: A LOT of added special abilities for trading out Wild Shape and Animal Companion. Human and Elf Paragons: Adds spell-casting with other advantages like stat boosts. If we do allow everything above, I will definitely have to try the necromancer with a skeleton and a Water Orc Paladin of Slaughter 3/Wolf Totem Barbarian 2. With a 22STR, Improved Trip, and every opponent within 10ft taking a -4 to AC(not to mention CHA to saves), he will stand near the top of non-casting melee builds.
Usurpator 08-14-06, 03:35 AM	If we do allow everything above, I will definitely have to try the necromancer with a skeleton and a Water Orc Paladin of Slaughter 3/Wolf Totem Barbarian 2. With a 22STR, Improved Trip, and every opponent within 10ft taking a -4 to AC(not to mention CHA to saves), he will stand near the top of non-casting melee builds. To me this is saying that allowing it would be reducing options. Currently, an Int stat doesn't mean much to melee builds, meaning they have to actually sacrifice ability points to get Improved Trip (and can be an advantage of taking many Monk levels). After introduction I would suspect many trip builds will tend to get Wolf Totem Barbarian levels and leave the Int at 8 or 10. Obviously more powerful options always reduce options in an optimization enviroment. Everyone would choose a Water Orc over a regular one. So it wouldn't so much introduce more options, as it would just raise the power level.
Stormwind 08-14-06, 04:03 AM	@All: I currently have no position regarding the addition of UA material. I am ambivalent. @Usurpator: Respectfully, I have to disagree with you, at least in part. You conclude that in an optimization environment, players will always choose the most powerful options. I can speak at least for myself when I say that this is not the case. When I create a character, I do not necessarily take the most powerful option. I take the option that interests me the most. For example when I created Cyra, I wanted to play a pure soulknife. At several times during her career it has become obvious that it would have been very advantageous for her to have taken a level in a manifesting class, yet I have restricted her to a pure soulknife because I enjoy the challenge of taking what is viewed as a 'weaker' class and making it successful. I am also sure that although not everyone here chooses to play in this fashion, there are several of us who do.
Usurpator 08-14-06, 04:23 AM	@Usurpator: Respectfully, I have to disagree with you, at least in part. You conclude that in an optimization environment, players will always choose the most powerful options. I can speak at least for myself when I say that this is not the case. I understand that and agree with you. Most of us indeed play possibly 'suboptimal' choices for enjoyment. But a choice between a regular halfling and a water halfling, who are nearly identical except for the +2 Con is not really *that* much of a choice. For example: I'm not seeing people playing 'regular' elf wizards or psions too, everyone opts for the grey elf for that +2 additional Int. Grey elves are the natural choice for making wizards/psions. That is what I meant with additional options that don't give you real extra choices. But my primary concern remains, do we really need those extra options (and all the balancing work that comes with it)? I think we have hardly touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to possible builds with the current rules. Personally, I still have a multitude of builds I like to try, but simply haven't the time to try them....
Caterane 08-14-06, 04:35 AM	I've read several times through the whole UA material and there are a few things we have to leave out or modify. Since I intend to write anything we use into the Rules of Gladius, it's easy to ignore the Hypertext SRD homepage and use ours. Example for Modifications would be for Water Halfling to drop CON bonus and for Domain Wizards one prohibited school. If we allow bloodline, we have to enforce the bloodline level at the mentioned ECL or enforce the XP/GP penalty if the level isn't taken. These are minor modifications and would only apply to a very few things. Much of the rest is not too problematic, and King Uther's orc would cost 30 credits (2 UA classes, 1 UA race). Besides, the AC penalty for the aura is -1, not -4; and Improved Trip is the only useful ability the wolf barbarian gets while he loses the powerful Uncanny dodge, among others. @Lonewolf: Awesome! The first list is done. +2° You can format it by copying it into a txt file and moving the symbols around.
Usurpator 08-14-06, 07:04 AM	I've read several times through the whole UA material and there are a few things we have to leave out or modify. Since I intend to write anything we use into the Rules of Gladius, it's easy to ignore the Hypertext SRD homepage and use ours. Ok, I'm going to post a few points I think are positive about the idea: 1. It gives us new options, and will allow several new builds. New goodies can be a lot of fun! 2. I am confident we will find a good way to work out the imbalances. 3. We can overcome the Hypertext problems. Last two points are not really positive points, they are just counters to possible problems. Point 1 is the only major positive thing I see right now. I don't believe it will pull more people to the CoCo (the only other positive reason for introduction I have heard), on the contrary, I believe it will frighten people away. We need more reasons to do this, not more explanations of how to overcome problems. It is like performing surgery on a healthy patient, and then arguing that you will take good measures to avoid complications during surgery. All good and well, but the surgery is *not neccessary*. I just think we don't need D&D CoCo Edition. We have plenty of house rules already. Even the divine section of the SRD already suprises many newcomer. The main attraction of Core D&D is that people, regardless of their supplements they have bought, can easily come in and enjoy a game with us. I don't think we need to raise the threshold with a pick-choose-and-modify operation of the UA rules. The new maps were an *excellent* addition to the CoCo. No new rules knowledge required at all: just uses Core. It did give us a lot of new options and possibilities for some builds to shine! New 3FC format. A bit daunting to the new player, since it does involve extra rules to learn. On the other hand, we had house rules concerning limitations already, so not a really big additional complication. It does allow slightly more variation in fights, good extension. New monster lists are also an excellent idea. No new rules, but new and interesting combat options. Core only. I mean, we are the *Core* Coliseum, right? P.S. Cat, I apologize my possibly extreme tone, but sometimes I just fail to comprehend your vision of the CoCo and have no idea what direction you want to go in.
Caterane 08-14-06, 07:24 AM	No need to apologize. Phillip, most of the UA includes no new rules. Wether the barbarian gains Uncanny dodge, powerattack, or toughness at level 2 is in no way a new rule to learn. It is mentioned on the sheet which means even if you've never touched the UA book, you know what powerattack does (because it's core). That's all about UA: new options (called 'variants') but no new rules.
Usurpator 08-14-06, 08:27 AM	No need to apologize. Phillip, most of the UA includes no new rules. Wether the barbarian gains Uncanny dodge, powerattack, or toughness at level 2 is in no way a new rule to learn. It is mentioned on the sheet which means even if you've never touched the UA book, you know what powerattack does (because it's core). That's all about UA: new options (called 'variants') but no new rules. What I meant was: while most people that play D&D are familiar with the options in the PHB and DMG, they are not familiar with the options in the UA (I am not, although I own it). Additionally, for those that are familiar with the UA, they have to learn CoCo's version of it, because we are going to house-rule and modify many UA options. It can certainly be a fun addition for the more experencied and committed CoCo player who likes some new options to rekindle his interest in making new builds. But for beginning players, it can be a extra hurdle and a turn-off. For me it is unfortunately a turn-off too. While I like the idea of more options, I don't like the idea that we are going to have more balance discussion, get builds that abuse a certain new option, us discussing it and ultimately (or not) making a house rule about it. I like to discuss implementation of Core Rules, not going back and forth about the balance of new rules in the CoCo. That's why I love things like the new maps. Clear of purpose, not requiring any explanation to newcomers, not generating any disagreement or discussion and adding new tactical options too. Great stuff! (although I do like to redo the city map someday, I think it is too big and rather boring). We need builds that regular D&D players are familiar with. Seeing a 'Water Orc Paladin of Slaughter/Wolf Totem Barbarian' top billed in the arena would make people think: 'Oh, its another arena full of weird twinked out combo characters that you would never encounter in a regular game'. While in the CoCo in reality is an arena that gives even fairly straight build like a single-class Barbarian (anyone remember Grik?), a fighting chance. That is the CoCo I love. Still like to hear why you seem so bent on introducing UA rules, cause it doesn't make sense to me.
Caterane 08-14-06, 08:57 AM	What I meant was: while most people that play D&D are familiar with the options in the PHB and DMG, they are not familiar with the options in the UA (I am not, although I own it). [You don't need to be familiar because everything is known and listed on the sheet] Additionally, for those that are familiar with the UA, they have to learn CoCo's version of it, because we are going to house-rule and modify many UA options. [You exaggerate a lot if you say 'many'. It'd be around four to five very minor tweaks, like dropping the +2 Con from the water creatures] It can certainly be a fun addition for the more experencied and committed CoCo player who likes some new options to rekindle his interest in making new builds. [That's actually a major point because most builds were already there at one time] But for beginning players, it can be a extra hurdle and a turn-off. [It can be. It can also attract more players. That's all hypothetical talk] For me it is unfortunately a turn-off too. While I like the idea of more options, I don't like the idea that we are going to have more balance discussion, get builds that abuse a certain new option, us discussing it and ultimately (or not) making a house rule about it. [Again, you see things that may not happen. You describe a scenario that is completely hypothetical] I like to discuss implementation of Core Rules, not going back and forth about the balance of new rules in the CoCo. ... Still like to hear why you seem so bent on introducing UA rules, cause it doesn't make sense to me. When we started LivingGladius in January 2005, we made clear that this is just the beginning of it all and that there will be constantly new additions over the coming months. Each addition enrichened the board; I never expected that everyone agrees but the majority did and we grew from a board with barely 10 guys to a big community. This is just another step forward. Note that every addition was either good, or - if not - modified or dropped. We're not dragging imbalanced things or hindrances with us and that won't happen in the future either. Perhaps there will be a discussion or two but that's the risk with anything we implement and in the end it will be definately worth it, as it had been worth it in the past.
DSugui 08-14-06, 09:53 AM	It amazes me how people like to point that this is the Core Coliseum as an argument against adding new things. Why, don't we already have Psionics and Divine options, which are not Core? It's argueble that new material will scare newcomers. Maybe it will drive some away, but it will attract others. If it was not for Psionics, I'd never joined the CoCo - it would be boring to play only Core material IMO. UA material will add more options, more flavor. And that's is never unnecessary.
Traevanon 08-14-06, 09:57 AM	[It can be. It can also attract more players. That's all hypothetical talk] Hypothetically, I am still a new player and it is a turn off to me. :thumbsdow It's nothing I use in my tabletop game, so learning it is fairly useless. Incidentally so is the XPH. :twitch: I use the Complete series and Races of X.
Caterane 08-14-06, 03:05 PM	I've added the Plant Spy Operation and methods to remove him. I've also modified the Intrigue Rolls a bit. They now include two skills instead of only one.
MindWandererB 08-14-06, 03:21 PM	I'm a bit unclear on the title line to be used for CAPs, since they are the only situation where the character is both in a nonstandard fight, and can use a Free Activity. Do they just complete the title line as if they were in the normal pairings, and Pitlords will pull them out, or do we have some cumbersome headline like: Ready for August 16 (Fight 3); CAP Action to do XXX to YYY at ZZZ; Free Activity Profession (63 gp) (Would that even fit in a title line?)
Caterane 08-14-06, 03:24 PM	Ready AUG 16 (Fight 3); CAP Action; Free Activity Profession (+63) I'll set up the CAP pairings on tuesday in advance so that doesn't need to go into the title line. If it's in there, no harm done. :) PS: Keep in mind that I'll check your members on thursday so it's your last chance to throw inactive characters out.
SoulLord 08-15-06, 09:29 AM	As Much as I like options and variants I also believe that extra rules be them house rules or alternative rules sets & options increase the amount of material to be digested by newcomers. Sure some of you may think that you have already done all that is possible within the confines of the Core rules. and that bringing more options would make your game more enjoyable. But think of the poor new player who is turned of by the amount of material offered. As for psionics personally I don't allow it in the games I run and it was one of the reasons why it took me years to join the coco: had they not been part of the coco I would have joined much earlier.
lonewolf 08-15-06, 05:29 PM	Here is the slightly modified CR3 list as well as a new CR4 list. Equipment money can be added anytime later. Note that the speed in which these lists come in might decrease for the next ten days or so. Number Monster CR 1 1 Allip 3 2 1 doppleganger 3 3 1 wyrmling brass dragon 3 4 1 ethereal filcher 3 5 1 ethereal marauder 3 6 1 ettercap 3 7 1 violet fungus(fungus) 3 8 1 ghast(ghoul) 3 9 1 grick 3 10 1 hell hound 3 11 1 howler 3 12 1 human werewolf warrior1(lycanthrope) 3 13 1 ogre 3 14 1 gelatinous cube(ooze) 3 15 1 phantom fungus 3 16 1 rust monster 3 17 1 shadow 3 18 1 locust swarm 3 19 1 wight 3 20 1 yuan-ti pureblood 3 21 1 medium air elemental 3 22 1 large animated object 3 23 1 ankheg 3 24 1 juveline arrowhawk 3 25 1 assassin vine 3 26 1 centaur 3 27 1 deinonychus(dinosaur) 3 28 1 dire ape 3 29 1 dire wolf 3 30 1 dryad 3 31 1 giant eagle 3 32 1 medium earth elemental 3 33 1 medium fire elemental 3 34 1 formian warrior 3 35 1 magmin 3 36 1 mephit(roll 1d10 to determine type) 3 37 1 mephit(roll 1d10 to determine type) 3 38 1 giant owl 3 39 1 pegasus 3 40 1 flamebrother salamander 3 41 1 juveline Tojanda 3 42 1 unicorn 3 43 1 medium water elemental 3 44 1 minor Xorn 3 45 1 Yeth hound 3 46 1 Crysmal(psionic) 3 47 1d3+1 Pseudodragons 1each 48 1d3+1 gnolls 1each 49 1 Temporal Filcher(psionic) 3 50 1 halfling wererat rogue 1 3 51 1 goblin fighter 1 + Worg mount 1&2 52 1d3+1 2nd level Astral Constructs(psionic) 1each 53 1 4th level Astral Construct(psionic) 3 54 1 Drow Fighter2 3 55 1 Blue Telepath3 3 56 1d3+3 Orc Warrior1 1/2 each 57 1d3+3 Hobgoblin Warrior1 1/2 each 58 1d3+1 Orc Babarian1 1each 59 1 Hobgoblin Fighter2 & Goblin rogue1 2&1 60 1 Kobold Adept2 & 1d3+1 Kobold Warrior1 1&1/2each 61 1 Troll skeleton 3 62 1 Wolf skeleton & 1 Halforc Cleric2 1&2 63 1d3 Wolf skeletons 1each 64 1d3+3 Stirges 1/2 each 65 1 Ogre Zombie 3 66 1d3+1 Troglodyte Zombies 1 each 67 1d3+3 Human commoner Zombies 1/2 each 68 1d3+1 Hyenas(animals) 1 each 69 1 Lion(animal) 3 70 1 huge viper snake 3 71 1d3+1 wolves 1 each 72 1 giant praying mantis 3 73 1 giant wasp 3 74 1 large monstrous scorpion 3 75 1d3+1 medium monstrous scorpion 1 each 76 1 wyrmling black dragon 3 77 1 wyrmling blue dragon 3 78 1 very young white dragon 3 79 1d2 Bugbears 2 each 80 1d2 Chokers 2 each 81 1d2 latern archons 2 each 82 1 wyrmling bronze dragon 3 83 1 wyrmling copper dragon 3 84 1d2 Dire Badger 2 each 85 1d2 Dire Bats 2 each 86 1d2 Dire Weasel 2 each 87 1d2 Hippogriffs 2 each 88 1d2 Satyrs 2 each 89 1d2 Shocker Lizard 2 each 90 1d2 Skum 2 each 91 1d2 Rat Swarm 2 each 92 1d2 Bat Swarm 2 each 93 1d2 Thoqqua 2 each 94 1d2 Triton 2 each 95 1d2 Varguille 2 each 96 1d2 Imps(devils) 2 each 97 1d2 Worg 2 each 98 1d2 Celestial Blackbears 2 each 99 1 Celestial Bisons 3 100 1d2 Fiendish Boars 2 each Number Monster CR 1 1 Aranea 4 2 1 Hound Archon 4 3 1 Barghest 4 4 1 Dire Boar 4 5 1 Dire Wolverine 4 6 1 Gargoyle 4 7 1 Janni(Genie) 4 8 1 Griffon 4 9 1 Sea Hag 4 10 1 Harpy 4 11 1 five headed hydra 4 12 1 Mimic 4 13 1 Minotaur 4 14 1 gray ooze 4 15 1 Otyugh 4 16 1 Owlbear 4 17 1 Sea Cat 4 18 1 Centipede Swarm 4 19 1 Vampire Spawn 4 20 1 human warrior Wereboar 4 21 1 Pixie(Sprite) 4 22 1 Brown Bear 4 23 1 Polar Bear 4 24 1 Giant Crocodile 4 25 1d3+1 Ape 2 each 26 1d3+1 Black Bears 2 each 27 1d3+1 Bisons 2 each 28 1d3+1 Boars 2 each 29 1d3+1 Cheetahs 2 each 30 1d3+1 Crocodiles 2 each 31 1d3+1 Leopards 2 each 32 1 Rhinoceros 4 33 1d3+1 Large Viper snakes 2 each 34 1 Tiger 4 35 1d3+1 Wolverines 2 each 36 1 Giant Ant queen & 1d3 Giant Ant Soldiers 2 each 37 1d3+1 Giant Bombardier Beetles 2 each 38 1 Giant Stag Beetle 4 39 1d3+1 Huge Monstrous Centipede 2 each 40 1d3+1 Large Monstrous Spiders 2 each 41 1 very young Black Dragon 4 42 1 very young Blue Dragon 4 43 1 very young Green Dragon 4 44 1 Wyrmling Red Dragon 4 45 1 Young White Dragon 4 46 1d3+1 Wyrmling White Dragons 2 each 47 1 Very Young Brass Dragon 4 48 1 Wyrmling Silver Dragon 4 49 1 Chimera Skeleton 4 50 1d3+1 Owlbear Skeletons 2 each 51 1 Minotaur Zombie 4 52 1d3+1 Bugbear Zombie 2 each 53 1 Wyvern Zombie 4 54 1d3+1 medium animated objects 2 each 55 1d3+1 latern Archons 2 each 56 1d3+1 Azers 2 each 57 1d3+1 Blink Dogs 2 each 58 1d3+1 Dretches(Demon) 2 each 59 1d3+1 Quasit(Demon) 2 each 60 1d3+1 Choker 2 each 61 1d3+1 Dire Badgers 2 each 62 1d3+1 Dire Bats 2 each 63 1d3+1 Hippogriffs 2 each 64 1d3+1 Vargouilles 2 each 65 1d3+1 Worgs 2 each 66 1d3+1 3rd level Astral Constructs(Psionic) 2 each 67 1d3+1 Folugub(Psionic) 2 each 68 1 Phrenic Shadow(Psionic) 4 69 1 Phrenic Ankheg(Psionic) 4 70 1d3+1 Flesh Harrower Puppeteers 2 each 71 1d3+1 Thought Eaters(Psionic) 2 each 72 1 Half-Celestial Unicorn 4 73 1 Half-Fiend Ogre 4 74 1 Half-Celestial Dryad 4 75 1 Half-Fiend Hell-Hound 4 76 1 Halforc Druid 2 & 1d3 Orc Babarian2 2 each 77 1d3+1 Duergar Fighter1 2 each 78 1d3+1 Halfgiant Psychic Warrior1 2 each 79 1d3+3 Lemures(Devil) 1 each 80 1 Gnoll Ranger 3 4 81 1 Derro Sorcerer 1 4 82 1 Formian Warrior & 1d3+1 Formian Workers 3 & 1/2 each 83 1 Ghast & 1 Ghoul 3 & 1 84 1d3+3 Grimlocks 1 each 85 1 Hobgoblin Fighter 4 4 86 1 Kobold Adept 7 4 87 1 Lizardfolk Druid3 4 88 1 human Babarian1/afflicted Wereboar 4 89 1 Wild elf Ranger1 on Pegasus 1 & 3 90 1 Aasimar Paladin4 4 91 1d3+1 Sahuagin 2 each 92 1 Satyr with pipes 4 93 1d3+1 shocker lizards 2 each 94 1d3+1 Skum 2 each 95 1 Locust swarm & 1 Spider swarm 3 & 1 96 1d3+1 Thoqqua 2 each 97 1 Troglodyte Cleric 3 4 98 1d3+1 Halfling rogue 2 2 each 99 1 gnome Illusionist3 & 1 gnome rogue 1 3& 1 100 1 dwarf cleric 2/fighter2 4 As said before, any input is appreciatet.
MindWandererB 08-15-06, 06:12 PM	The numbers of opponents need to be changed. 1d3+1 CR 2 opponents is too much for an EL 4 encounter (average 3, EL 5). They should be a flat 1d3 (average 2). 1d3+1 or 1d4+1 CR 1 opponents would be right. ABout the 1d3+3 instead of 2d4... an interesting choice. Same average, but less variation. I like it. Strange that the Half-Fiend template can be applied to evil outsiders, but it appears to be legal. I don't agree with having basic humanoids with character classes on the list. Too much left up to the pitlord to customize, and it transforms the "monster" fight into a more typical arena fight. I realize Cat asked for this, but... perhaps if only single-class creatures were used, then the default stat blocks could be used. I think I'll take a stab at one of these. I'm going to start working on an EL 7 list--I don't want to start at the top, too much to think about.
MindWandererB 08-15-06, 08:36 PM	01: 1 Animated Object, Gargantuan 02: 1 Black Pudding (ooze) [CR 7] 03: 1 Bulette [CR 7] 04: 1 Chaos beast [CR 7] 05: 1 Chimera [CR 7] 06: 1 Chuul [CR 7] 07: 1 Criosphinx [CR 7] 08: 1 Dire Bear [CR 7] 09: 1 Dragonne [CR 7] 10: 1 Drider [CR 7] 11: 1 Elemental, Huge (1d4 for type) [CR 7] 12: 1 Elephant [CR 7] 13: 1 Ghost, 5th level Human Fighter [CR 7] 14: 1 Giant, hill [CR 7] 15: 1 Golem, flesh [CR 7] 16: 1 Hellcat (devil) [CR 7] 17: 1 Hydra, 8-headed [CR 7] 18: 1 Hydra, 6-headed cryo- or pyro- [CR 7] 19: 1d3+1 Githyanki 3rd-level Fighters [CR 4] 20: 1 Invisible Stalker [CR 7] 21: 1 Lillend [CR 7] 22: 1 Medusa [CR 7] 23: 1 Monstrous Scorpion, Huge [CR 7] 24: 1 Naga, water [CR 7] 25: 1 Nymph [CR 7] 26: 1 Ogre, 4th-level Barbarian [CR 7] 27: 1 Phasm [CR 7] 28: 1 Remorhaz [CR 7] 29: 1 Skeleton, cloud giant [CR 7] 30: 1 Slaad, red [CR 7] 31: 1 Spectre (demon) [CR 7] 32: 1 Succubus [CR 7] 33: 1 Umber Hulk [CR 7] 34: 1 Vampire, 5th-level human fighter [CR 7] 35: 1 Yuan-Ti abomination [CR 7] 36: 1 Astral Construct, 6th level (psionic) [CR 7] 37: 1 Grey Glutton (psionic) [CR 7] 38: 1 Intellect Devourer (psionic) [CR 7] 39: 1d3+1 Arrowhawk, Adult [CR 5] 40: 1d3+2 Cockatrices [CR 3] 41: 1d4+2 Deinonychuses [CR 3] 42: 1d3 Dire Lions [CR 5] 43: 1d4+2 Doppelgangers [CR 3] 44: 1d4+1 Dragons, wyrmling red or silver; very young black, blue, green, or brass; young white (1d7) [CR 4] 45: 1 Dragon, very young gold; young red, bronze, copper, or silver; juvenile black (1d6) [CR 7] 46: 1d3+1 violet fungi and 1d3+2 shriekers (fungus) [CR 3 and 1] 47: 1d3+1 Janni (genie) [CR 4] 48: 3 Hags, sea [CR 4] 49: 1d3 Werebears [CR 5] 50: 1d3+1 Wereboards [CR 4] 51: 1d4+1 Wererats and 1d4+4 Dire rats [CR 2 and 1/3] 52: 1d3 Weretigers [CR 5] 53: 1d3 Manticores [CR 5] 54: 1d3+1 Minotaurs [CR 4] 55: 1d4+2 Ogres [CR 3] 56: 1d3+1 Otyughs [CR 4] 57: 1d3+2 Owls, Giant [CR 3] 58: 1 Ravid plus 1d3 Animated Objects, large [CR 5 and CR 3] 59: 1d4+4 Sahuagin [CR 2] 60: 1d3+2 salamanders, flamebrother [CR 3] 61: 1 Satyr with pipes and 1d3+1 satyrs without pipes [CR 4 and 2] 62: 1d3 Shadow Mastiffs [CR 5] 63: 1d3 Ettin skeletons [CR 5] 64: 1d3+1 Chimera skeletons [CR 4] 65: 1d3+2 Troll skeletons [CR 3] 66: 1d3+1 Centipede swarms [CR 4] 67: 1d6+1 Locust swarms [CR 3] 68: 1d6+5 Troglodytes and 1d3 monitor lizards [CR 1 and 2] 69: 1d4+2 Unicorns [CR 3] 70: 1d4+1 Vampire Spawn [CR 4] 71: 1d3+2 Wights [CR 3] 72: 1d3 Winter wolves [CR 5] 73: 1d3+2 Xorn, minor [CR 3] 74: 1d3 Yuan-Ti halfbloods [CR 5] 75: 1d3 Umber Hulk zombies [CR 5] 76: 1d3+1 Wyvern or Minotaur zombies [CR 4] 77: 1d3+2 Ogre zombies [CR 3] 78: 1d4+1 Giant stag beetles (Vermin) [CR 4] 79: 1d3+1 Pixies [CR 4] 80: 1d3+2 Phrenic Apes (Psionic, Animal) [CR 3] 81: 1d3+1 Phrenic Mephits (Psionic; 1d10 to determine type) [CR 4] 82: 1d3+1 Celestial Centaurs [CR 4] 83: 1 Celestial Dire Lion [CR 7] 84: 1 Fiendish Phthisic (Psionic) [CR 7] 85: 1d3 Fiendish Ettercaps and 1d3+1 Fiendish Monstrous Spiders, medium [CR 4 and 1] 86: 1d3+2 Half-Celestial Blink Dogs [CR 3] 87: 1 Half-Celestial Djinni (genie) [CR 7] 88: 1 Half-Fiend Troll [CR 7] 89: 1d3+2 Half-Fiend Worgs [CR 3] 90: 1 Half-Dragon Greater Barghest (1d10 for type) [CR 7] 91: 1d3+2 Half-Dragon Giant Ants, worker (1d10 for type) [CR 3] 92: Roll on EL 5 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 for type) [Varies] 93: 1 Level 6 Gnome Cleric with 1 Level 4 Gnome Illusionist [CR 6 and 4] 94: 1 level 7 Maenad Barbarian [CR 7] 95: 1d3+1 Level 4 Half-Orc Monks [CR 4] 96: 1 Elf Fighter 6/Blackguard 1 [CR 7] 97: 1 Level 6 Half-Giant Ranger [CR 7] 98: 1d3+1 Level 4 Kobold Sorcerers [CR 4] 99: 1 Level 7 Blue Psion [CR 7] 100:1 Level 5 Human Bard and 1 Level 5 Halfling Rogue [CR 5 and 5] In all cases, I tried to stick to the "organization" entry for the monster. There would of course be other options if I went beyond that. I also could have gotten a lot more variety in NPCs, if desired, as well. Also note entry 91. That one is so versatile, I would be tempted to make it count as more than 1% of the possibilties (possibly eliminating 88-90). I'm now moving on to EL 8--there were several tempting options that were just a tad too high for me to use this time. Fun stuff coming. I'd like to do the EL 6 one, too, but if someone gets there before I do, no big deal.
lonewolf 08-16-06, 02:34 AM	The numbers of opponents need to be changed. 1d3+1 CR 2 opponents is too much for an EL 4 encounter (average 3, EL 5). They should be a flat 1d3 (average 2). 1d3+1 or 1d4+1 CR 1 opponents would be right. ABout the 1d3+3 instead of 2d4... an interesting choice. Same average, but less variation. I like it. I just looked at table 3-1 in the DMG page 49 again: actually the number of CR2 creatures to form a CR4 encounter is 1d2+1, the number of CR1 creatures is 1d4+2. But this table decreases the variation on higher levels.(for example it has flat 2 CR5 creatures for a CR7 encounter) I am not sure if that is good or not. Having 1(result of 1d3) CR 5 Monster as a CR7 encounter seems very easy for example. Any opinions? I don't agree with having basic humanoids with character classes on the list. Too much left up to the pitlord to customize, and it transforms the "monster" fight into a more typical arena fight. I realize Cat asked for this, but... perhaps if only single-class creatures were used, then the default stat blocks could be used. If 100 creatures per CR are needed I dont think we can live without humanoids with class levels, especially at lower levels. I think I'll take a stab at one of these. I'm going to start working on an EL 7 list--I don't want to start at the top, too much to think about. After looking at your list, I also have a few problems: For the pitlords sake, I would try to keep the number of monsters total at 6 or below. juggling around up to 14 creatures + player characters is no fun. Imagine a team Monster fight with up to 28 monsters in the arena :gah: :P #92: Im not a fan of this. It can result in impossible cominations requireing a reroll and unpredictable result. #98: A dromite is CR 1/2 thus you can have 7 class levels to create an CR7 Dromite
Abyssal Stalker 08-16-06, 05:20 AM	Let me add my voice to the support of UA material! From my point of view it wouldn't scare newcomers away. I haven't seen anyone with the attitude of knowing everything appearing here for the first time. The fact that CoCo has clear rules on how to behave pleases me. It isn't too much of a trouble to learn the main things about our house rules and we can always ask from others. I don't think that UA would add too much on the house rules. If you don't have the patience to read them out, UA won't change that thing either way. I like UA for the options it brings to the game. At the moment CoCo is my only chance for D&D and I'd like to see a bit more variety in options. Allthough the UA contains some material I see only as stupid, it has a lot of things that can be useful when creating an interesting background for your character (I like to see the background effecting the character also rule-wise).
Caterane 08-16-06, 05:49 AM	Slight change to the Diplomacy Ally acquisition. Changes in red: Diplomacy Allies: Similar to Handle Animal, you can use your Diplomacy skill to get an ally of an intelligence between 3 and 6 (see Rules of Gladius: Allies II for a complete list). You have to have the requisite diplomacy value (see Allies II) and complete a quest or miniquest with an EL equal to your ECL. You gain XP normally but your gold reward is diminished: reduce the Miniquest EL by one for every CA you quested for (for gold rewards only!). For example, the Miniquest was held at EL 8 and you quested for two small air elementals (CA 1 each) then you'd gain XP for an EL 8 quest, and Gold for an EL 6 quest. You gain the service of the ally or allies who may never be higher than your maxCA allows at the time of the quest (see 'Cap on Allies' below). Since the ally is intelligent, no additional training is necessary unless otherwise noted. Each character has a Maximum Coefficient of Diplomacy (maxCD) which is equal to his diplomacy skill value. Each Diplomacy ally has a certain 'CD Cost'. The sum of all your Diplomacy Allies on your sheet may not exceed your maxCD. There are certain factors that modify the CD Cost (see Allies II). Note that all Diplomacy allies require a share of your xp and gold if they participate in a fight (see below for details). Diplomacy Allies always use the abilities presented in their entry (but may be customized or advanced; see below). It's not appropriate to fine and ECL 10 PC 4500 gold for a CR 1 ally quest. Thanks to Telin for pointing that out.
hogarth 08-16-06, 07:05 AM	Slight change to the Diplomacy Ally acquisition. Changes in red: It's not appropriate to fine and ECL 10 PC 4500 gold for a CR 1 ally quest. Thanks to Telin for pointing that out. I find it a bit odd that recommendations to make Diplomacy Allies more powerful are implemented the next day, but recommendations to make them weaker are met with: The system is good as it is. Do you really think that Diplomacy Allies need more power? :confused:
Caterane 08-16-06, 07:57 AM	This has nothing to do with each other. An ECL 10 character would pay 4500 gold for a CR 8 monster as well as for an CR 1/10 monster. Something's surely not right with that. There was no reason not to quest for the maximum CA with the old rules.
Caterane 08-16-06, 11:09 AM	I have made the following additions to the Guild System. Handicapped Characters: It might happen that a character levels up after the CAPs have been logged which results in a greater difference than the Matched Encounter table normally allows. For a difference of 1 ECL, there's always the surprise round. If the difference in ECL is 2, then the handicapped character can choose any one Mercenary of Gladius up to his ECL for free and without any modification to his rewards. In addition to that, he gains 2 free prebuff rounds just before the battle begins, in addition to the surprise round. It is possible that a guild sends handicapped characters on purpose to gain this advantage but it may only be done to intercept someone. That's in response to Karen (ECL 9) who fights Little Daisy (ECL 7). Here are the streamlined names for Operations and Missions. Operation - "Name of Miniquest" [TAO/EYE->PSI] [EL ?] Mission - "Name of Quest" [TAO/EYE] [EL ?] Vath, please change the title accordingly.
lonewolf 08-16-06, 11:26 AM	I have made the following additions to the Guild System. That's in response to Karen (ECL 9) who fights Little Daisy (ECL 7). Here are the streamlined names for Operations and Missions. Vath, please change the title accordingly. Is this rule active for this week or starting next week?
Pitlords 08-16-06, 11:41 AM	Is this rule active for this week or starting next week? This week. You're the reason for the rule :)
DSugui 08-16-06, 12:27 PM	So, do I choose the mercenary right now? Do I have to send PM to Pitlords informing which one I picked? In addition to that, he gains 2 free prebuff rounds just before the battle begins, in addition to the surprise round. Just to make it clear: 2 prebuff rounds = I can't attack, only buff 1 surprise round = I can attack or do whatever. Is that right?
MindWandererB 08-16-06, 05:09 PM	After looking at your list, I also have a few problems: For the pitlords sake, I would try to keep the number of monsters total at 6 or below. juggling around up to 14 creatures + player characters is no fun. Imagine a team Monster fight with up to 28 monsters in the arena :gah: :P #92: Im not a fan of this. It can result in impossible cominations requireing a reroll and unpredictable result. #98: A dromite is CR 1/2 thus you can have 7 class levels to create an CR7 DromiteI don't see any of my entries that produce 14 creatures. Nine seems to be the highest, and that on a double-max roll. I really wanted to preserve the "organization" listings in the MM, and all of these are straight out of there. Also by DMG guidelines, I included no encounter with more than 12 opponents, even on a max roll. I didn't consider monster team fights, but those are pretty rare. To get more than 12 opponents in such a fight, two types of low-CR monsters would have to be rolled, and large numbers of both of them. As for the half-dragon thing... there are very, very few impossible combinations--basically, only constructs, undead, and incorporeal creatures are ineligble for half-dragonification, and not even all of those (you can't apply the half-dragon template to a skeleton, but you can apply the skeleton template to a half-dragon). I personally think the possibility of having to reroll is worth the versatility. And the results could be vastly entertaining. For both of these, I'll wait for a second opinion before taking them out. The dromite is gone, though. I just looked at table 3-1 in the DMG page 49 again: actually the number of CR2 creatures to form a CR4 encounter is 1d2+1, the number of CR1 creatures is 1d4+2. But this table decreases the variation on higher levels.(for example it has flat 2 CR5 creatures for a CR7 encounter) I am not sure if that is good or not. Having 1(result of 1d3) CR 5 Monster as a CR7 encounter seems very easy for example. Any opinions?Unfortunately, as long as there is a random roll, the encounters will very rarely be exactly of the desired EL. I think the best we can hope for is that the average roll is the right EL. We sacrifice precision for withholding information. 1d3 or 1d2+1 CR-2 creatures makes an appropriate encounter (average 2 or 2.5). 1d3+1 or 1d4+1 CR-3 creatures (average 3 or 3.5), 1d3+2 or 1d4+2 CR-4 creatures (average 4 or 4.5), 1d3+3 or 1d4+3 CR-5 creatures (average 5 or 5.5), or 1d4+4 to 1d6+5 CR-6 creatures (average 6 to 8.5) are all technically the right average EL.
MindWandererB 08-16-06, 07:13 PM	01: 1 Arrowhawk, elder [CR 8] 02: 1 Athach [CR 8] 03: 1 Behir [CR 8] 04: 1 Bodak [CR 8] 05: 1 Destrachan [CR 8] 06: 1 Dire Tiger [CR 8] 07: 1 Djinni noble (genie) [CR 8] 08: 1 Efreeti (genie) [CR 8] 09: 1 Erinyes (devil) [CR 8] 10: 1 Giant, stone [CR 8] 11: 1 Gorgon [CR 8] 12: 1 Grey Render [CR 8] 13: 1 Gynosphinx [CR 8] 14: 1 Hellwasp Swarm [CR 8] 15: 1 Hydra, 9-headed [CR 8] 16: 1 Hydra, 7-headed cryo- or pyro- [CR 8] 17: 1 Lammasu [CR 8] 18: 1 Mind Flayer [CR 8] 19: 1 Mohrg [CR 8] 20: 1 Monstrous Spider, Gargantuan [CR 8] 21: 1 Naga, dark [CR 8] 22: 1 Ogre Mage [CR 8] 23: 1 Shield Guardian [CR 8] 24: 1 Skeleton, young adult red dragon [CR 8] 25: 1 Shadow, greater [CR 8] 26: 1 Slaad, blue [CR 8] 27: 1 Treant [CR 8] 28: 1 Tyrannosaurus (dinosaur) [CR 8] 29: 1 Xorn, elder [CR 8] 30: 1 Astral Construct, 7th level (psionic) [CR 8] 31: 1d3+1 Udoroots (psionic) [CR 5] 32: 1d4+2 Araneas [CR 4] 33: 1d3+2 Hound Archons [CR 4] 34: 1d4+2 Barghests [CR 4] 35: 1d3 Gauths [CR 6] 36: 1d3 Belkers [CR 6] 37: 1d3+1 Carrion Crawlers [CR 4] 38: 1d3 Megaraptors [CR 6] 39: 1d4+4 Dire Bats [CR 2] 40: 1d4+1 Dragons, wyrmling gold; very young red, bronze, copper, or silver; young black or green (1d7) [CR 5] 41: 1 Dragon, juvenile blue, green, or brass; young adult white (1d4) [CR 8] 42: 1d4+3 Dryads [CR 3] 43: 1d4+4 1st-level Drow warriors plus 1d3 2nd-level Drow warriors plus 1 Drow warrior of level 1d4+2 [CR 1, 2, and 3-6] 44: 1d3 Bralanis (eladrin) [CR 6] 45: 1 Ettin and 1d3 brown bears (animal) [CR 6 and 4] 46: 1 Formian taskmaster and dominated cohort (roll on EL 4 table; reroll if immune to dominate or if more than four creatures) [CR 7 and 4] 47: 1d3+1 ghasts (ghoul) and 2d4+1 ghouls [CR 3 and 1] 48: 3 Hags, 1 of each type [CR 4, 5, 6] 49: 1d3 Lamias [CR 6] 50: 1d3+1 Werebears [CR 5] 51: 1d3+1 Wereboars and 1d4 boars [CR 4 and 2] 52: 2d3+4 Wererats [CR 2] 53: 2d3+4 Werewolves and 1d4+4 wolves [CR 3 and 1] 54: 1d3+1 Mummies [CR 5] 55: 1d4+4 Ogres [CR 3] 56: 1d4+1 Phase Spiders [CR 5] 57: 1d3 Salamanders, average [CR 6] 58: 1d6+5 Shocker Lizards [CR 2] 59: 1d3 Advanced Megaraptor Skeletons [CR 6] 60: 1d3+1 Ettin Skeletons [CR 5] 61: 1d3+2 Chimera Skeletons [CR 4] 62: 1d3+1 Pixies with Irresistable Dance [CR 5] 63: 1d6+6 Rat Swarms [CR 2] 64: 1d6+5 Vargouilles [CR 2] 65: 1d3 Will-o'-wisps [CR 6] 66: 1d6+6 Worgs [CR 2] 67: 1d4+1 Wraiths [CR 5] 68: 1d3 Wyverns [CR 6] 69: 1d3 Xorns, average [CR 6] 70: 1d3+1 Yuan-Ti, halfblood [CR 5] 71: 1d3 Grey Render Zombies [CR 6] 72: 1d3+1 Umber Hulk Zombies [CR 5] 73: 1d3+2 Wyvern or Minotaur Zombies [CR 4] 74: 1d6+5 Crocodiles [CR 2] 75: 1d6+5 Giant Bombardier Beetles [CR 2] 76: 1d4+1 Monstrous Spiders, huge [CR 5] 77: 1 Phrenic Ettin (Psionic) [CR 8] 78: 1d3+2 Phrenic Wights (Psionic) [CR 4] 79: 1 Celestial Megaraptor [CR 8] 80: 1d3+2 Celestial Giant Owls [CR 4] 81: 1 Fiendish Shambling Mound [CR 8] 82: 1d3+1 Fiendish Harpies [CR 5] 83: 1 Half-Celestial Girallon [CR 8] 84: 1d4+2 Half-Celestial Unicorns [CR 4] 85: 1 Half-Fiend Lamia [CR 8] 86: 1d3+2 Half-Fiend Ogres [CR 4] 87: 1 Half-Dragon Hydra, 5-headed pyro- or cryo- (1d10 to determine type) [CR 8] 88: 1d4+1 Half-Dragon Giant Wasps (1d10 to determine type) [CR 5] 89: Roll on EL 6 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 to determine type) [varies] 90: 1 Tiefling Rogue 7/Shadowdancer 1 [CR 8] 91: 1 Deep Dwarf Fighter 7/Dwarven Defender 1 [CR 8] 92: 1 7th-Level Gnoll Ranger [CR 8] 93: 1 8th-Level Svirfneblin (gnome) Adept [CR 8] 94: 1 6th-Level Elf Paladin and 1 6th-Level Elf Monk [CR 6 and 6] 95: 1d3+2 4th-Level Dromite Wilders [CR 4] 96: 1d3+1 5th-Level Xeph Soulknives [CR 5] 97: 1 5th-Level Troglodyte Cleric and 1d3 3rd-Level Troglodyte Fighters [CR 6 and 4] 98: 1d3+1 4th-Level Grimlock Barbarians [CR 5] 99: 1d3+1 4th-Level Half-Giant Psychic Warriors [CR 5] 100:1 Maenad Fighter 5/Pyrokineticist 3 [CR 8] There are still some encounters with fairly large numbers of creatures in this version. The "roll on lower table and add Half-Dragon" is also there again. Of course, both things can be changed if that is the consenus.
Book5 08-16-06, 08:39 PM	Let me add my voice to the support of UA material! Add me to that list. Four things "real quick" though. 1. NOT ALL OF IT (not gestalt) 2. DEFFINITLY NOT ALL OF IT (no alt damage system) 3. Er (pardon me where are my manners? ) Swap levels, Paragon, (not gestalt), some other stuff I can't think of right now.. worth looking into, technically could show up on the srd at any time... ;) "quote" andy whatshisname. They are open source completely - and yeah - I like the paragon levels. I have playtested them and if they are broken... they are broken weaker - not stronger. 4. I think some of the stuff like spell points and what not are worthy varients.. and tantamount to little more than expanding the class options. In my opinion (most....) of the rules in UA are at least worth a review - a thread even! yes, there is my recomendation to Caterane! @Cat - We should start a thread just for the "what about this rule from this book" :D "no plans to implement, but here you can discuss whys and why nots. And~If! Perhaps (if a proper implementation plan is put foreward) we might (and everybody votes yay and Cat (of course) retains security veto authority) maybe possibly could think about adding rules from a source that... (btw) cannot be garunteed to be available to all users of the CoCo.* * Bolded because that is the primary reason I would not want to use any rules not found readily at www.wizards.com/d20 .. (we would have to type that up and put it in the rules thread - though if we could get that lasers discussion going again... I could give Tan a few mutations... ;)
Book5 08-16-06, 09:06 PM	If 100 creatures per CR are needed I dont think we can live without humanoids with class levels, especially at lower levels. Mercs don't seem to get used allot... but if mercs (humanoids with class levels) were slotted in for some of these random encounters (even pay more credit for valid enemy NPC (as opposed to ally) mercs?) I thought of this the other day ... :P
DSugui 08-17-06, 12:18 AM	A though just occurred to me. I know this will take some time, but, when the Guild Wars is over and one guild owns Gladius, what will be of the guilds system?
MindWandererB 08-17-06, 12:38 AM	Then we start a new game. Presumably, any surviving guilds, plus some new ones, would compete to take power away from the new "Council," i.e. the winning guild.
King Uther 08-17-06, 04:28 PM	Ironman - Cat and I have been talking about this for over a year. It will be an awesome thing to take part in. I am assuming 1 PC per player? It seems the most fair, but having 2 per player may be necessary. My EL10 submission for the contest has been planned since the idea to have the tournament was formed. It's about the time to put him down on paper.
Caterane 08-18-06, 07:40 AM	A though just occurred to me. I know this will take some time, but, when the Guild Wars is over and one guild owns Gladius, what will be of the guilds system? I have already an idea of a new system that does not play in Gladius but on the whole world map. It will be an even more sophisticated system with all the things we will learn from our brand-new guild system. It will take at least 2-3 years and by that time, we'll surely have a filled world map and a complete new system. But that's so far in the future and no one knows how the coco will look like then. Re Iron Man Tournament: So, what would you suggest as a start date? How many characters? 16 or 32? Special rules?
Caterane 08-18-06, 07:56 AM	Here's a concrete list of UA as it would be implemented: Variant Races Modifications and Exceptions Elemental Races lose their extra stat bonus. Eg Water Halfling gains no +2 Con Bloodline levels must be taken (ie no XP penalty) Banned: No 'Reducing LA' Variant Classes Modifications Domain Wizards have one prohibited school Favored Enemy variant includes "Guild" (eg CEF members) Banned: No Gestalt No Generic Classes 10 credits per race or class taken from UA. As you can see, only 3 modifications are necessary, and we leave out 3 small sections.
hogarth 08-18-06, 08:41 AM	Caterane, I think a list of items which are allowed would be much better than what is not allowed. For instance, I'm not sure if you're basing your list on what is posted on www.d20srd.org or the book "Unearthed Arcana"; I should warn you that not all of the material from UA is accessible on that web site. For instance, I see that you lowered the power of the Domain Wizard, but what about the option Druid Domain rule (not visible on d20srd.org) which is just as powerful? And what about Fractional Attack Bonus? Here's a concrete list of UA as it would be implemented: [snip]
DSugui 08-18-06, 08:58 AM	I think we can leave bloodlines out for now. It's too complicated and potentially disrupting. I like the Favored Enemy Guild stuff. Just what I wanted for Dronnar. But I have a question: does boni from different Favored Enemy (such as from the Ranger and from the Slayer) stack? For example, if I take Favored Enemy (EYE) and Favored Enemy (Half Giants) and fight a Half Giant from the EYE, do I receive +4 bonus? (Nothing against you, MWB ;) )
hogarth 08-18-06, 09:12 AM	But I have a question: does boni from different Favored Enemy (such as from the Ranger and from the Slayer) stack? For example, if I take Favored Enemy (EYE) and Favored Enemy (Half Giants) and fight a Half Giant from the EYE, do I receive +4 bonus? (Nothing against you, MWB ;) ) No. Under the description of Favored Enemy, it states: If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger's bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.
DSugui 08-18-06, 09:36 AM	the ranger's bonuses do not stackOne Favored Enemy is from the Ranger class; the other from the Slayer PrC.
TelinArtho 08-18-06, 10:23 AM	Here's a concrete list of UA as it would be implemented: Variant Races Modifications and Exceptions Elemental Races lose their extra stat bonus. Eg Water Halfling gains no +2 Con Bloodline levels must be taken (ie no XP penalty) Banned: No 'Reducing LA' Variant Classes Modifications Domain Wizards have one prohibited school Favored Enemy variant includes "Guild" (eg CEF members) Banned: No Gestalt No Generic Classes 10 credits per race or class taken from UA. As you can see, only 3 modifications are necessary, and we leave out 3 small sections. I definitely would like to forbid Bloodlines, or at the very least the minor ones. The minor ones are all benefit with no hindrance. Forcing someone to take a level of bloodline at level 12 - which is beyond most characters' lives, is no hindrance. Granted the minor ones only offer a small skill boost and a free feat, but it is still a bonus with no hindrance. Even if we had people regularly getting up to those levels, it still is a bit strong on the fact that they are "better" than other non-bloodline characters up through level 11.
Usurpator 08-18-06, 12:21 PM	Re Iron Man Tournament: So, what would you suggest as a start date? How many characters? 16 or 32? Special rules? With the current amount of players, I would suggest 16. It would be a little weird if say, four of your characters would be the only ones to fight in the semi-finals.
Stormwind 08-18-06, 12:56 PM	Re Iron Man Tournament: So, what would you suggest as a start date? How many characters? 16 or 32? Special rules? I would recommend 16 players, and only 1 character per player. Start date would be dependant on number of players. I would like to suggest the following special rules for the tournament so that winning the tournament becomes a matter of conservation of abilities. Since the tournament will be 4 weeks long with 16 people, this isn't really a big change, but it does put the emphasis on endurance and conservation of abilities which is appropriate since it is the iron man tournament. Special rules: - no limits on how much spells/powers or abilities you can use per fight, however you cannot rest until the tournament is over.
King Uther 08-19-06, 01:47 AM	One Variant class option I would like to eliminate: Rogue: Gain: Fight bonus feats Lose: Sneak attack How many Rogue2/Fighter2 or builds with fighter2 replaced with rogue2 do you want to see? Skills+Evasion+feats? Dang.
Stormwind 08-19-06, 03:17 AM	One Variant class option I would like to eliminate: Rogue: Gain: Fight bonus feats Lose: Sneak attack How many Rogue2/Fighter2 or builds with fighter2 replaced with rogue2 do you want to see? Skills+Evasion+feats? Dang. Considering that you give up 4 HP (not a big loss) +1BAB (serious for fighter build) +3 to fortitude (nice but not serious) and 10 credits, I would say that it wouldn't make a huge difference.
lonewolf 08-19-06, 04:51 AM	I would recommend 16 players, and only 1 character per player. Start date would be dependant on number of players. I would like to suggest the following special rules for the tournament so that winning the tournament becomes a matter of conservation of abilities. Since the tournament will be 4 weeks long with 16 people, this isn't really a big change, but it does put the emphasis on endurance and conservation of abilities which is appropriate since it is the iron man tournament. Special rules: - no limits on how much spells/powers or abilities you can use per fight, however you cannot rest until the tournament is over. having 4 fights in a row without resting is a huge problem for spellcasters and a big bonus for characters that are not dependant on any x/day abilities. I think we have nerfed spellcasters enough at the moment so there is no need to nerf them out of the Iron man tournament. Note: With Samuel as my most likely competitor, I would definatly benefit from such a rule, but Im against it anyway.
lonewolf 08-19-06, 07:00 AM	about the new handicapped characters rule: While I agree that such a rule is needed to have the chance of a fair fight, there is one part that isnt covered yet: rewards An ECL-2 character + a free merc + 2 prebuff rounds + suprise round is definately more than a CR ECL-2 encounter. Also the the powerrating calculation should be adapted for such a fight.
hogarth 08-19-06, 09:21 AM	One Variant class option I would like to eliminate: Rogue: Gain: Fight bonus feats Lose: Sneak attack How many Rogue2/Fighter2 or builds with fighter2 replaced with rogue2 do you want to see? Skills+Evasion+feats? Dang. Personally I'm more worried about an influx of Whirling Frenzy Wolf Totem barbarians tripping everyone with spiked chains/glaives. But since Caterane seems to have made up his mind on what's permissible, I'll just have to see what transpires.
King Uther 08-19-06, 01:12 PM	@Stormwind Rogue2/Fighter2 has a lot of good options with that variant. Enough to warrant balance discussion. Terms of Iron Man: -16 person tournament -Single or Double Elimination -First 3 fights are normal, representing the Cycle -Last fight is still 1/3 cap, but both are completely healed -Random battlefields -Random pairings(no tiered playoff structure based on strength) -If more than 16 are ready by the time it starts, than the first fight will be an FFA -Start Date: October 4th -Final Fight date: November 1st Edit: As far as allies go, you choose which to take with you when the tournament starts. If any of them die, they are out for good and are not healed even for the final fight.
Book5 08-20-06, 01:09 AM	Since the UA varients just went live.. do we get an option to tweak existing characters. In my case I would prefer Tan actually be a "desert" halfling instead. The Races of {XElementX} get their alt score mods right? As far as bloodlines? Well... I am.. not certain.. but I say lets go for it and see how it plays out! :D Again.. uhhh (note: I think the dragon and celestial bloodlines are a lot cooler than the templates) Can I add the intermediate celestial bloodline to Ba'al? He will gain - +2 on Sense Motive checks & Alertness, and he hasnt even reached the drop level yet. Hrm.. allot of players might be tempted by the free perks.. particularly of the minor - I mean 12th .. cmon. Hmm.. Tan could SO be fire elemental bloodline! "Treat as experimental accident" hehe "working late one night at the TAO" Ba'als easy - "Awaken the blood within!" start a real trend with the transformative powers of the EYE's Shadow. Basically can we tweak existing characters? - if yes I will look at my credits and see which one I want to do right now (prolly the celestial deal.. Tan is more of an Islander than a Deserter - Jimmy on the other hand.. I knew he was a socialite!
King Uther 08-20-06, 05:23 PM	Iron Man - I currently count 22 players within striking distance of EL10. 24 would be ideal, and it is doable should either someone make an EL10 character outright or quest higher-up from EL7. With 24 competitors, we could end up with something like this: Round 1, 3 player FFA: Fight 1: Sewer Fight 2: Forest Fight 3: City Fight 4: Arena Fight 5: Cavern Fight 6: Temple Fight 7: Plains Fight 8: Arena Survivors move on to the next round, autopopulating tournament seeds based on what fight they were put in originally. Round 2: Seed 1 vs Seed 8 - City Seed 4 vs Seed 5 - Forest Seed 3 vs Seed 6 - Cavern Seed 2 vs Seed 7 - Sewer Arenas are chosen to make competitors fight in a different arean every single combat. The true winner should be able to win in every battleground. Round 3: Seed 1/8 vs Seed 4/5 - Temple Seed 3/6 vs Seed 2/7 - Arena Arena chosen because it is not possible for any of the fighters to have fought in that particular arena. Although random arenas could be used out of the ones not fought in yet. Like Seed 1 vs Seed 4 in the Cavern, since neither have fought there yet. Final Round: Seed 1/8/4/5 vs Seed 3/6/2/7 - Either fight in a battleground neither have fought in or perhaps have someone create a new one just for this fight.
lonewolf 08-25-06, 05:38 AM	about the new handicapped characters rule: While I agree that such a rule is needed to have the chance of a fair fight, there is one part that isnt covered yet: rewards An ECL-2 character + a free merc + 2 prebuff rounds + suprise round is definately more than a CR ECL-2 encounter. Also the the powerrating calculation should be adapted for such a fight. This (still) hasnt been adressed yet.
Caterane 08-26-06, 05:48 PM	Oki, the Unearthed Arcana section is mostly complete. I'll add the bloodlines sooner or later; I haven't figured out how to properly create all these tables. Codes seem to be a lot of work; images are always a bad idea for the rules thread, and the board list function is of limited use. You can from now on request UA material in the Blackmarket for the mentioned price. Changes to existing characters are not permitted (unless you pay credits for a rebuild normally). The necessary modifications remained at an absolute minimum. There's only one feature I'm not sure about and this is the extra attack you get for the whirling frenzy rage. Is [+2 dodge Ac] that much worse than [+2 Fort, +2hp/lvl, -2 AC] that it justifies an extra attack? I left it in for now but it might become necessary to remove the extra attack. Should that happen you get a refund of your credits. I'm looking forward to see new interesting builds! @lonewolf: we'll see what happens @all: This thread will be closed. Please continue in the Council of Gladius (III).