Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caterane 08-26-06, 05:54 PM	The Council of Gladius - The Third Meeting - 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 Game Master 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. If you have a rules question or need a clarification, better ask in the Ask an Elder thread. Link to The Council of Gladius (I) and The Council of Gladius (II).
Caterane 08-26-06, 05:56 PM	Roster based on EL -> Teams, Allies, Parties (p17ff)
Caterane 08-26-06, 06:11 PM	New council, new topic, and this time it's one that could be our best chance to get new members: The upcoming UnCon - The Unconventional Convention! I have still no concrete date other than 'soon' but I have held a lot of discussions over in the GM Forum about it. Asides from a forum-wide contest (which I'm not allowed to give away), the CoCo can host its own contests - and this is what I'd like to discuss with you. There will be a main page somewhere (probably a sticky or a forum-wide announcement; something everyone sees) with a list of all contests currently running during the UnCon. Whatever contest we hold will also be listed there and bring new users to our board. The Question: What do you think would be a cool contest that attracts new members? First Idea: Sauro and I talked about it a bit and he proposed a contest about who can build the "best <enter value>" character, eg highest strength, or highest spell DC, or best All-Rounder. I would prefer a tournament but a full-fledged one with many members is not possible. We agreed on a hybrid of both: We make certain guidelines or requirements (eg. build PC who deals at least 20 damage on average a round, build a PC with the highest possible dexterity, etc completely up to us but ECL should be around 5-7) and set a deadline. Once this deadline is up, the Elders vote on the best builds according to certain criteria (roleplaying background, efficiency, sheet layout, etc) by assigning 25 pts to the posted characters, and the top four will engage in a small tournament (semi-final, final, and fight for 3rd place). The winner gets the Custom Avatar and a Custom Title, and of course the UnCon Prizewinner icon http://boards1.wizards.com/images/badges/uncon.gif. All four may keep their characters (which have a higher level already) as a reward for being among the best four. The first three gain a gold, silver, and bronze tag behind their powerrating which affects leadership reputation. That's of course just the idea Sauro and I had. There may be better ones who attract and bind new players. Do you know them?
Abyssal Stalker 08-27-06, 04:37 AM	OK, here's something new for conversation. This has been under work for a long time now, but I finally managed to put something together. The subject is the feat Improved Familiar. The list in Table: Improved Familiar by Alignment presents only a few possible improved familiars. Almost any creature of the same general size and power as those on the list makes a suitable familiar. Nor is the master’s alignment the only possible categorization. For instance, improved familiars could be assigned by the master’s creature type or subtype, as shown in Table: Improved Familiar by Type/Subtype.The bolded part clearly says that other creatures are also available. I created a list containing the potential creatures. I have used the guidelines of the list in the SRD. The following is a list of all creatures with less than 4HD and a CR below 4. I have limited the size into small, because that's the biggest creature on the original list. Humanoids and monstrous humanoids have been left out. It doesn't make sense to have a goblin familiar. For comparision, I've also listed the creatures mentioned in the SRD. Normal: Bat 1/4HD CR1/10, Blindsense Cat 1/2HD CR1/4 Hawk 1HD CR1/3 Lizard 1/2HD CR1/6 Owl 1HD CR1/4 Rat 1/4HD CR1/8 Raven 1/4HD CR1/6 Snake, tiny viper 1/4HD CR1/3, Poison Toad 1/4HD CR1/10 Weasel 1/2HD CR1/4, Attach Improved Familiar list: Shocker Lizard 2HD CR2, Stunning Shock Stirge 1HD CR1/2, Attach, Blood Drain Formian Worker 1HD CR1/2, Lawful Natural Attack Imp 3HD CR2, Evil and Lawful Natural Attack, Poison, Spell-like Abilities, Alternate Form Pseudodragon 2HD CR1, Poison, Blindsense, Telepathy Quasit 3HD CR2, Chaotic and Evil Natural Attack, Poison, Spell-like Abilities, Alternate Form Fiendish Familiar HD? CR?, Smite Good, Magical Natural Attack Celestial Familiar HD? CR?, Smite Evil, Magical Natural Attack Homunculus 2HD CR1, Poison Mephit, Any 3HD CR3, Breath Weapon, Spell-like Abilities, Summon Mephit, Magical Natural Attack Elemental, Any Small 2HD CR1, Elemental Mastery, Special Attacks Suggestions: Animated Object, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1, Special Attacks Archon, Lantern 1HD CR2, Aura of Menace, Light Ray, Spell-like Abilities Arrowhawk, Juvenile 3HD CR3, Electricity Ray Choker 3HD CR2, Constrict, Improved Grab, Quickness Darkmantle 1HD, CR1, Darkness, Improved Grab, Constrict, Blindsight Dretch 2HD CR2, Chaotic and Evil Natural Attack, Spell-like Abilities, Summon, Telepathy Dire Rat 1HD CR1/3, Disease Magmin 2HD CR3, Combustion, Fiery Aura, Melt Weapons, Magical Natural Attack Sprite, Grig 1/2HD CR1, Spell-like Abilities, Fiddle Sprite, Nixie 1HD CR1, Charm Person Tojanida, Juvenile 3HD CR3, Improved Grab, Ink Cloud Vargouille 1HD CR2, Shriek, Kiss, Poison Xorn, Minor 3HD CR3 Badger 1HD CR1/2, Rage Dog 1HD CR1/3 Eagle 1HD CR1/2 Monkey 1HD CR1/6 Octopus 2HD CR1, Improved Grab, Ink Cloud Snake, Small Viper 1HD CR1/2, Poison Giant Fire Beetle 1HD CR1/3 Monstrous Centipede, Tiny/Small 1/2HD CR1/4, Poison Monstrous Scorpion, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1/2, Constrict, Improved Grab, Poison Monstorus Spider, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1/2, Poison, Web Astral Constuct, Small 1HDCR1/2, Special Attack Brain Mole 1HD CR1/2, Cascade Flu, Psi-like Abilities Puppeteer 1/4HD CR1, Blindsight, Telepathy, Enthrall, Psi-like Abilities Puppeteer, Flesh Harrower 3HD CR2, Blindsight, Telepathy, Enthrall, Psi-like Abilities OK, this is the easy part. There might be something missing, but this is just a draft. The hard thing is to decide the CL needed for the familiar. A guideline seems to be CL3 for 1HD creatures, CL5 for 2HD creatures and CL7 for 3HD creatures. Allthough this isn't waterproof, because the Homunculus has a CL requirement of 7 and only 2HD - but on the other hand it's summoning requires special procedures. So, any ideas?
Pittbull 08-27-06, 04:38 AM	I like this. I will brainstorm a little bit, perhaps something crosses my mind.
Vathelokai 08-27-06, 04:50 AM	OK, this is the easy part. There might be something missing, but this is just a draft. The hard thing is to decide the CL needed for the familiar. A guideline seems to be CL3 for 1HD creatures, CL5 for 2HD creatures and CL7 for 3HD creatures. Allthough this isn't waterproof, because the Homunculus has a CL requirement of 7 and only 2HD - but on the other hand it's summoning requires special procedures. So, any ideas? I'd take the summon ability away from the dretch. And I'd remove the nixie and grig, since they have a lv adjustment. The choker might be a bit over powered at lower lvs. Other than that I like it. The thing about the homunculous is that you can make an advanced one and then make it your familiar, and you have to have the craft construct feat (which you cannot get until 6th lv or later). So it's all around a special case.
Stormwind 08-27-06, 04:51 AM	The Question: What do you think would be a cool contest that attracts new members? First Idea: Sauro and I talked about it a bit and he proposed a contest about who can build the "best <enter value>" character, eg highest strength, or highest spell DC, or best All-Rounder. I would prefer a tournament but a full-fledged one with many members is not possible. We agreed on a hybrid of both: We make certain guidelines or requirements (eg. build PC who deals at least 20 damage on average a round, build a PC with the highest possible dexterity, etc completely up to us but ECL should be around 5-7) and set a deadline. Once this deadline is up, the Elders vote on the best builds according to certain criteria (roleplaying background, efficiency, sheet layout, etc) by assigning 25 pts to the posted characters, and the top four will engage in a small tournament (semi-final, final, and fight for 3rd place). The winner gets the Custom Avatar and a Custom Title, and of course the UnCon Prizewinner icon http://boards1.wizards.com/images/badges/uncon.gif. All four may keep their characters (which have a higher level already) as a reward for being among the best four. The first three gain a gold, silver, and bronze tag behind their powerrating which affects leadership reputation. That's of course just the idea Sauro and I had. There may be better ones who attract and bind new players. Do you know them? I like this idea. How about a "best skill user" character. This then also promotes the use of skills but also requires a fair amount of combat versatality.
Abyssal Stalker 08-27-06, 05:03 AM	The LA thing isn't that simple. Mephits also have an LA, but they are clearly allowed. Not that I wouldn't agree on the removal of Pixies, they just don't seem to fit in.
hogarth 08-27-06, 08:51 AM	The LA thing isn't that simple. Mephits also have an LA, but they are clearly allowed. Not that I wouldn't agree on the removal of Pixies, they just don't seem to fit in. I would recommend not expanding the list. Every time that more options are added for players with credits, I think it tends to give them even more advantage vs. players without credits. I guess that's a way to encourage more people to pitlord, but it doesn't seem very egalitarian to me.
Abyssal Stalker 08-27-06, 09:18 AM	Well, Improved Familiar is free for everyone to take. The list comes from the SRD and IF clearly leaves an option, so I don't think that it's necessary to make them cost credits. My purpose is just to create a list of the options from which the tables in the SRD just give examples. My suggestion is that they don't cost credits because there isn't any customization being done. That's of course only my opinion and it's up to Cat to decide whether the list is OK as it is, if it should even be added or if the options should cost credits. Allies don't cost credits in general, so why should these? For me the list is just a clarification.
hogarth 08-27-06, 09:30 AM	Well, Improved Familiar is free for everyone to take. The list comes from the SRD and IF clearly leaves an option, so I don't think that it's necessary to make them cost credits. My purpose is just to create a list of the options from which the tables in the SRD just give examples. My suggestion is that they don't cost credits because there isn't any customization being done. That's of course only my opinion and it's up to Cat to decide whether the list is OK as it is, if it should even be added or if the options should cost credits. Allies don't cost credits in general, so why should these? For me the list is just a clarification. For me, the list would be more like custom magic items, which require credits. I guess my real point is that I wouldn't have a problem if creatures were added to the list that were definitely weaker than the creatures already there, but why would someone take one? And if a creature were added that was better than the rest of the choices, then it increases the power of the feat (which I don't think is called for). If it's just esthetics that you're looking for, I don't care if you call your quasit a "dretch" or a "baby tarrasque" or whatever; you can customize the non-game aspects of it as much as you want.
Caterane 08-27-06, 12:32 PM	Guys, can we please talk about the UnCon first? It's not long before it begins and I don't want to let this chance pass by. We can talk about familiars afterwards.
Zelck 08-27-06, 12:58 PM	One thing with the UnCon is that the winners must actually be viable in the arena. Best skill user, for instance, might be interesting, but it might just result in a series of losses in the arena and a disgusted contestant. I also think that we should have a variety of categories that each applicant will be scored on - for instance, survivability, damage dealing, and skill usage. Or, we could give them a series of goals to hit - for instance, 20 dmg a round, +12 hide modifier, and can survive an average of 10 rounds in melee against someone with a +7 attack for 1d8+5 damage. We can do this two ways: the people who hit the most categories win, or we'll pick a winner for each category, and characters that fit multiple categories will be considered in each category (but can only win once, of course). We're kind of limited to four categories in the latter case, although we could expand the winner list to 6, and have a 3 person FFA for the last round.
Stormwind 08-27-06, 01:34 PM	Another option for the Uncon competition could be as follows: Build a character (perhaps ECL6). The character must be a legal build by CoCo rules and may not use UA material. The character should be posted in a separate Uncon character thread. The character must face an opponent from the CoCo roster (not necessarily of the same ECL). The player may choose the ECL. If they succeed then they gain points equal to the ECL of their opponent. The character must then face an obstacle course (traps, guards, rooftops, walls, etc) which must be overcome (by skills, spells, abilities, etc). The character gains points equal to the number of obstacles successfully overcome. The four characters with the highest points are then the four finalists and proceed with the semi's and finals, with rewards as described by Cat. The characters that do well should be those with a reasonable combat viability and a mix of useful skills. I think this would provide a taste of the CoCo and would encourage new members.
McJarvis 08-27-06, 04:14 PM	I like the obstacle course idea, but if you do such a thing I feel you'd have to make two leagues: a magic one and a non-magic one. Certain spells make for getting through obstacles that otherwise take great skill.((Knock, Jump, Expeditious Retreat, gaseous form, etc, etc))
hogarth 08-27-06, 10:01 PM	I like the obstacle course idea, but if you do such a thing I feel you'd have to make two leagues: a magic one and a non-magic one. Certain spells make for getting through obstacles that otherwise take great skill.((Knock, Jump, Expeditious Retreat, gaseous form, etc, etc)) I think allowing magic is fair as long as none of the competitors know what the obstacle course will involve. If you want to use up your cash and expendables cap with scrolls of Gaseous Form, go right ahead; maybe you'll need it, maybe you won't. Here's my idea: 1) each competitor makes a level 5 character, core only (nothing requiring credits), no allies (not even psicrystal, familiar, animal companion, mount, etc.); all arena restrictions apply (except for the "1/3 rule" -- this is an endurance event) 2) create a gauntlet of rooms (six or so should do it, I think) that the contestants have to pass through, a mixture of combat encounters (to the death), traps, and skill-based obstacles (swimming, animal handling, forgery, who knows? :D ) 3) whoever gets through it in the quickest period of time is the champion
Zelck 08-27-06, 10:48 PM	I think allowing magic is fair as long as none of the competitors know what the obstacle course will involve. If you want to use up your cash and expendables cap with scrolls of Gaseous Form, go right ahead; maybe you'll need it, maybe you won't. Here's my idea: 1) each competitor makes a level 5 character, core only (nothing requiring credits), no allies (not even psicrystal, familiar, animal companion, mount, etc.); all arena restrictions apply (except for the "1/3 rule" -- this is an endurance event) 2) create a gauntlet of rooms (six or so should do it, I think) that the contestants have to pass through, a mixture of combat encounters (to the death), traps, and skill-based obstacles (swimming, animal handling, forgery, who knows? :D ) 3) whoever gets through it in the quickest period of time is the champion The problem with this is it becomes the luck of the draw (i.e. who happened to be lucky enough to put skill points into the required skills). It also emphasizes skill monkeying over winning fights, which could lead to trouble when they actually port their character over into the arena and then are at a disadvantage. Forbidding allies, even class allies, just makes it worse. We need to remember that not only do we need to host a cool contest, but also that the winners of the contest should be very viable and highly competitive once they get to the actual arena. "Yay, I won the UnCon, and now I'm losing horribly in the arena" is not a good way to retain people. EDIT: here's an idea. What if they have to get through a few rooms, and if they don't make a skill check/series of skill checks, they have to fight a monster/NPC? Basically, it'd be a series of fights that smarts, movement, skill, or diplomacy could bypass. They get healed after each room, but spells/items used and such only come back after 3 rooms (so you get back the spells you used in room 1 in room 4, room 2 in room 5, etc.). We can rate them on resource usage. For instance, we total up the cost of all of their expendables and, say, 4 charges on each charged item, and calculate what percent of that was used. Then, we total up what percent of their HP was lost. And so on. That way, no character is screwed just because they picked the wrong skills, and if we design the rooms right, they'll be rough representations of what the contestants would face in the arenas. EDIT2: We can either build a small number of rooms (3-6ish) and have everyone go through all of them, or we can build a large number to cover more situations and just randomly assign certain ones to certain people. In any case, I think we should let the contestants know what rooms they could (possibly) face beforehand; nothing's more annoying than not knowing what to optimize for then getting something totally different from what you expected.
King Uther 08-28-06, 12:13 AM	The challenge should be combat oriented. It should be something like this: Best melee contest, EL7 Best caster contest, EL7 Best stealth warrior contest, EL7 Top 4 voted fight it out. I have another idea that may warrant interest. I have an EL10 build I have been fleshing out more and more over the last year for the Iron Man tournament. For an EL10 Core build, he is nigh unbeatable(in my opinion). Contest: Who can build an EL10 Core character that can kill this thing? Either first XXX number of builds make it in or vote determines competitors. We may need PLs for this. Anyone who wins gets a gold. This also nets more EL10 characters, which opens up the Iron Man and the higher leagues. Could also make for good publicity.
McJarvis 08-28-06, 01:33 AM	Pretty much anything obstacle based will discourage builds that will thrive in the arena. 1v1 combat is the king of CoCo, as far as I can tell.
Caterane 08-28-06, 05:26 AM	The problem with all the rooms and battles ideas is that we won't have enough pitlords. We have no idea how many will come to the coco during the uncon. Additionally, the Uncon lasts 1 week? That's just enough to do 1 fight per player ...if we skip pairings for this week to get free pitlords.
Caterane 08-28-06, 09:35 AM	If more than one operator makes an operation, we use the average powerrating of all operators instead of summing it up. Reason: Two great renown characters could easily knock out a guild with one successful arson operation. We might later change it back when the guilds are stronger and not so easily destroyed. It's also more difficult to intercept two operators.
Usurpator 08-28-06, 10:13 AM	Who can build an EL10 Core character that can kill this thing? Either first XXX number of builds make it in or vote determines competitors. We may need PLs for this. Anyone who wins gets a gold. This also nets more EL10 characters, which opens up the Iron Man and the higher leagues. Could also make for good publicity. While a nice idea, it depends on how many CoCo-specific tricks (allies etc.), custom magic items and other weird things/tricks you used to build the character. If it's too tricked out, I don't think it wouldn't be good publicity. Especially if you keep it a secret until the actual fight (which is your intention right?). I mean, if its like your metamorphosis build, then thanks but no thanks. If it is like your original Balbanes build or some of your currently active builds, then it would be a lot better (especially with the expendables brought back to a more reasonable level).
Usurpator 08-28-06, 10:42 AM	UnCon seems like good to attract some players. Mini-Tournament What I would really like is for the contestants to create a CoCo character, optimized for fighting in the arena, and then have them fight against each other (like a mini Ironman tournament). I'll be happy to volunteer as a Pitlord for such a contest. If there are a lot of entries, the first rounds should be FFA's or hunter battles to reduce strain on the Pitlords. You could also reduce the number of entries to 16 maximum. First come, first go. Other interested parties always have the option of joining the CoCo as a regular with their builds. Making a CoCo-viable character is quite a bit of work (and requires quite a bit of reading up on concerning all the house rules, prison rulings etc.), which is my major concern with attracting new visitors. Possibly for those who cannot commit this time on such a short notice (characters have to be checked too), I propose we give them a few sample gladiators to bet upon. With possibly the prize of getting ownership of one of the three winning gladiators at the end. Obstacle Course While a neat idea in theory, I don't think an obstacle will work at all. Either the course is known in advance, in which case you can work out the needed skills and the race would depend largely on dice (or sending a Shadow character in to easily bypass the obstacles), or it isn't known, and then it just depends on having the luck of picking the right abilities to overcome this mystery course. And Pitlording such a course would seem like a bore too. Yeah, your character rolled a 1 on the cliff-jumping, too bad, you lost.... Highest X Contest A highest skill modifier contest or something similar is *not* what the CoCo is about. The CoCo is about making a fairly balanced character that can face a lot of different challenges. Additionally, if you are just going for the highest skill modifier, why bother giving your character proper equipment or other skills and feats for example? You won't get proper CoCo builds in any case. Summary As Hogarth pointed out, the Core of the CoCo is one-vs-one fights of Core Rules characters. Why not advertise with our strength instead of making up contests especially for this occasion? We already have a fine framework for holding a tournament: by all means, let us use that!
hogarth 08-28-06, 10:48 AM	The challenge should be combat oriented. It should be something like this: Best melee contest, EL7 Best caster contest, EL7 Best stealth warrior contest, EL7 Top 4 voted fight it out. I'm not a big fan of voting for a favorite build (although it's very common on the Character Optimization board). There's a mechanism right here to prove whether a build is good or not -- fighting in the arena is the ultimate test. I'd be interested in having every contestant face the same challenge that tests several areas of expertise; one pitlord should be able to handle the whole challenge as a single arena fight. Maybe something like this: Challenge of the Four Medallions You begin in a blacksmith shop. Standing before you is Beygraf Armand von Zarovich (a level 3 vampire fighter: CR 5). A Deeper Darkness spell blankets the room in shadows. In his pocket is a medallion (depicting the Fox of Skill) you must bring to the finish line. There are several ways for you to get this medallion: -The Beygraf is famous for his love of music. Three successful DC X Perform checks will convince him to give you the medallion. -Using Diplomacy to change Armand's attitude from indifferent to friendly will convince him to give you the medallion. -Two successful (opposed) Bluff checks will convince him to give you the medallion. -A successful rebuke/turn undead check will cause him to drop the medallion. -A wizard could use Command Undead to force him to give the medallion. -A less than scrupulous contestant can try making a forged copy of the medallion using the materials at hand. The contestant must make two DC X Forgery checks (one for each side of the medallion) with a -2 penalty for using improvised tools. -A sneaky contest can use Hide, Move Silently and Sleight of Hand to pick the Beygraf's pocket. -Of course, the contestant could always kill him; if reduced to zero hit points, he drops the medallion. -If the contestant is impatient, Armand is willing to be bribed; he will hand over the medallion in exchange for at least 2,000 gp in magic items. From there, the contestant has to travel Y feet to the finish line; at the end awaits another medallion (depicting the Cat of Swiftness). Fast moving contestants can run or fly there, but slower moving contestants may wish to take advantage of a nearby stable of horses. It is run by Karhaph, a bearded devil (CR 5). The price he asks for a light warhorse is exorbitant: 2,000 gp in magic items. Other ways of getting a horse include: -Using Diplomacy to change Karhaph's attitude from unfriendly to friendly will convince him to give you a horse. -He will sell a wild horse for 100 gp in items, but the user must make 3 DC X Handle Animal or wild empathy checks before it will obey any commands. -Of course, the contestant can always kill him and take a horse. After the race, the contestant has to retrieve the third medallion (depicting the Bull of Might). It is encased in a magically animated suit of mithral full plate (AC 12, 15 hardness, 40 hp). Close at hand is an adamantine orc double axe which can be used to sunder the plate. The armor can also be destroyed with damage from spells or a Rusting Grasp spell. The final challenge is simple. The medallion (depicting the Bear of Stamina) is inside a flesh golem (CR 7). The golem must be destroyed to retrieve the medallion. Whoever retrieves the four amulets the fastest wins.
Caterane 08-28-06, 10:57 AM	A mini-tournament has the problem that it goes longer than the UnCon week. We cannot expect our pitlords to run 3 tournament rounds in one week. One late fight and all is messed up hence the voting approach with a 4 player tournament in the end (which should be managable).
TheMagister 08-28-06, 11:07 AM	I'm just checking up on the decision on what happens to the antagonist of a failed Guild Assault operation. Sdentch failed to defeat Va'ria on her way to the EHTC's harbor. 1) The assault never took place. No Gladius authorities were involved and Sdentch never got to do anything illegal. Nothing happens and Sdentch is available this week for pairings. 2) Sdentch gets captured by Va'ria and held for ransom by the EHTC (if the EHTC has a holding cell in which they can keep her). Sdentch has a 30% chance to break out (possibly modified by her strength modifier for breaking out?) per week. 3) Sdentch gets gigged by the Gladius authorities for disturbing the peace/fighting in public/public endangerment/jaywalking when Va'ria hauls her in and dumps them on their doorstep. Sdentch is unavailable for pairings this week as she "sleeps it off" in the Gladius cooler -OR- she is released week after next with a slap on the wrist -OR- she/WAR has to pay a minor fine to get her released. What happens? TM
Zelck 08-28-06, 11:48 AM	What about other ideas for contests? Creating a map? Creating a mercenary? Speaking of maps, I have an idea for a new one. Where would I post it? :)
Pittbull 08-28-06, 11:53 AM	What about other ideas for contests? Creating a map? Creating a mercenary? Speaking of maps, I have an idea for a new one. Where would I post it? :) Just post it in the maps (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=249853)-thread.;)
Usurpator 08-28-06, 12:00 PM	A mini-tournament has the problem that it goes longer than the UnCon week. We cannot expect our pitlords to run 3 tournament rounds in one week. One late fight and all is messed up hence the voting approach with a 4 player tournament in the end (which should be managable). I think you are right, time is short as it is already. Some voting mechanism would do fine, at least its better than some arbitrary thing like highest skill modifier. We could make it a community vote.
hogarth 08-28-06, 01:21 PM	A mini-tournament has the problem that it goes longer than the UnCon week. We cannot expect our pitlords to run 3 tournament rounds in one week. One late fight and all is messed up hence the voting approach with a 4 player tournament in the end (which should be managable). I agree that a vote + tournament would be simple to arrange, but for a contest I personally would be more interested in seeing something that's different than a typical arena fight. I can read through scads of those every week!
Zelck 08-28-06, 01:29 PM	How bout for the creation guidelines, we pick some representative characters or monsters of the ECL and rate the entries based on how well they'd compete against those? That way, we're actually rewarding builds that would have success in the arena.
MindWandererB 08-28-06, 01:41 PM	I'm just checking up on the decision on what happens to the antagonist of a failed Guild Assault operation. Sdentch failed to defeat Va'ria on her way to the EHTC's harbor. 1) The assault never took place. No Gladius authorities were involved and Sdentch never got to do anything illegal. Nothing happens and Sdentch is available this week for pairings. 2) Sdentch gets captured by Va'ria and held for ransom by the EHTC (if the EHTC has a holding cell in which they can keep her). Sdentch has a 30% chance to break out (possibly modified by her strength modifier for breaking out?) per week. 3) Sdentch gets gigged by the Gladius authorities for disturbing the peace/fighting in public/public endangerment/jaywalking when Va'ria hauls her in and dumps them on their doorstep. Sdentch is unavailable for pairings this week as she "sleeps it off" in the Gladius cooler -OR- she is released week after next with a slap on the wrist -OR- she/WAR has to pay a minor fine to get her released. What happens? TM Since there is no prison cell available, the result is #1. It would be #2 if they did, but bear in mind that jailed PCs can still participate in arena fights, or anything else non-guild-related. Not that it matters for frozen characters.
SoulLord 08-28-06, 03:57 PM	Uncon A suggestion fo rthe tournament how about the winner is whoever can provide the biggest upset. what do I mean by this. If a cl 3 character can defeat a cl4 character it would be an upset; the bigger the power rating difference the bigger the upset would be whoever manages to WIN by the biggest powerrating difference would win. Maybe you think your low ranked ecl 4 character can defeat a much higher ranked ecl4 and it would be a "safe" win. Maybe you think your ecl character can take on an ecl 5 character and win the price ... if you win that is.
NiQil 08-28-06, 08:57 PM	Here's an idea that I just brainstormed...not a whole lot of detail...just figured I would throw it out there. We have one or more of our current members make characters at a certain ECL (maybe even multiple, if we want to do different categories). For simplicity sake, I am gonna call these creations mercs, even though they probably won't appear on the merc roster. We then present these mercs to the contestants, and tell them to design a character that they think can beat this character in 1-on-1 combat using normal CoCo rules. We then have a judging, in which each character is judged based on it's ability to overcome the "merc" for it's ECL. We then take the top three, and pit each of them in a fight against the merc...so a total of three fights. The characters are then given first, second, and third based on whether they win or not, followed by how quickly (how many rounds) they do it in the even that more than one person beats the merc (or if more than one person loses to the merc).
Zelck 08-28-06, 10:40 PM	Here's an idea that I just brainstormed...not a whole lot of detail...just figured I would throw it out there. We have one or more of our current members make characters at a certain ECL (maybe even multiple, if we want to do different categories). For simplicity sake, I am gonna call these creations mercs, even though they probably won't appear on the merc roster. We then present these mercs to the contestants, and tell them to design a character that they think can beat this character in 1-on-1 combat using normal CoCo rules. We then have a judging, in which each character is judged based on it's ability to overcome the "merc" for it's ECL. We then take the top three, and pit each of them in a fight against the merc...so a total of three fights. The characters are then given first, second, and third based on whether they win or not, followed by how quickly (how many rounds) they do it in the even that more than one person beats the merc (or if more than one person loses to the merc). I like this idea. However, we should rate them on resources used, not total time, unless we're out to prevent Zero-like builds.
hogarth 08-28-06, 10:52 PM	Here's an idea that I just brainstormed...not a whole lot of detail...just figured I would throw it out there. We have one or more of our current members make characters at a certain ECL (maybe even multiple, if we want to do different categories). For simplicity sake, I am gonna call these creations mercs, even though they probably won't appear on the merc roster. We then present these mercs to the contestants, and tell them to design a character that they think can beat this character in 1-on-1 combat using normal CoCo rules. I'd suggest fighting against a team of two drastically different "mercs" instead. If everyone is optimizing to beat a single opponent, it might result in a lot of very similar "one shot kill" builds (capitalising on whichever save is lowest, for instance), but optimizing to beat a team of two (or more) is a greater challenge, I think.
King Uther 08-29-06, 01:18 AM	Well, it needs to be combat-oriented. So, what I suggest does require us to suspend activity of Pitlords here for 1 week. Ultimate Gladiator challenge: Design an ELXXX character(Probably 3 or 5). He/she will be placed in a 4 player FFA in a random arena(except forest, and you'll see why). The objective is to be the last one standing. Winner is determined by who ends the fight in the shortest amount of time. It promotes inventive builds and strategies, the exact thing the CoCo is made for. @Usurpator The metamorphosis build is difficult to beat by anything without Antimagic Field/Null Psionics. 50+ AC, 30+ saves, high attack and damage + flight. The build I would suggest is an amalgamation of things. But since nobody seemed to like the idea I won't mention what it is.
hogarth 08-29-06, 06:58 AM	Well, it needs to be combat-oriented. So, what I suggest does require us to suspend activity of Pitlords here for 1 week. Ultimate Gladiator challenge: Design an ELXXX character(Probably 3 or 5). He/she will be placed in a 4 player FFA in a random arena(except forest, and you'll see why). The objective is to be the last one standing. Winner is determined by who ends the fight in the shortest amount of time. It promotes inventive builds and strategies, the exact thing the CoCo is made for. I think the contest should be more creative than just "let's make characters and have them fight each other" considering that's what we do every week of the year!
SauroGrenom 08-29-06, 09:52 AM	I think the contest should be more creative than just "let's make characters and have them fight each other" considering that's what we do every week of the year! I agree. This contest is an unique opportunity for us to draw new members and highlight various aspects of CoCo that we may want to be of greater signifigance. As a platform for attracting new members, the contest should include a bit of all the major CoCo activities. By my thoughts there are 3 major aspects of playing a character in CoCo. (1)Creating a Build (This includes a concept for how your character will fight.) (2)Creating a "Character" (story) for your character. (3)Writing tactics and surviving fights. So any good UnCon contest should include those 3 tasks as part of winning. I sugest that we accept submissions wich are judged by elders based on the quality of the build and the backstory of the character. The top few (3 or 4) characters are then put into a fight as either a FFA or a short tournament to determine the 1st, 2nd and 3rd places. This format includes all the aspects of play that we enjoy, and it is not a huge tournament involving all the pitlords in CoCo. It's also a simple format for us to run and for new members to get plugged into. I suggest ECL7, because this is a time when 4th level spells are starting to come into play, so it's an interesting time to be a caster. Also it's about the same time that warrior builds are starting to max out their strategies by taking all the feats in a string and having extra money to counter invisibility and such. So it's an interesting time to be a warrior.
McJarvis 08-29-06, 10:10 AM	What about different scenerios? One possibility is a "hunter" arena where there are a bunch of EL 3 NPC's(commoners?) that the mercs have to hunt down. Whoever kills the most wins. As far as how various characters could "role play" it so it isn't heartless: Evil aligned: slaughterfest Good aligned: prison break//recapture the prisoners
Caterane 08-29-06, 11:16 AM	I've added a prison tag in the Character List in the Guildhall next to Sdentch.
Guildmaster (WAR) 08-29-06, 11:30 AM	I've added a prison tag in the Character List in the Guildhall next to Sdentch. Does that mean that Sdentch is in jail and can't participate in Guild actions for the next week(s) even though EHTC doesn't have a prison cell? If that is the case then what is the point of having a prison cell in your headquarters? Storm
Caterane 08-29-06, 11:42 AM	The point is that the ransom money goes to the guild instead of the city authorities. To be honest, it's a point I'm not sure about. I thought it would be necessary to have some sort of risk involved with an operation but the more I think about it, the more I dislike the official prison.
Guildmaster (WAR) 08-29-06, 12:08 PM	My thoughts on the matter of prisons ... I wonder if the payment of the ransom money to the guild is sufficient reason for the guild to build a prison. There are more efficient ways of earning money and I consider the imprisonment of another PC a much more compelling reason to build a prison and if there is a default 'city' prison then there is definitely less incentive to actually build this room. Storm
MindWandererB 08-29-06, 03:31 PM	I agree. Let me paint a scenario: Sdentch is imprisoned for a failed assault action. Being ECL 10, she has a 33% chance of escaping every week. On average, that means she'll spend about three weeks in prison. She couldn't have gone on an assault operation twice in a row anyway, so one of those weeks is completely moot. Unless WAR is absolutely dying to use her as often as possible, that's not much of a deterrent. Once the higher leagues open up, it will be even less so. What this system does discourage is the use of low ECL characters. If failure is penalized by lengthy inactivity for such characters, but not for the higher ones, then only the very high ECL characters will be used. Which, incidentally, is exactly what we're seeing happen--not a single character of less than ECL 6 has been involved in any CAP at all, and of those, not a single one of ECL less than 9 has taken an actively offensive action. On the other hand, some kind of penalty for failure might be appropriate, even without a prison. Otherwise, there's just no reason not to attack, except for using your CAPs for something else. And at the rate we're going, even local prisons will fill up quickly.
Guildmaster (EHTC) 08-29-06, 03:52 PM	Which, incidentally, is exactly what we're seeing happen--not a single character of less than ECL 6 has been involved in any CAP at all, and of those, not a single one of ECL less than 9 has taken an actively offensive action. Might I point out that this has little, if anything, to do with the prison system. Simply put, at the moment there are few offensive operations a lower ECL character could do. Raiding structures is one of the most effective ways to simultaneously strengthen yourself and weaken an enemy, and at the moment a raid structure requires an EL 9 miniquest to complete successfully, since the only structures are A-rank. Similarly raids on a Guild's headquarters require EL 8-10 miniquests depending on the Guild, so lower ECL characters are of little use there too. They can do covert ops, but few lower ECL characters have a sufficient powerrating to get much use out of those, not to mention that higher ECL ones have better skills and are thus more likely to succeed. The same can be said of Intrigue and Peaceful ops, though I suspect the reason they haven't been used yet is because few characters have the skills they require anyway. Once some more buildings have been constructed and they can start doing raids, and I expect we'll then see more lower ECL characters getting used. Side note, one ECL 7 has been put into an operation: Dronnar is assaulting the EYE's headquarters next week. That said, I agree that the "public prison" route is probably not a good idea. If the only benefit to building your own prison is getting the ransom, few if any Guilds will bother with it - after all, won't most characters just make escape attempts or get sprung by covert ops anyway? Zevox
Zelck 08-29-06, 07:08 PM	So any good UnCon contest should include those 3 tasks as part of winning. I sugest that we accept submissions wich are judged by elders based on the quality of the build and the backstory of the character. The top few (3 or 4) characters are then put into a fight as either a FFA or a short tournament to determine the 1st, 2nd and 3rd places. This format includes all the aspects of play that we enjoy, and it is not a huge tournament involving all the pitlords in CoCo. It's also a simple format for us to run and for new members to get plugged into. I suggest ECL7, because this is a time when 4th level spells are starting to come into play, so it's an interesting time to be a caster. Also it's about the same time that warrior builds are starting to max out their strategies by taking all the feats in a string and having extra money to counter invisibility and such. So it's an interesting time to be a warrior. This idea sounds good to me, although I wish us regulars could have a say as well (perhaps the regulars as a whole equal one elder vote?). Having thought about it a bit more, I'd rather not have another no-pairings week if we can help it. It's not very fun ;).
Caterane 08-30-06, 07:11 AM	@MWB: Well, but the lower the chance to escape, the lower the ransom cost. An ECL 3 character costs only 300 to ransom out while he deals as much damage as an ECL 20 PC. I also don't think that the prison is the reason for the high-level activity; it's the fact that both headquarter and Class A structure have minimum EL requirements for their operations. The thing is that without an official prison there's no reason not to assault someone. Do you have a better idea?
Stormwind 08-30-06, 10:55 AM	@MWB: Well, but the lower the chance to escape, the lower the ransom cost. An ECL 3 character costs only 300 to ransom out while he deals as much damage as an ECL 20 PC. I also don't think that the prison is the reason for the high-level activity; it's the fact that both headquarter and Class A structure have minimum EL requirements for their operations. The thing is that without an official prison there's no reason not to assault someone. Do you have a better idea? Hmmm ... I was just going over the rules, and noticed the following section of the guild rules:Escape Attempt: Once a week, a prisoner can make an escape attempt. The chance to break out is 3*ECL in %. If the prisoner has the Open Lock skill, it can add this value to his escape attempt. Escape Attempts must be announced as a Free Action and Guildlords makes the roll. If the value roll is equal or lower than the chance, the prisoner has successfully escaped. If a guild has no free prison cell to hold the prisoner, the escape attempt automatically succeeds. The red text above seems to indicate that a character imprisoned in the 'city' prison automatically escapes as part of the following weeks actions (as long as he/she makes an escape attempt). If I understood this correctly this means that if a guildmember fails in an operation, then (if the guild they targetted has no prison cell) they spend the following week escaping from the city prison and then they are back in the game since the escape attempt automatically succeeds. If this is all correct, then I think that the situation is fine as is since there is a penalty for doing operations (apart from the attitude change). Storm
TheMagister 08-30-06, 12:21 PM	So, do I need to set Sdentch to: Active Aug 30th: Escaping from Gladius' Prison ? If so, I need to know soon. Also, if this counts as a character activation I need to de-activate Rubicanti. TM
Caterane 08-30-06, 12:33 PM	She's in prison until we have figured out how to enact a better penalty for a failed ops.
Erithmu 08-30-06, 12:42 PM	Two questions: When is UnCon offically? Dates Regarding prison stuff: instead of a free action to run an escape the guild would need to use a CAP that can't be interupted. If the holding guild (with a prison) and the guild whose member is captured activate Ransom prisoner and Escape attempt in the same week, then the escape attempt happens before the ransom. The other option would be to lower the % chance to escape, maybe something more in the 1 to 1.5 * ECL range. Since there is also an operation, maybe set a EL for the generic Gladius prison, based on the ECL of the Character (EX: ECL-2, or ECL) to reflect the amount of security surrounding the prisoner. This would provide some risk to the operation and would require the guild to seriously consider future CAP uses.
MindWandererB 08-30-06, 01:08 PM	@TM: Being imprisoned just means you can't go on guild-related activities. It doesn't count as an activation, and if Sdentch weren't frozen, she could even do normal arena fights, quests... technically even campaigns, I suppose, although that would be a little odd RP-wise (maybe she's indentured to "work it off?"). @Erithmu: if a CAP is used for the escape attempt, then the guild might just as well use a Covert Op to break the character out. Speaking of which, there needs to be a rule for doing a jailbreak against the City Prison. Perhaps a Covert Op with a Security score equal to the ECL of the prisoner? Otherwise, since the attempt is "free," I agree that it's just too easy. Perhaps 10% + 1%/ECL? That also makes it so that ECL 3's actually have a chance in hell. And perhaps also a fight should be involved: against a merc or NPC of the character's ECL for the city prison, or a matched battle against guild member(s) for a guild prison (that does not count against the imprisoning guild's CAPs, and doesn't even restrict the involved characters from doing another fight that week). And here's a proposed incentive for guilds to build their own prisons: the city prisons suck. Easier to do a jailbreak, no other defensive measures, and ~1.5x - 2x the chance for a successful escape attempt. (Say, 10% + 2%/ECL, or 20% + 1%/ECL).
Stormwind 08-30-06, 02:18 PM	@Cat: Since I need to get WAR's actions in soon, does an escape attempt against the city prison currently automatically succeed as per the text in the Guild rules under Escape attempts? Storm
TheMagister 08-30-06, 02:23 PM	I'm really only concerned about Sdentch being available for intercepts.
Erithmu 08-30-06, 02:27 PM	Perhaps you could state that an Escape Attempt cannot be intercepted. So the option then becomes a base % change based on ECL, or on an operation that has similar chances but is based on skill instead of a single die roll. I'm just kicking around some ideas, as I know that there is a chance that EYE will be having some of it's own prisoners.
TheMagister 08-30-06, 02:36 PM	I have an idea: Make the prison an assaultable building? Maybe every guildhall automatically comes with a holding cell (EL 3 - 7?) that is impossible to just "break out" of and can't be improved or broken into with pick locks or whatever (there're movies about how hard it is to get into and out of prisons). Then the little guys in the guilds could actually mount operations of some sort, they just can't do it to HURT other guilds. So the lower ECL bunches could mount rescue ops (maybe insert "rescue op" as an operation type?) to get back their bigger, badder buddies. I personally LOVE the idea of someone ultra-powerful having a bad day and getting stuck in a holding cell cooling their heels while someone totally inferior to them breaks them out. It would make for great role-playing glue between guildmates, and would encourage inter-guild cooperation if allied guilds each had a member trapped. And as always, a guild could always just pay the ransom. Whatcha think? TM
Guildmaster (WAR) 08-30-06, 02:50 PM	@Cat: Regarding attitudes, are you going to post changes in attitudes between guilds due to operations, missions etc in the weekly summaries in the guild hall so that guildmaster's can link them? On the same line, do the guildmaster's need to send this information to you for confirmation?
MindWandererB 08-30-06, 08:07 PM	I second those questions, and raise you two more: About the Contest: one of the challenges is Tumbling, which is Trained Only. I assume anyone without ranks automatically gets a 0 in that challenge. What about Knowledge? Knowledge untrained is kind of funny, since you can make checks, but only for "common knowledge." Do untrained users have a chance at the Knowlege contest? Also, what's the mechanic for determining that? Does each entrant have a random Knowledge skill chosen individually, or is it the same Knowledge for everyone?
Zevox 08-31-06, 12:46 AM	Permit me to add one quick question about Contests: Participating in a contest doesn't prevent a character from participating in an arena match that week, does it? I wouldn't think it should, but I'd like to make sure, just in case. Zevox
lonewolf 08-31-06, 02:19 PM	I´d like to talk about the handicapped characters issue again, since I firmly believe that it should be handled before the first such fight is over. At the moment if an character with ECL x happens to fight another character with an ECL x-2, he gains a free Merc, 2 prebuff rounds and a suprise round to make this fight fair, but he is still considered an ECL x-2 challenge for the other character. I believe that this is not fair. The ability to choose an ally suitable for this fight alone should be enough bonus so that there is no need to make the merc "free". Also I noticed that not all problems related to the "leveling after CAPs have been fixed" - problem are resolved. The worst case I could come up with was 2 ECL x-2 guys intercepting one ECL x guy and the two ECL x-2 guys gain a levelup after CAPs have been fixed. This would result in a fight between one ECLx guy against 2 ECL x-1 guys... Granted that this will be pretty rare, but its only the worst case. One of the 2 guys leveling would be enough to break from the chart.
MindWandererB 09-02-06, 11:52 PM	I'm bumping these questions, since decisions about the contest have to be made soon. Cat, can you address them please? Participating in a contest doesn't prevent a character from participating in an arena match that week, does it? I wouldn't think it should, but I'd like to make sure, just in case. About the Contest: one of the challenges is Tumbling, which is Trained Only. I assume anyone without ranks automatically gets a 0 in that challenge. What about Knowledge? Knowledge untrained is kind of funny, since you can make checks, but only for "common knowledge." Do untrained users have a chance at the Knowlege contest? Also, what's the mechanic for determining that? Does each entrant have a random Knowledge skill chosen individually, or is it the same Knowledge for everyone?
Zelck 09-03-06, 12:39 PM	Has anyone thought about allowing the Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) class to be taken for 10 credits? It's publically available, and it also fills a niche. Right now, pretty much the only characters who can succeed on a Covert Op are Rogues. Allowing Psionic Rogues would give players who want to help their guild with Covert Ops but don't want to play rogues another option.
McJarvis 09-03-06, 01:08 PM	Has anyone thought about allowing the Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) class to be taken for 10 credits? It's publically available, and it also fills a niche. Right now, pretty much the only characters who can succeed on a Covert Op are Rogues. Allowing Psionic Rogues would give players who want to help their guild with Covert Ops but don't want to play rogues another option. We should probably go through the Mind's Eye archive for their 3.5 stuff in general if you're going to be allowing the Psychic Rogue.(there's a Psychic Assassin too, for instance) Also, loading up sneak attack is always a concern with that. (Psychic Rogue levels+ Rogue levels+ Assassin levels could end up giving +3d6 SA over three levels)
Zelck 09-03-06, 02:36 PM	We should probably go through the Mind's Eye archive for their 3.5 stuff in general if you're going to be allowing the Psychic Rogue.(there's a Psychic Assassin too, for instance) Also, loading up sneak attack is always a concern with that. (Psychic Rogue levels+ Rogue levels+ Assassin levels could end up giving +3d6 SA over three levels) Well, some of the Mind's Eye stuff takes quite a bit of learning (like the Meditant and the Deep Meditation stuff). The Psychic Rogue specifically fills a niche that I find a bit lacking in CoCo. I guess the Psychic Assassin and the Psychic Weapon Master are also pretty easy to understand. I don't think loading up on sneak attack will be a huge issue. The assassin has some prequisites, so we're only looking at +2d6 SA over 2 levels. It also gives up 1 point of BAB, and slows the progression of other abilities. It does make qualifying for the Arcane Trickster easier, which IMO is a good thing. Who wants to play a Rogue3/Wizard5/AT1? Ick! EDIT TO ADD: On a different note, is there something we can do about limiting the amount of times a wand can be activated in one fight? That might help limit some of the Wand of CLW ridiculousness that occasionally occurs.
Zevox 09-03-06, 03:26 PM	Right now, pretty much the only characters who can succeed on a Covert Op are Rogues. Not at all. As of the moment, anyone with good hide and MS checks can succeed on Covert Ops. Bards, Rangers, Monks, and Assassins (probably among others I've forgotten) fit that bill too. It won't be until everyone has traps that Rogues specifically are needed, and even then they won't be needed if someone from a different class has a good chance of surviving setting off the trap. On a different note, is there something we can do about limiting the amount of times a wand can be activated in one fight? That might help limit some of the Wand of CLW ridiculousness that occasionally occurs. The problem is that its only CLW wands that have been any trouble. Limiting all wands in response to a problem caused by a single one is a bit overdoing it, wouldn't you say? Zevox
NiQil 09-03-06, 04:40 PM	As Zevox stated, the CLW issue is not really an issue. I don't remember anyone wanting to limit wands because someone is using a wand of magic missile, or someone is using a dorje of energy missile or something similar. It's just the CLW wands that people put up a fuss about. And it's primarily at me, because I tend to play a game of attrition in battles I can't win straight up. Playing the odds like that often results in long, drawn out healing affairs. In an environment like this, unfortunately it can't be helped.
Zelck 09-03-06, 04:52 PM	Not at all. As of the moment, anyone with good hide and MS checks can succeed on Covert Ops. Bards, Rangers, Monks, and Assassins (probably among others I've forgotten) fit that bill too. It won't be until everyone has traps that Rogues specifically are needed, and even then they won't be needed if someone from a different class has a good chance of surviving setting off the trap. Let's talk about the late game for now, since it should progress to that stage eventually. A lot of the traps are debilitating (like the pit traps if they can't get out of a deep hole). Plus, the traps will likely weaken them and give the guardian a much better chance of winning. Rangers and Monks probably won't be sent on Covert Ops much because of the random chance of failure. The problem is that its only CLW wands that have been any trouble. Limiting all wands in response to a problem caused by a single one is a bit overdoing it, wouldn't you say? That's possible. Still, something should be done about those CLW wands, and the all wands thing would be for consistency. Maybe someone can think of a better plan?
MindWandererB 09-03-06, 05:29 PM	I actually don't think CLW wands need to be restricted. Granted, it's a pain on the pitlords, but it's not a fantastically successful tactic anyway, and it gets less and less useful as the character goes up on level and damage increases. And at the low levels, where it's more useful, it's quite expensive (15 gp/charge seems like very little, but 225 gp for 15 charges is a lot at low level).
Zevox 09-03-06, 06:43 PM	Let's talk about the late game for now, since it should progress to that stage eventually. A lot of the traps are debilitating (like the pit traps if they can't get out of a deep hole). Plus, the traps will likely weaken them and give the guardian a much better chance of winning. Rangers and Monks probably won't be sent on Covert Ops much because of the random chance of failure. True, but the guardian also won't be there if hes not hired, which can be pricey - not to mention risky, since other Guilds can steal his contract. Any structure without both traps and a Guardian is simply a matter of surviving the trap (which is always random anyway) or beating the Guardian. Later in the game most Guilds will have a lot of structures, which means either they'll only have those countermeasures in a few of them, or they'll be paying a lot of upkeep for them. If they're doing the latter they do deserve to be well-protected by them, wouldn't you say? Still, something should be done about those CLW wands, and the all wands thing would be for consistency. I definitely disagree here, on both parts. The only time I've seen CLW wands cause thier problems is when two of them clash and neither player has a way to neutralize his enemy's or doesn't try to - and as NiQil said, his horsemen have really been the only ones to cause fights like that. Plus as MWB said at higher levels the damage your foes do is going to outpace the healing of a CLW wand very quickly - warriors getting second attacks, wizards getting more lethal spells, etc. - which eliminates the problem outright. And most certainly if we did something to limit CLW wands, it shouldn't also be done to wands that aren't a problem. Aside from Magic Missile and CLW wands see little enough use as is, theres no reason to make them less appealing. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Zevox
Caterane 09-04-06, 07:19 AM	That said, I agree that the "public prison" route is probably not a good idea. If the only benefit to building your own prison is getting the ransom, few if any Guilds will bother with it - after all, won't most characters just make escape attempts or get sprung by covert ops anyway? Well, since most seem to dislike the official prison idea (I don't like it either) we should just drop it from the game. My main reason is that it's just another piece of work (tracking prisoners) which the guilds can do much better. So, Sdentch is set free again. I'll make the changes to the rules soon. When is UnCon offically? Dates 23-29 October, I think. @Cat: Regarding attitudes, are you going to post changes in attitudes between guilds due to operations, missions etc in the weekly summaries in the guild hall so that guildmaster's can link them? On the same line, do the guildmaster's need to send this information to you for confirmation? Yes, please send them to me. The more you send to me the less I have to check myself. I haven't looked into the attitude changes yet and I'll probably have to change it to some more automated process since the new guild system is more work than I thought. About the Contest: one of the challenges is Tumbling, which is Trained Only. I assume anyone without ranks automatically gets a 0 in that challenge. What about Knowledge? Knowledge untrained is kind of funny, since you can make checks, but only for "common knowledge." Do untrained users have a chance at the Knowlege contest? Tumbling is only available to those who have at least 1 rank. Common Knowledge is DC10 which is also the maximum points you can score untrained. Participating in a contest doesn't prevent a character from participating in an arena match that week, does it? I wouldn't think it should, but I'd like to make sure, just in case. No. Only combat endeavours. However, it counts as being active for guild stuff so you cannot intercept and participate in the contest. I´d like to talk about the handicapped characters issue again, since I firmly believe that it should be handled before the first such fight is over. At the moment if an character with ECL x happens to fight another character with an ECL x-2, he gains a free Merc, 2 prebuff rounds and a suprise round to make this fight fair, but he is still considered an ECL x-2 challenge for the other character. I believe that this is not fair. The ability to choose an ally suitable for this fight alone should be enough bonus so that there is no need to make the merc "free". 2 Prebuff Rounds and a Surprise Round are surely not evening out 2 HD of class levels. A mercenary at your level is weaker than a gladiator ally at your level which is why you get the Prebuff/Surprise in addition. And a gladiator ally doesn't cost you a penalty either. Also I noticed that not all problems related to the "leveling after CAPs have been fixed" - problem are resolved. The worst case I could come up with was 2 ECL x-2 guys intercepting one ECL x guy and the two ECL x-2 guys gain a levelup after CAPs have been fixed. This would result in a fight between one ECLx guy against 2 ECL x-1 guys... Granted that this will be pretty rare, but its only the worst case. One of the 2 guys leveling would be enough to break from the chart. That should happen very rarely if at all. We could adept with a free merc for the handicapped PC. Has anyone thought about allowing the Psychic Rogue class to be taken for 10 credits? It's publically available, and it also fills a niche. Right now, pretty much the only characters who can succeed on a Covert Op are Rogues. Allowing Psionic Rogues would give players who want to help their guild with Covert Ops but don't want to play rogues another option. We should probably wait and see how the UA material fits in. It's an option for the future though.
Caterane 09-04-06, 09:53 AM	The Defense Point system won't work in the future. The thing is that the DEF points will become more and more the later in the game we are while the Powerratings stay the same. I am already considering buying 3 Guard Posts to become immune to almost any operation. We need to overhaul it. Do you have any idea on how to do that?
Zelck 09-04-06, 11:27 AM	The Defense Point system won't work in the future. The thing is that the DEF points will become more and more the later in the game we are while the Powerratings stay the same. I am already considering buying 3 Guard Posts to become immune to almost any operation. We need to overhaul it. Do you have any idea on how to do that? 1) We can take it off of adjusted power ratings. Unfortunately, that has the downside of making low level characters useless and high level characters really really good. 1a) We can include a structure that enables the use of adjusted power ratings, but it still has the downside of making low level characters useless and may just lead to a "who can build that structure first before everyone can amass enough DEF points" race. 2) Make DEF protection a logarithmic growth function that caps out at, say, 50% or 75%. Amassing DEF points will get you closer and closer to that %, but will never take you to it or above it. Note that this also has a benefit: with an absolute scale, say against a person with power rating 1000, going from 998 DEF to 999 DEF is better than going from 500 DEF to 501 DEF. If we make the logarithmic scale right, we can make each point worth the same percentage-wise. Edit to add: For reference, if you want to see an example of #2, the World of Warcraft (http://www.wowwiki.com/Formulas:Armor) and the Warcraft III (near the bottom) (http://www.battle.net/war3/basics/armorandweapontypes.shtml) armor formulas.
lonewolf 09-04-06, 12:09 PM	2 Prebuff Rounds and a Surprise Round are surely not evening out 2 HD of class levels. I agree. A mercenary at your level is weaker than a gladiator ally at your level which is why you get the Prebuff/Surprise in addition. correct again And a gladiator ally doesn't cost you a penalty either. And here is where you are wrong. If you fight with an gladiator ally you split the rewards 50/50 with him and the enemy gains rewards for fighting 2 ECL-2 characters. This is not the case in the current system of handicapped fights. But I would say that it would be a fair way to calculate the rewards for such handicapped fights. Edit: Also you shouldnt underestimate the power of an Merc who can be specifically chosen to defeat an enemy.
MindWandererB 09-04-06, 02:01 PM	The Defense Point system won't work in the future. The thing is that the DEF points will become more and more the later in the game we are while the Powerratings stay the same. I am already considering buying 3 Guard Posts to become immune to almost any operation. We need to overhaul it. Do you have any idea on how to do that? True--total immunity should be unattainable. The tricky part is to make the equation comparable to other actions, like raiding a structure. As it stands, robbing a Class A structure for 1000 gp is considerably more profitable than anything you can do that's affected by DEF--and in some ways, it's also easier. I see two problems: 1) Because raiding structures is unaffected by DEF, that option quickly outstrips all others, especially as DEF and structure income both go up. Even an EL 6 MQ against a Class B structure in a fully developed district can net you something like 800 gp. Solution: There needs to be some additional defense against structure raids. For instance, applying DEF-PTS to the amount stolen. This would make the difference between structure raids and headquarter theft raids be that the former is based on the income of the structure, and the latter on the powerrating of the character. The lower EL of the structure raids (which will be the case just a little bit later in the game) will make up for the lower base amount of theft. 2) The linear effect of DEF. A logarithmic scale would be great, but hard to calculate. I'm thinking something like 200*PowerRating/DEF. Not that necessarily, but something like it.
Zelck 09-06-06, 04:55 PM	I was looking through the Guild actions and realized that EHTC is getting 5 operations against it this week. It only gets 3 CAP at most (it used one this week, so it can only intercept 2). Now, unless I missed something in the rules, this can get VERY abusive. Let's suppose the CEF and a 3 CAP guild (EHTC or PSI) ally. That's a whopping 8 operations that can be directed at one guild in just a week. Against a 2 CAP guild, that borders on an instant HQ kill right there if all the interceptors win and everyone else succeeds on their miniquests (come on, how hard is that?). EYE wouldn't stand a chance with only 1 CAP. Plus, there's no recovery time; rival guilds can't exploit the massive deployment unless they knew it was happening in advance, so everyone that went pillaging could be defending next turn. If no one knows you were attacking, there's almost no downside to it. Prisons can help in the late game, but a CEF-led guild alliance can win the game RIGHT NOW using just that strategy. Just send overwhelming numbers of arsons against one guild at a time, and they win. I think two things can help ameliorate this. First, we can limit how many operations are done against a guild to the number of CAPs it gets per week. Highest level or highest power operators can have priority, and the others can have their CAPs refunded. Second, we can put in some sort of penalty for going on offensive operations. I was thinking either a 1 week recovery time for the characters where they can't do any guild activity and/or a CAP penalty of 1/2 of the number of offensive CAPs used last week (round down). ETA: Another thing we can look at is reducing the cost of intercepts. Perhaps intercepts should only cost 1/2 of a CAP?
MindWandererB 09-06-06, 05:01 PM	I was thinking either a 1 week recovery time for the characters where they can't do any guild activity....Well, they already can't go on the same kind of operation again until someone else has done so first. CEF is in an interesting position now, because that can't send any of their assaulting characters on another assault until a different CEF character does an assault first. But I for one never had any illusions that CEF wouldn't crush anyone they wanted. With all those CAPs and so many powerful characters, the only hope would to not antagonize them. Too late for EHTC.
Zelck 09-06-06, 05:07 PM	But I for one never had any illusions that CEF wouldn't crush anyone they wanted. With all those CAPs and so many powerful characters, the only hope would to not antagonize them. Too late for EHTC. So... you find nothing wrong with the fact that if the CEF allies or collaborates with the PSI right now, the game ends in a few weeks?
TelinArtho 09-06-06, 05:18 PM	Well, as with any super power - it is entirely possible for the other guilds to ally with the EHTC in order to throw back the CEF oppression. While the EHTC might not have enough CAP to resist all of the offense against it - if PSI helps them out - then they have a good chance to withstand the majority of the offense against it. In other words - I don't think it is too likely for any of the guilds to be allied with CEF for any length of time - but it is more likely that the other guilds will help out each other against the CEF in order to simply survive (perhaps even purchasing such aid - if that's even possible). And don't underestimate the strength of an EL9 miniquest. Even a well-built level 10 character could be paired against something it wasn't expecting. It is definitely not a cakewalk (especially if I am the questlord...)
MindWandererB 09-06-06, 05:21 PM	First of all, that won't happen. Cat won't press that kind of advantage, I don't think. Second... yes, I do. But let's get one thing clear: the guild system is not meant to be fair. The more popular a guild is, especially among high-level and effective characters, the more powerful it is. This is intentional. And it means CEF will clean up. There are no two ways around it. Only severe error or willing resignation will prevent this result, and I expect neither of these things from Cat. As guildmaster of TLT, my goal is to survive. I would like to do that without kowtowing to CEF a a matter of pride, but I will if I have to. But I don't actually plan on winning, nor do I believe that to be a viable possibility. I'm going to do my best, of course, but all the other guilds are at a disadvantage from the get-go.
Zelck 09-06-06, 05:30 PM	Well, at this point, I really only see one option if a non-CEF guild wants to win. All other guilds collaborate and burns the CEF to the ground with 15+ operations next week. They have almost no chance of stopping that, and even if they do, they'll be dead the week after. If this doesn't happen, CEF wins. GG. Look, that's the kind of game the rules have set up right now. Ally, and burn opposing guilds to the ground in a couple weeks by overwhelming their CAPs. At that point, it might not even be a game; it's more like no-limit poker with no all-in protection. No matter what kind of hand the player with the most chips has, he wins. Just put them all in, and no other player can match that, so you win. Every hand. At this point, it's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of even having a playable game. What we currently have is not a very interesting game to play. So what if we limit the number of operations a guild can take each week? There isn't much to lose here. Maybe you don't care about fairness, but it does more than that; it fixes this broken game to something playable. That is a worthy reason for some rules changes, no? EDIT TO ADD: Cat won't press that kind of advantage, I don't think. He already has, to a very limited extent. And if he won't, then what's the harm of the rules changes? The CEF will still be on top. It just stops the pointless gang attacks that can happen under the current ruleset. There will still be risk to using operations, since a guild's limit is the base number of CAPs they generate each week. Use any, and the possibility that someone can slip by will happen. It just stops these stupid insta-kills.
Caterane 09-06-06, 05:48 PM	I have already talked to Zevox (EHTC Guildmaster) last week and assured him that the current assaults are roleplay-based only: the CEF, with its leaders missing, is currently led by Captain Mellios who is a soldier and always wanted the offensive path. Once Morathor finds the diplomat Deixanor, the CEF will stop this and establish peaceful contact. I surely don't want to destroy a guild! Not that early in the game. But I fully agree with what Zelck said. I could now add Uhmentarymster to gain a 6th CAP and a 7th ECL 10 character which would be just too much. The old system depended to little on characters, the new system too much. So we should find a compromise. Any ideas?
MindWandererB 09-06-06, 06:08 PM	Other than another near-total rebuild of the system? No, not really. And I disagree: the old guild also depended a lot on the characters. Not on their direct actions, but on their tax revenues. CEF beat out some of the other guilds' total income using their tax revenues alone, not counting their structure income. Here are some scattered thoughts. 1) To make a fair system, the amount of character-based resources each guild can put forward needs to be equalized. That means that a guild with more members will not have an advantage of any kind over a guild with fewer. A fixed amount of CAPs (say, 3 per guild) might help here, but not completely; for instance, if EYE wants to perform covert ops, they only have one character strong in that area, and they need at least two to alternate between. Also, say EYE sent out Saffron on a mission--they'd have no defense against an EL 10 assailant. 2) There has to be a system of checks and balances for ganging up. RP or no RP, TLT and CEF have both coincidentally attacked EHTC this week. If we had planned to do that intentionally, we could have made it even worse. I know Cat has said in the past that he'll use the CEF as a sort of U.N. representative to try to break up alliances, but what happens when the police become the aggressors (Iraq, anyone)? 3) For the game to be fair, there really need to be more equality. I look at what CEF and, say, TAO started with, and even without the use of characters, I see nothing resembling fairness. I'll also throw this out there: I enjoy being guildmaster a lot less now than I did before the reset. I used to be able to celebrate the arena victories of my guildmembers, now it doesn't matter unless it's a guild fight. I used to not worry about making a small mistake, because it wouldn't result in a huge increase in the chances that we'll be destroyed. I'm on tenterhooks here, because I don't want a judgment call I make to result in the end of the guild, and, as I predicted, the system is a lot more brutal now. I also don't like the way that the guild system is basically just a game of strategy between seven players, with other people only loosely involved. I know my vision of the guild system is very different from Cat's--I'd prefer a lot more flavor and a lot less conflict. Heck, in many ways I'd rather CEF just hurry up and win, so we can try something else.
Zelck 09-06-06, 07:20 PM	But I fully agree with what Zelck said. I could now add Uhmentarymster to gain a 6th CAP and a 7th ECL 10 character which would be just too much. The old system depended to little on characters, the new system too much. So we should find a compromise. Any ideas? Really simple compromise: no guild can have more operations thrown at it than the amount of CAPs it gains each week. For instance, CEF can be targeted with 5 operations, while PSI can get targeted with 3. The amount they actually have doesn't matter, so if PSI uses a CAP for something else, they still can have 3 ops sent at it. I'm not sure how it would work for targets belonging to allied guilds. Perhaps just if either of the guilds can take the op, it's OK. As for MWB's thoughts, perhaps in the next reset, we could try a repel-an-invasion type deal. Say, the drow and githyanki (or was it the githzerai?) are invading, and the guilds have to work together to stop it. Problem with this is it's tough to work arena victories into this, and there wouldn't be as much guild vs. guild stuff. One way around this is to have arena victories help the guild a little; maybe impliment morale (which doesn't decrease on losses, but maybe decays a bit) which increases the effectiveness of the guild's actions by a small %. Each arena win increases the guild's morale. It wouldn't have a huge effect on the actual thing, but every bit helps and it does give us a reason to celebrate. Also, there could be a leaderboard that would be for bragging rights only (kind of like Gimli and Legolas's orc-killing competition in LotR). The tough thing about this is there actually has to be a way for us to lose, or else the sense of urgency and excitement wouldn't be there. That means we need some people who can really play both sides, and to figure out what happens if we do lose. I would have suggested the morale thing for our current structure as well, but that might make the game even MORE cutthroat, which I'm sure is not what MWB wanted :).
MindWandererB 09-06-06, 07:36 PM	Actually, the morale thing would be subtle enough in our current system that I wouldn't be totally opposed to it. Perhaps a "morale pool," which is increased by +1 for every non-guild arena battle a guild member wins, which translates into a +1 bonus on the next guild action involving rolls and is then "used up." I like the idea of competitive cooperation for the next time 'round. There could be multiple factions with different ideals as to how to cope with the situation--one wants to face the army head on, one wants to assassinate leaders, one wants to bide their time and hold out while gathering information, one wants a diplomatic solution, one wants to surrender and hope they'll be forgiving, one wants to ally with them to conquer the world, and so on. Each faction would want the invading army to be stopped, of course, but they could sabotage the efforts of the other guilds, either because they don't believe in their ideology, they don't think it will work and may in fact compromise their position, or they don't want the same end result. Well, this is all just idle speculation for the moment--it would probably be better to raise this question later. As for a cap on how many times one guild can be attacked... I see two problems. One is communication--CEF and TLT did not conspire to attack EHTC simultaneously, but it happened anyway. Another is a reverse advantage, where it actually better to have fewer CAPs in some ways (although that one's not as big a concern). Another option: if a guild is the victim of more operations than they have total CAPs, they gain bonus CAPs that week equal to the difference. Perhaps they should even be allowed to double-book their characters (so a guild with only one ECL 9 character that is attacked by 3 ECL 10 operators can still attempt to resist).
Zelck 09-06-06, 07:59 PM	Actually, the morale thing would be subtle enough in our current system that I wouldn't be totally opposed to it. Perhaps a "morale pool," which is increased by +1 for every non-guild arena battle a guild member wins, which translates into a +1 bonus on the next guild action involving rolls and is then "used up." I like that idea, although I'm not the person to decide :). As for a cap on how many times one guild can be attacked... I see two problems. One is communication--CEF and TLT did not conspire to attack EHTC simultaneously, but it happened anyway. Another is a reverse advantage, where it actually better to have fewer CAPs in some ways (although that one's not as big a concern). Another option: if a guild is the victim of more operations than they have total CAPs, they gain bonus CAPs that week equal to the difference. Perhaps they should even be allowed to double-book their characters (so a guild with only one ECL 9 character that is attacked by 3 ECL 10 operators can still attempt to resist). Why not just have intercepts not take a CAP? If that means there'll be too many offensive operations, we could just change the formula a bit so we all get fewer CAPs. Or make it more difficult to perform multiple offensive ops (first one takes 1, second one takes 2, third one takes 3, etc.) I like the idea of competitive cooperation for the next time 'round. There could be multiple factions with different ideals as to how to cope with the situation--one wants to face the army head on, one wants to assassinate leaders, one wants to bide their time and hold out while gathering information, one wants a diplomatic solution, one wants to surrender and hope they'll be forgiving, one wants to ally with them to conquer the world, and so on. Each faction would want the invading army to be stopped, of course, but they could sabotage the efforts of the other guilds, either because they don't believe in their ideology, they don't think it will work and may in fact compromise their position, or they don't want the same end result. Alternatively, I was thinking that the invading force could be a huge threat with a legitimate shot at winning (although maybe the odds are with us). Think of it this way: (For the Americans: ) Beating the invasion would be like winning the Superbowl. It would be a team game, and everyone would contribute. The leaderboard would simply be a matter of stats, and who wins the MVP award. Still, the small details matter; the play of the offensive linemen is what gives the QB time to throw that touchdown, and that defensive tackle sucking up the block is what allows the linebacker to get to the running back and make that game-changing fourth and 1 stop. (For the rest of the world: ) Beating the invasion would be like winning the World Cup. It would be a team game, and everyone would contribute. The leaderboard would simply be a matter of stats, and who wins the Golden Ball award. Still, the small details matter; a defender may be what cuts off the angle just enough for another player to block the shot, and the play of the midfielders is what gets the ball to the scoring striker. (For everyone: ) So, every guild, no matter how small, would have a role. EYE may not be filled with studs, but they could be the ones who stop the invaders from drilling that secret tunnel into the city and save lots of lives and/or grief. The heavy hitters can occupy the officers of the main force, while the less powerful make surgical strikes, stop the enemy irregulars, quest for powerful artifacts, train troops, gather intelligence, etc. The problem with this is it would be very difficult to plan and implement. Still, it could be like an epic uberquest that everyone guilded would participate in. It could be a lot of fun if we do it right. Anyway, that's all talk of the future (although if we decide to do that, we may want to get an early start on it).
SauroGrenom 09-06-06, 08:14 PM	This most recent guild overhaul began because of me. I was playing as PSI Guildmaster and realized that all we had was a money race. Who could earn the most money fastest was the only lasting issue of importance. At that time members taxes provided a small fraction of the income for guilds. Member income basicialy took you far enough to build the first structure. Then even low level structures could earn so much money that it was instantly doubling the income of the guild. So the "winners" were those who got structures up first. The game would just continue in that vein for the forseable future. So it was time for a change. The discussion I had with Cat went far and wide. It took days to convince him that resetting wealth was a necessary idea to level the playing field. I was focused on making a much more even strategical position in the wealth game for all the guilds. I think this goal was accomplished reasonably well. I also wanted to put characters at the center of the guilds. Our previous incarnation had most of the opperations performed by regiments. The purpose of characters was only to provide wealth and perform a few special opperations. My idea was that all opperations would be performed by characters. This allows me as a guildmaster to encourage my members to create stealth builds or psionic Hitmen and allow them to put those abilities to use in a rich self crafted RP environment. The fact that your character is stealthy allows you to contribute to the guilds opperations. I think that fundamentally this is a good idea. In my opinion the characters need to be a critical asset and resource of a guild. They are what the guild is all about realy. Cat has different elements he wants to be a part of the guild rules. He certianly wants there to be an element of strategy and wargame in the guild rules. The possibility of "loosing" should be around to put some risk and conflict into the game. By looking at the rules you can see that the complicated structure rules and the regiment rules and the development rules and the 7 different types of "guild points" is clearly simular to a Warcraft type of game where there are resources, research, structures and units to build/develop. I think what we are up against is a two fold problem: First each individual wants something different from the guild system. I want an RP platform with an even economic competition arena. Cat wants a war game with complicated seige rules and structures and technology developments and opperations. Mindwanderer wants even the weaker guilds to stand a chance against the giants. I'm sure everyone has slightly different goals. So we need to build a system that satisfies everyone to some extent. Second we have the issue that our guild system has at least 4 "sides" of the battle. There is the economic battle where guildmasters spend GAP and build structures and keep accounting records of all that, then there is the opperation war where characters play a role in opperations attacking or defending against other guilds, then there is the technology war where guilds try to build counter measures or research developments, then there is the siege war where guilds build armies and fortresses. Of these we have only playtested the 1st for any length of time. We are currently in the middle of playtesting the opperations for the first time. So far we have about 4 or 5 weeks worth of opperations in the game and we are starting to see water come out the cracks. At least we know where the cracks are at now. So to make everyone happy and to have a balanced game that lasts for a while (perhaps indefinately) we should do several things. First I think we should look at our favorite rule system that we all know and love to play... D20 rules. Look at those rules criticially and decide what we all like. Then (lots of hand waving and magic stuff) we incorporate those aspects into our guild system and we playtest. We must do this one step at a time. Each new aspect should be playtested and then approved before we move on to another aspect of the game. We will slowly all learn the rules in stages as each aspect is added on. So now we need to discuss CAP and how many there are and how powerfull they are. I think CAP are necessary because we want to put charaters into the center of guild activities. CAP is a simple way to do that. Perhaps we should decrease the number of CAP. Say a guild has 1 CAP/ 40ECL instead of 1/20ECL. Allow all guilds to have at least 1 CAP (with 29ECL EYE still gets one CAP). This decreases the number of CAP in the game drasticially. Only CEF has 2 CAP. If PSI members gain a few more levels PSI can get 2 CAP as well. Even at this point an alliance between the two strongest guilds will not have enough CAP to quickly destroy weaker guilds without continous attacks every week and being highly vulnerable to another guild. Another thing that would put a stop to overt agression or the formation of alliances too powerfull is to build a neutral agressor guild. This guild attacks any guild who becomes too powerfull or any alliance that is too strong. So if CEF spends 4 CAP to assault EHTC, then they are attacked by the neutral guild sending 3 opperatives to burn down their fortress while the CEF attackers are out burning the EHTC headquarters. Another option is to borrow from D20 rules. In that rule system a 15th level rogue is not a fare fight for a 5th level cleric because the ECL is mis matched. So perhaps we can prevent such mis matches by introducing a "Guild ECL" that limits who a guild may opperate against. So PSI cannot pick on EYE anymore. In any case I think we need to change our approach a bit. So far we have been going with the "Grand Revealing" approach where Cat and 1 or 2 others work behind the scenes to build a system and reveals it completed to everyone else. This approach has built interesting products twice now, but both times the ship has begun to sink at some point. Let's just recognize the need to revise things as fact and move on with revisions now and with expectation of further revisions to come. (BTW I'd .like to see some parts of the current rules system go. It's way complicated, and I think it can be way more fun if we simplify it a bit. Cat himself has admitted that it is more time than expected to run the system, and none of us have started to build regiments or walls or siege or do all the other guild options. )
Zevox 09-06-06, 08:22 PM	Surprisingly, I'm not worried about the CEF's mass-raids this week. Why? You'll just have to wait and see :devil: . (Now Aerryl's raid, that worries me, but thats what we have unused CAPs for.) Of course, had these raids been to damage our Harbor (or worse, our headquarters), that would have been worrisome, but as Cat's stated that he doesn't intend to take any Guilds out that way I'm not overly worried it'll happen - for a while, at least. It seems everyone can agree though that the ability granted by such a huge number of CAPs to obliterate a Guild with mass operations is something that needs fixing. Heck, its not even something thats limited to the CEF - with 3 CAPs the EHTC could send Nell, Va'ria, and either Asran or Anixx (if most of them weren't preocupied with other Guild activities) after, say, the TAO's HQ and destroy them in a matter of a few weeks, perhaps a month, or longer if they put all of thier resources into repairing the damage. Or we could bring down thier University in less time, leaving them with scant income so they fall so far behind they're essentially out of the game (I have no intentions of doing either, but this is an observation worth mentioning). The same can be said for PSI, with 3 CAPs and 4 ECL 10s plus an ECL 9 at thier disposal. And once either Guild gets a fourth CAP that only gets worse. In theory, I like Zelck's suggestion of only getting as many actions used against you in any given week as you have CAPs. The only real problem I can see is if multiple guilds' operations accidentally coincide, though that would be a considerable problem. Granting bonus reactionary CAPs wouldn't fix that unless the Guild has the members to spare to use them, so unless they're permitted to double or triple them up as MWB suggested it doesn't help. Maybe a flat-out cap on how many CAPs any Guild can have? It seems that having that many CAPs is in its own right overpowering, regardless of whether they can be countered, since each Guild only has so many members to defend with, and they may be on other activities. Perhaps a limit based on the total number of characters or ECLs in all guilds, or a flat limit of somewhere between 2 and 4 to start with until the Guilds grow either more populous overall or fewer in number? I'll also throw this out there: I enjoy being guildmaster a lot less now than I did before the reset. I won't say I quite agree myself, but I'm close. Its definitely annoying to realize that, in spite of the fact that I feel this Guild system has the potential to be a lot more fun than the old one, the fact that one Guild pretty much holds the fates of all the rest in its hands right from the get-go. Keeping the old Guild heirarchy to start with was probably a bad idea (as opposed to, say, giving every Guild the same amount of money at the start - the average from the old system), but even with that its simply a fact that the most popular Guild, which for whatever reason is at the moment the CEF, will always have a big edge over the others. Zevox
Zelck 09-06-06, 08:34 PM	In theory, I like Zelck's suggestion of only getting as many actions used against you in any given week as you have CAPs. The only real problem I can see is if multiple guilds' operations accidentally coincide, though that would be a considerable problem. Granting bonus reactionary CAPs wouldn't fix that unless the Guild has the members to spare to use them, so unless they're permitted to double or triple them up as MWB suggested it doesn't help. Under my proposed system, if multiple guilds' ops coincide, then the max number of ops still remains. We just pick the N highest level attackers, and the rest get regular arena fights (CAPs are refunded). There could be a disincentive to building up CAPs, but the options afforded with multiple CAPs along with people leveling naturally should get around that. I think. Doubling up or tripling up could be more confusing. I still don't know how that works with respect to the 3FC :). By the way, while the "Grand Revealing" idea may be good for design, we may still want to go through some kind of open beta testing before we release everything. By this, I mean examination, not actual testing. So, what if we could get some kind of stickied "Sneak Preview" thread that gives out the basic premise of what you're developing, and then we could add a "Sneak Preview Comments and Suggestions". When it comes to design, too many minds will just muddle things up, but when it comes to examining the product, you can't get enough :). Releasing it all at once makes it hard to understand and thus find the flaws, so if we can follow the dev process as it's going along, that might help root out the issues sooner.
MindWandererB 09-06-06, 08:41 PM	I think what we are up against is a two fold problem:There's a lot of overlap between those two problems. A system where both regiments and character can come into direct conflict is part of both systems. The regiments require so much investment that it's very slow to set them up in comparison with the money it's been possible to make. I think it will happen sooner with the current system, but it's quite possible that one or more guilds won't even last that long. Although I disagree with your four-fold assessment (I don't think technology is an individual component--it just affects the others), I do agree that there are too many things going on. It might be best if one of those things were to go. The current system could easily have the regiments taken out--although I was kind of looking forward to them (a guild with a strong economic base could be a viable force even with weaker and fewer PCs). The characters simple can't be removed. The only other option would be to remove the economic aspect. And yes, this is quite possible. Do the guilds really need a money system? I think it could be taken out entirely. Regiments could be recruited and upgraded via character action directly, without money as an intermediary. For instance, a miniquest could be used to recruit a regiment, at an EL dependent on the strength of the unit. It would be a little complicated to develop, but it could result in the elimination of the vast majority of the guild rules, while retaining most of the desired factors. That would be a much simpler system. Perhaps we should decrease the number of CAP.I don't think so. That would mean that taking any kind of action would leave you vulnerable to attack. I think most guilds would rather save their CAP to defend themselves than risk attack--except CEF and PSI, who could attack all the time without risk. It would basically be like a Wild West duel, where whoever draws first either wins or opens themselves up to instant defeat. Another thing that would put a stop to overt agression or the formation of alliances too powerfull is to build a neutral agressor guild.Then no one would be able to win. Whoever gains an advantage has it cancelled out. That eliminates all incentive to excel. So perhaps we can prevent such mis matches by introducing a "Guild ECL" that limits who a guild may opperate against.That would be darn hard to implement, and eliminate a lot of the RP. PSI and EYE are rivals, but PSI has to attack someone else just because EYE is too weak? It makes no sense. Kind of feels like a game of Mario Kart (or more aptly, Chocobo Racing), where you can only attack the person immediately in front of you (or behind you, sometimes). I think matching ECL on a conflict level would be more appropriate than matching on a guild level.
NiQil 09-06-06, 09:32 PM	An idea I thought I would toss out here with regard to CAPs... Those of you that play fantasy sports (football, baseball, basketball, etc) will probably be very familiar with what I am about to propose (standard fantasy waiver wire process). Basically, you have CAPs go through in the reverse order of guild rank, from least powerful to most powerful (determined by whatever method you wish) to go along with the limit of only having a number of CAPs against a guild equal to the number of CAPs they have. So for instance, say this week EYE is low man. Their CAPs would get first priority. They get their caps, and then it falls to the next guild....we'll use TAO as the next guild in this example. So say, EYE has two caps, and uses both of them in assaults against TLT, who also has two CAPs, thus meeting the limit of CAPs that TLT can have against it. TAO then comes next, and they also have two CAPs. They wanted one of theirs to also go against TLT, but since TLT has reached it's limit they must change the CAP to something else (or forfeit it, depending on which you prefer in the system). The following week, the ranks are reset, and this time TAO is low man, EYE is next, followed by TLT. This time, TAO goes first, gets their CAPs, and then EYE goes. If TAO has put another guild at their limit with their CAPs, and EYE has one that was going to the same place, well then this week EYE has to change (or lose) it. Basically you are giving CAP priority to the low guild to the high guild to go along with the limit idea that Zelck has.
Erithmu 09-06-06, 09:46 PM	Fundamentally I like the idea of the guild system. I wish I had a few more members to get some RP in as I'm a little better at that than the administration. I love the emphasis on the characters as that is what still keeps me involved. Granted if the administration was removed it would be difficult to determine who wins. (Note: I'm not saying get rid of the gold) The only thing I can think might be some type of system where smaller guilds have an advantage against raids. As the buildings are more compact there are fewer places to hide on the way to doing whatever needs to be done. I'm not sure how exactly this would work, but EYE is at 5 members (2 of which are MIA, and have been sent PMs, so we really have 3) So since they are a tight knit group they should be able to better defend their home. From a RP perspective I don't see the point in regiments if the focus is supposed to be on the characters. While we can have full blown fights in the streets, in truth the Neutral Council of Gladius would probably step in and disband the guilds and regiments unless a guild could take over the Council. I don't say much here as the CoCo is a hobby more than a thing that I feel I have to do. I run a guild for the sole purpose of having a place to RP, but I find that I RP in other guilds more than I do my own. I think that is more telling than anything else. I know that some people are guildmasters due to their love of the guild: (Cat/Uther(when Virgo was in charge)/Zevox is getting up there w/ Asran's success/and Vath) I do think that there needs to be some neutral ground as to the number of CAP's/GAP's are available. I think a move to 1/40 is a good start, perhaps there is a limit to the number of GAP's based upon the number of living quarters (Basic +.5, Fancy +.75, High level room +1, Epic + 1.25) You could go with a .5, 1, 1.5, 2 under those rules (CEF would have 2 under the first and 2.5 under the second, rounding ... not sure) I like Niqil's idea but I question how well it would work if CAPs get refunded and the guild would like to use them in response selecting different targets. As for the defense issue I agree with the idea of having no limit on CAPs to defend. In reality are you not going to defend your home simply because the council told you so. I think a generic guild defense map should also be put into works. The guild map could open up some options to allow for varing ECL's. The map could (should) be skewed toward the defender to make Operations more difficult. I understand that this will cause some disagreement but I think that if your going to defend your home then you do it on your terms, and on familiar ground. The operator could choose the conditions of the attack (time, daylight conditions, be given choice of start location from a large area. Or set up a set of random conditions such as fog, cloud cover, moonlight, Wind, Rain, etc etc) Most of this is comming off the top of my head, and is probably going a little further than what the CoCo is capable of implementing at this time. I don't claim to have answers at the moment, and I honestly don't have the time to think about it being in a masters program, but I figured I would put in my 2cp considering I'm a guildmaster.
Stormwind 09-07-06, 03:45 AM	There are a great many good points about the current system, and while it might need tweaking to be a more fun game, lets not throw away all the hard work that has made the system what it is. I am not saying that it is perfect, rather that people should be looking for solutions for whatever problems they find. A couple of points: 1) The CAP disparity problem: Problem: With large numbers of CAP's it is much easier to focus operations on a single guild and thus destroy it. Solution: Each guild has a fixed number of CAP's (I suggest 2). Effect: The membership of a guild has less direct effect on operations that a guild can perform, however more guildmembers gives a guild more flexibility in which operation it can perform. 2) The operation switching problem: Problem: Guilds with small numbers of members are limited in what operations they can do due to the requirement of a single guildmember not being able to do the same type of mission twice in a row. On the other hand, larger guilds do not suffer this problem. This makes it harder for small guilds to do stuff. Solution: Remove the requirement. Effect: We might see guild specialised builds, focused on certain operations. (I don't see this as a problem) 3) The DEF problem: Problem: With a few guard posts a guild can effectively become immune to certain types of operations. Solution: Replace the formula (PR-DEF) with the formula (PR/(DEF+1000))*PR. Effect: If a guild has less defense, then it is an easy target, however the more defense you have, the smaller the effect of a successful operation will be. There are also a few things that I haven't seen mentioned that are particulary good things about the system. I'll just mention one of them that I find very positive. 1) The attitude disparity: Effect: The lower level an operator is, the less a change in attitude will have a major effect. For example say Sdentch performs an assault against CEF. This will reduce CEF's attitude towards WAR by 500 attitude. A level 4 character with the same PR, doing the same operation, would only reduce CEF's attitude towards WAR by 80 attitude. This means the from the guild's perspective it is less damaging to inter-guild relations to send low level character on operations. Storm
Abyssal Stalker 09-07-06, 05:23 AM	I'm not quite familiar with the current guild rules, but I'll give a shot. Is it allowed to intercept other guild's operations if they are not targeted to you? Now we have CEF and TLT attacking EHTC with 5 characters. EHTC can counter 3 of them. This could be the time when EHTC's allies (PSI) could step in and counter the remaining 2 operatives. Is this allowed by the current rules? If not, then IMO it should be!
Stormwind 09-07-06, 05:40 AM	Yes it is allowed to intercept operations that are targetted on another guild.
Caterane 09-07-06, 06:16 AM	@Stromwind: Great suggestions. I like the fixed CAP idea and it would open the possibility of a CAP Mainhall-like room. Your formula however confuses me a bit. Let's say, the Harvester (~2000 PR) goes against a guild with only one Guard Post (250 DEF). According to your formula I now do much more damage than my PR. 2000 / 1250 = 1.6 1.6 * 2000 = 3200 Is this intended? Well, the Harvester wouldn't join a guild but Uhme, Merman, Leif all have around 2000 points and one character dishing out 3200 damage is a big ouch. A formula that gradually decreases the effiency of DEF points is a good approach though. I'm just not a mathematican. @all: please don't mistake this as a discussion to fundamentally change the system. Most of it is good and as we've seen is greatly encouraging roleplaying. We just need some minor fixes to the current CAP and DEF problems. Proposals like removing money, regiments, or similar things ask for a completely new system which is not necessary.
Caterane 09-07-06, 06:18 AM	I'm not quite familiar with the current guild rules, but I'll give a shot. Is it allowed to intercept other guild's operations if they are not targeted to you? Now we have CEF and TLT attacking EHTC with 5 characters. EHTC can counter 3 of them. This could be the time when EHTC's allies (PSI) could step in and counter the remaining 2 operatives. Is this allowed by the current rules? If not, then IMO it should be! It's possible but you need an alliance for that. An Alliance must be researched first then the attitudes must match and be fanatic.
Stormwind 09-07-06, 07:10 AM	@Stromwind: Great suggestions. I like the fixed CAP idea and it would open the possibility of a CAP Mainhall-like room. Your formula however confuses me a bit. Let's say, the Harvester (~2000 PR) goes against a guild with only one Guard Post (250 DEF). According to your formula I now do much more damage than my PR. 2000 / 1250 = 1.6 1.6 * 2000 = 3200 Is this intended? Well, the Harvester wouldn't join a guild but Uhme, Merman, Leif all have around 2000 points and one character dishing out 3200 damage is a big ouch. A formula that gradually decreases the effiency of DEF points is a good approach though. I'm just not a mathematican. @all: please don't mistake this as a discussion to fundamentally change the system. Most of it is good and as we've seen is greatly encouraging roleplaying. We just need some minor fixes to the current CAP and DEF problems. Proposals like removing money, regiments, or similar things ask for a completely new system which is not necessary. The DEF formula was targetted around an average character (PR=1000) such that against a guild with only a single guard post, an average character would do 80% of it's PR in 'damage'. If you are concerned about great reknown characters doing too much damage, I would actually suggest multiplying the ratio against a fixed PR. For example (PR/(DEF+1000))*1000 This then calculates a ratio PR/(DEF+1000) and multiplies it by the average PR (which is 1000). Then consider the following: A character attacks a headquarter with a single guard post. (PR/(250+1000))*1000 A failure character (PR=500) would do 40% of an average PR in damage (400 damage) The average character (PR=1000) would do 80% of an average PR in damage (800 damage). The Harvester (PR=2000) would do 160% of an average PR in damage (1600 damage). If the guild in question then buys 3 more guard posts. (PR/(1000+1000))*1000 A failure character (PR=500) would do 25% of an average PR in damage (250 damage) The average character would be doing 50% of an average PR in damage (500 damage) The Harvester would only be doing 100% of an average PR in damage (1000 damage). If the guild in question buys a total of 8 guard posts. (PR/(2000+1000))*1000 A failure character (PR=500) would do 16.7% of an average PR in damage (167 damage) The average character would be doing 33.3% of an average PR in damage (333 damage) The Harvester would only be doing 66.7% of an average PR in damage (667 damage). This then still allows guard posts to be useful, yet they do not grant immunity from operation even against a failure character.
Abyssal Stalker 09-07-06, 07:40 AM	It's possible but you need an alliance for that. An Alliance must be researched first then the attitudes must match and be fanatic. This feels quite strict. You CAN attack a guild you are friendly with, but you CAN'T help them?
Zevox 09-07-06, 02:38 PM	I'd support Storm's suggestions. Certainly giving Guilds a set number of CAPs would solve the problem, and as Cat said some buildings could be introduced to increase them later (though I'd suggest not more than additional 2). Edit: If this is implemented though, the cost for launching missions should probably be reduced back to 1 GAP, else any given Guild has to use all of its weekly GAPs to launch one until they build the new structure(s). Lifting the restriction on characters going on operations more than once in a row seems like a fine idea to me too. That was originally put in place back when covert ops were a lot more powerful in the old system, and it seems that its unecessary in the new one unless we really need to flavor purpose of not being able to claim to be good at any specific type of operation with just one good operator. And that formula for operations and damage seems pretty well-balanced, with the defense points definitely being helpful but there being no way to get immunity to operations from them. All good suggestions from where I'm sitting. Zevox
MindWandererB 09-07-06, 02:51 PM	It's possible but you need an alliance for that. An Alliance must be researched first then the attitudes must match and be fanatic. Also odd: you can improve relations with a guild by sending agents to help them--but you can't unless you're already at Fanatic? What's the point? ...and actually, by my reading of the rules, you only need a Defense Agreement (requires "helpful") to request one CAP reaction a week on your behalf. Unfortunately, the mechanic described is impossible--you need to send a messenger to deliver the request, but you can't send messengers as a reaction, only as an action, so that they can be intercepted. So this is a paradox. It also seems odd that you can intercept a character who isn't targeting any guild at all (like delivering a mesage), but not one who is going after a guild you want to protect.
Zelck 09-07-06, 02:54 PM	I think the proposed DEF formula scales a bit too quickly. Reducing a normal 1000 power op to 33% effectiveness is REALLY good. How bout PR/(DEF/2+1000)*1000? Basically, the DEF points is halved going into the equation.
Stormwind 09-07-06, 03:13 PM	I think the proposed DEF formula scales a bit too quickly. Reducing a normal 1000 power op to 33% effectiveness is REALLY good. How bout PR/(DEF/2+1000)*1000? Basically, the DEF points is halved going into the equation. It is worth noting that reducing the 1000 damage to 33% would require 8 guard posts costing 8000gp and 8SS. The 8SS means that the headquarters has very little space to build anything else, and thus is a significant expediture of Structure Spaces. This should produce a decent reduction in damage.
TelinArtho 09-07-06, 05:45 PM	I only really have one complaint with the current system - and this is mostly because I only have limited contact with it. Auburn and Sdentch have been "ready" for a quest to finish up the Denth temple destruction for a while now. However, since the guild system was starting they decided to do it as a guild quest to help strengthen the relations between WAR and TAO. However, it is now 1 month + since we should have started... Not really a big deal - but if someone now intercepts that mission successfully - it gets to wait even longer. For something that isn't supposed to interact with the regular arena - it has inroads to it in other ways. Like the fact that Sdentch was involved in an operation - so she starts the mission in week 2 of a cycle... I also recognize the disparity in the "fairness" of the guilds - but I'm not involved enough to propose ideas on rectifying it (though Stormwind certainly has proposed ideas that I agree with).
TheMagister 09-08-06, 12:27 AM	I would like to note that Sdentch used up all those items not really understanding that she wouldn't get them back in time for the quest. The quest is MUCH more important to me than the operation (which was basically a HUGE long shot vs. Va'ria the Will Save Destroyer). TM
Caterane 09-09-06, 05:16 AM	@Guildmasters: The contest of PSI is valid and can be hosted. However, I don't want to see a contest every week so I decided to restrict it to once every 4 weeks.
Usurpator 09-09-06, 07:11 AM	I think SauroGrenom's post was very well thought out. The guild system is trying to be many things at once, and fullfill several goals at once, it is trying to be a very complicated game too, with its own set of rules, and it is attempting this without playtesting, and apparently without a clear design philospophy. It's like programming a complicated piece of software for a client that has different (often incompatible) goals. Its bound to be full of bugs. I saw a lot of good solutions to the current problems. Also, Cat does his best to shore up the weaknesses working within the system as head of the CEF. It seems everyone is comitted to make it work, which is commendable, but unless the fundamental problems are adressed, I fear we will see continual adjustments of rules and helping weaker members to prevent the collapse of the Guild Wars game. It's almost a year since the first rules draft, and it seems time the fundamental issues needs to be adressed. I'll give another shot proposing an alternative design, but whatever the result, it cannot be a turn-based strategic wargame, a character-based D&D like game and a RP vehicle all at the same time without lots of playtesting and a very solid design philosophy and rules system.
MindWandererB 09-10-06, 03:00 AM	Question: can a character who is already participating in a CAP participate in the Contest as well? It's not a fight, so I don't know if it's necessarily a conflict. Also: the same character can't participate in the same type of operation twice in a row. The way it's written, it suggests that characters who participated in the first contest can't do another until their guild sends someone else to do a peaceful mission of some kind. (Except for the champ, of course.) Is this intended?
Abyssal Stalker 09-12-06, 12:42 AM	OK, here's something new for conversation. This has been under work for a long time now, but I finally managed to put something together. The subject is the feat Improved Familiar. The bolded part clearly says that other creatures are also available. I created a list containing the potential creatures. I have used the guidelines of the list in the SRD. The following is a list of all creatures with less than 4HD and a CR below 4. I have limited the size into small, because that's the biggest creature on the original list. Humanoids and monstrous humanoids have been left out. It doesn't make sense to have a goblin familiar. For comparision, I've also listed the creatures mentioned in the SRD. Normal: Bat 1/4HD CR1/10, Blindsense Cat 1/2HD CR1/4 Hawk 1HD CR1/3 Lizard 1/2HD CR1/6 Owl 1HD CR1/4 Rat 1/4HD CR1/8 Raven 1/4HD CR1/6 Snake, tiny viper 1/4HD CR1/3, Poison Toad 1/4HD CR1/10 Weasel 1/2HD CR1/4, Attach Improved Familiar list: Shocker Lizard 2HD CR2, Stunning Shock Stirge 1HD CR1/2, Attach, Blood Drain Formian Worker 1HD CR1/2, Lawful Natural Attack Imp 3HD CR2, Evil and Lawful Natural Attack, Poison, Spell-like Abilities, Alternate Form Pseudodragon 2HD CR1, Poison, Blindsense, Telepathy Quasit 3HD CR2, Chaotic and Evil Natural Attack, Poison, Spell-like Abilities, Alternate Form Fiendish Familiar HD? CR?, Smite Good, Magical Natural Attack Celestial Familiar HD? CR?, Smite Evil, Magical Natural Attack Homunculus 2HD CR1, Poison Mephit, Any 3HD CR3, Breath Weapon, Spell-like Abilities, Summon Mephit, Magical Natural Attack Elemental, Any Small 2HD CR1, Elemental Mastery, Special Attacks Suggestions: Animated Object, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1, Special Attacks Archon, Lantern 1HD CR2, Aura of Menace, Light Ray, Spell-like Abilities Arrowhawk, Juvenile 3HD CR3, Electricity Ray Choker 3HD CR2, Constrict, Improved Grab, Quickness Darkmantle 1HD, CR1, Darkness, Improved Grab, Constrict, Blindsight Dretch 2HD CR2, Chaotic and Evil Natural Attack, Spell-like Abilities, Summon, Telepathy Dire Rat 1HD CR1/3, Disease Magmin 2HD CR3, Combustion, Fiery Aura, Melt Weapons, Magical Natural Attack Sprite, Grig 1/2HD CR1, Spell-like Abilities, Fiddle Sprite, Nixie 1HD CR1, Charm Person Tojanida, Juvenile 3HD CR3, Improved Grab, Ink Cloud Vargouille 1HD CR2, Shriek, Kiss, Poison Xorn, Minor 3HD CR3 Badger 1HD CR1/2, Rage Dog 1HD CR1/3 Eagle 1HD CR1/2 Monkey 1HD CR1/6 Octopus 2HD CR1, Improved Grab, Ink Cloud Snake, Small Viper 1HD CR1/2, Poison Giant Fire Beetle 1HD CR1/3 Monstrous Centipede, Tiny/Small 1/2HD CR1/4, Poison Monstrous Scorpion, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1/2, Constrict, Improved Grab, Poison Monstorus Spider, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1/2, Poison, Web Astral Constuct, Small 1HDCR1/2, Special Attack Brain Mole 1HD CR1/2, Cascade Flu, Psi-like Abilities Puppeteer 1/4HD CR1, Blindsight, Telepathy, Enthrall, Psi-like Abilities Puppeteer, Flesh Harrower 3HD CR2, Blindsight, Telepathy, Enthrall, Psi-like Abilities OK, this is the easy part. There might be something missing, but this is just a draft. The hard thing is to decide the CL needed for the familiar. A guideline seems to be CL3 for 1HD creatures, CL5 for 2HD creatures and CL7 for 3HD creatures. Allthough this isn't waterproof, because the Homunculus has a CL requirement of 7 and only 2HD - but on the other hand it's summoning requires special procedures. So, any ideas? :bump:
Caterane 09-14-06, 04:26 AM	I make it short this time (well I try to lol) We go with Stormwind's suggestions: 1. (PR/(DEF+1000))*1000 will be the new formula to calculate damage. 2. Every guild has a fixed 2 CAPs. I'll add a room later that increases CAPs. These simple fixes help to get the system back on track. I didn't use any CAPs with the CEF this week for that reason. Effective from next wednesday on.
lonewolf 09-14-06, 04:37 AM	I make it short this time (well I try to lol) We go with Stormwind's suggestions: 1. (PR/(DEF+1000))*1000 will be the new formula to calculate damage. 2. Every guild has a fixed 2 CAPs. I'll add a room later that increases CAPs. These simple fixes help to get the system back on track. I didn't use any CAPs with the CEF this week for that reason. Effective from next wednesday on. With 2 fixed CAPs, I suggest lowering the CAP requirement for missions back to 1. Otherwise we will see only VERY few missions.
Caterane 09-14-06, 05:27 AM	Later yes but we currently have a pitlord problem and I don't want to divert ressources until this has improved.
MindWandererB 09-14-06, 01:57 PM	We can always increase CAPs globally if guild sizes increase overall. For now, if guilds want to do missions and still be able to do reactive CAPs, they can convert a GAP. Remember to make the CAP room cheaper than the Main Hall, since the GAP can be converted into a CAP. Although I do worry about this--a successful guild will be able to have perhaps 3 GAPs and 4 CAPs, and could convert the former into the latter... an unsucessful guild may not be able to respond to that. At least that kind of advantage has to be earned.
Caterane 09-16-06, 07:19 AM	I agree. We should leave such a room out for now. With 2 CAPs guilds can do damage to each other but it's not an instant kill within 2 weeks. It also makes regiments unavoidable.
SauroGrenom 09-16-06, 08:37 PM	The subject is the feat Improved Familiar. The bolded part clearly says that other creatures are also available. I created a list containing the potential creatures. I have used the guidelines of the list in the SRD. The following is a list of all creatures with less than 4HD and a CR below 4. I have limited the size into small, because that's the biggest creature on the original list. Humanoids and monstrous humanoids have been left out. It doesn't make sense to have a goblin familiar. For comparision, I've also listed the creatures mentioned in the SRD. Alright, I recall having discussed this at some point in the past, but let me recap. This is a total house rule. Also it's not balance related. So it will be realy hard to sell it to Cat as necessary. Given that it's a cool idea. There are some creatures on your list that are definate no. Anything with a LA are no go. Also anything which is created by a spell effect of limited durration is a no. That removes Sprites and Grig and Animated Objects and Astral Construct. That being said, I see nothing left on the list that is highly overpowered. In a home campaign, I'd allow you to make a case for a special improved familiar. I'd require it to be somehow related to your character and its history. But I may allowe it in some cases. If you realy want this, you'll have to propose it to Cat directly and argue against all the nay sayers.
MindWandererB 09-19-06, 01:04 AM	Random observation: the ELs of intercepting trade routes are disproportionately high. Stealing 1000 gold from an EL 9 battle is not comparable to stealing as much as 150 gold from an EL 10 battle. That's just silly. I'm thinking that intercepting trade routes could be something that lower-ECL characters might be able to do.
Caterane 09-19-06, 09:19 AM	@MW: Good point and good idea. Suggestions? I don't see, however, how that's related to Improved Familiars :P
MindWandererB 09-19-06, 05:34 PM	Didn's say it was. Ergo, "random observation." Let's see... the closest analogy is the Raid Structure mission. That's in the realm of 1000 gp for EL 9, 800 GP for EL 6, 600 for EL 3, and 400 for EL 0. So trade routes, at 100-150 gp (or other points) should really be at EL 0--in other words, an auto-success unless intercepted. A more industrious solution might be to re-scale the structure raid--1000 gp is a huge sum for an EL 9 MQ (compared to the ~600-700 you get for an HQ raid). Perhaps an EL of (goods/50) for trade routes (i.e. EL 1-3), and scale up from there for the structures (perhaps EL 2 + level*3, or EL 5, 8, 11, and 14 respectively). That might accomodate the high ECLs, post Iron Man, a little better. It's also more comparable to HQ raids (as it stands, you should almost never do an HQ raid when you can do a structure raid instead). I try to stay out of discussions like the Improved Familiars one. I don't have strong opinions in this case anyway. I'll raise objections if something I disagree with is proposed.
Caterane 09-19-06, 06:06 PM	Hm, I have to check that again when I have more time. Speaking of which, I'm looking for someone who could run the Guildlords account. At least for some weeks and perhaps longer, if he likes. Is there anyone interested? You need a good knowledge of the guild rules and most importantly, you must be reliable! Timely and clear postings are essential. It is worth 1° a week. @MW: You'd be my favorite guildlord :)
MindWandererB 09-19-06, 06:29 PM	Well, if you think so, I'd be happy to. I think I have a pretty good handle on the system at this point, but there may be a need for some frantic communication at times--if I refrain from opening the GAP/CAP messages until D-Day, I won't know whether there are any oddities until that time. But I suppose that would be true for anyone.
Caterane 09-20-06, 07:47 AM	Changed the rules for trade route raid ELs a bit: Trade Route: The region delivers the ressource to your guildhall. However, until it arrives at your gates, it is vulnerable to piracy (ship only), highwaymen (land only), and rival guilds. Your trade partner protects the shipment depending on the contract: the EL of the transport is "Ressource Amount divided by 30" (rounded down). For example, the EYEs agreement mentioned above would be shipped with an EL 5 escort. In any case, the EL miniquest is always at least as high as the ECL of the character! That allows low level PCs to shine here. ECL 3 teams, ECL 4 w/surprise round or ECL 5 PCs are now those who raid trade routes.
Zelck 09-21-06, 09:57 PM	There's a few things that's been bugging me. First, there're the useless skills: Decipher Script, Survival, and Use Rope (for the most part). I'm not exactly sure how we can implement Decipher Script, but Survival and Use Rope can be made more useful by adding a "Capture" operation. If your Survival and Use Rope scores are at least as high as your opponent's ECL plus, say, Dexterity, you can basically attack someone from another guild, and if successful, imprison him/her. Second, it seems like allies are almost required to compete successfully at higher levels. Now, I accept that they're here to stay. However, I think there are some more things that could be done to balance them out. First, we can give the non-ally user a surprise round. Adding allies basically makes raises that team's CR by 1, and a surprise round is what's handed out for being 1 under the opponents' CR in the matched encounters table. This wouldn't apply for class allies, of course. Second, we could make Intimidate better. As it stands now, Intimidate is way too situational and requires a lot of resources. It doesn't work against fearless opponents, nor does it work against animals. That's a huge portion of the ally population right there. Sadly, its most frequent usage would probably be on familiars. Additionally, it really doesn't have a huge effect (especially on large maps) unless you beat the level check by a whopping 10. That almost necessitates a Crystal Mask of Dread (if you're not small or medium, you must spend credits). For those reasons, I propose we change it like this: As a Free Activity, you can use your Intimidate skill to make your opponents less inclined to bring their allies. Your Intimidate value must be at least as high as (Opponent ECL + Opponent Wisdom) to affect him or her (called Level Check). The amount you pass this level check by is the amount by which your opponent's ECL is reduced by for the purposes of his ally cap and reward penalty. All now-illegal non-mercenary allies must be left behind. If multiple allies were to be brought, the allies with the highest CA are affected first. If multiple allies tie for CA, then the master gets to decide between those. The master does not have to tell anyone which allies s/he's keeping until s/he sends in his/her tactics. Mercenaries are never left behind in this way, even if their CA is over the adjusted ECL-4. However, their CAs are still factored into which other allies must be left behind. Stated another way, mercenaries can never be left behind due to the use of Intimidate, but it can force the master to leave other allies behind in the attempt to get under the CA cap. A mercenary cannot raise the fighter's reward penalty to above 25%. See the examples for more detail. You may only bring class allies and mercenaries when you use this free action. Examples: Suppose Bob has a total Intimidate score of 7. This week, his opponent, Tom, is ECL5, has a wisdom mod of +1, and is bringing a Heavy Warhorse. Bob intimidates Tom and passes the level check by 1. After being intimidated, Tom has an ECL of 4 for the purposes of ally calculations. Tom can no longer bring his Heavy Warhorse since its CA of 2 is higher than his ECL - 4. He suffers no reward penalty, since he's no longer bringing any allies. The next week, his opponent, Sue, is ECL5, has a wisdom mod of 0, and is bringing three CA 1 allies. Bob intimidates Sue and passes the level check by 2. Sue can now only bring one of the three allies into the fight. Since all of the allies have equal CA, Sue gets to choose which one comes with her. She does not have to tell Bob who she's bringing. However, her reward penalty is -25% as her ECL for the purposes of calculating ally reward penalties has been reduced to 3. The week after that, Bob is facing Nick. Nick is an ECL 6 wizard with a wisdom mod of 0. He's bringing his familiar, two CA 1 ally, a CA 2 ally. Bob passes his level check by 1, reducing Nick's effective ECL to 5. Nick's familiar isn't affected because its a class ally, but Nick can no longer bring his CA 2 ally (it has the highest CA). His reward penalty is now (2/3*25)=16.67%. Afterwards, Bob fights Ted. Ted is ECL 6, has a wisdom mod of -2, and is bringing two CA 1 ally and a CA 2 mercenary. Bob passes the level check by 3, reducing Ted's ECL to 3. Ted's new total CA cap is 2. However, he cannot choose to leave the mercenary behind (the fact that its CA is over Ted's ECL-4 doesn't matter), so both the CA 1 allies must be left behind. Ted's reward penalty is still 25% (3/2*25 = 37.5, capped at 25). This has a few benefits over its current version. First, it leaves class allies alone. However, it now affects a much wider array of allies, including animals and mindless ones. It also affects masters and creatures that're immune to fear so it can't simply be circumvented at higher levels by having vendors cast Mind Blank every 3FC. Finally, it no longer requires a +skills item to be worthwhile, although having one can certainly help. I hope these ideas are interesting, and if implemented, make the boards a lot funner :). EDIT: Added the limited allies while using Intimidate clause to increase balance. Also excluded mercenaries from Intimidate so it won't mess with guild encounters with uneven ECLs.
McJarvis 09-22-06, 12:06 AM	I'm not exactly sure how we can implement Decipher Script At the very least it is already a synergy for Use Magic Device.
Zelck 09-22-06, 01:02 PM	At the very least it is already a synergy for Use Magic Device. Yea, but that's only 5 points. Nothing requires anything more than that.
False_Keraptis 09-25-06, 08:44 PM	I move that the council open discussions on limiting the improved grapple warhorse. I posted this to the tavern a few days ago: Perhaps it's not my place, as I've only been here a short time, but I want to get something off my chest. I think something should be done about the improved grapple horses running amok in the coliseum. This strategy is overwhelmingly powerful at low levels and it bears very little relation to actual D&D character optimization, plus it's an extremely inane image. I can understand why the elders don't want to create a list of which feats are allowable for which creatures, but it seems to me that 90% of the problem could be solved by disallowing custom feats on purchased allies. I think most people would agree that any good this house rule does is outweighed by the menace of the improved grapple warhorse. Please understand, I don't wish to criticize any player who chooses to use improved grapple horses; you've chosen an effective and perfectly legal strategy, which is what arena combat is all about. The current regime of informal pressure against those who pick this strategy is untenable when a simple change to a non-core house rule would solve the problem. Grappling horses delenda est! Zevox replied with some good suggestions: Well, I wouldn't quite say they're running amok myself. We have exactly two characters - hogarth's Reginald and UserNamer's Heregifu - that use them. That said, I do agree they're a problem (I think I made that clear enough in the discussion last week), though I don't necessarily agree with the solution there. Theres quite a lot of custom feat usage that goes on that isn't so broken, and I don't think we should be punishing that for one broken combination. Mayhaps just ruling that Improved Grapple can't be given as a custom feat to any animals without the Improved Grab special ability would be sufficient? Or just outright that horses cannot have Improved Grapple?
Caterane 09-26-06, 08:58 AM	We could set a credit cost. Any idea on how to make Disguise or other skills useful?
Zelck 09-26-06, 09:14 AM	Any idea on how to make Disguise or other skills useful? Not as of right now. The easiest way would probably just make some guild op depend on it, but that means anyone unguilded can ignore it. I'll think on that :P. What do you guys think of the proposed Intimidate changes?
TheMagister 09-26-06, 09:21 AM	How about using the Disguise skill (vs. opponent's Sense Motive) to appear as a mercenary? Used in conjunction with the Bluff skill (vs. opponent's sense motive + BAB) to "sell" your services to an opponent, it could allow you to start in the same square as your opponent if you wish, with them considering you as an ally. If you win initiative, you can sneak attack him/her. If you lose initiative, you can go invisible and get your sneak attack, or you can "go check that starting square over there" and at least know exactly where your opponent is starting. That sounds like a rogue-friendly sort of advantage to me! TM
Zelck 09-26-06, 09:26 AM	How about using the Disguise skill (vs. opponent's Sense Motive) to appear as a mercenary? Used in conjunction with the Bluff skill (vs. opponent's sense motive + BAB) to "sell" your services to an opponent, it could allow you to start in the same square as your opponent if you wish, with them considering you as an ally. If you win initiative, you can sneak attack him/her. If you lose initiative, you can go invisible and get your sneak attack, or you can "go check that starting square over there" and at least know exactly where your opponent is starting. That sounds like a rogue-friendly sort of advantage to me! That might get us 1RKOs, where a rogue just kills the opponent with lots of sneak attack dice before they even get a move...
TheMagister 09-26-06, 09:56 AM	...and compare that to tabletop games. When exactly do wizards get killed? When they're not prepared. When does a fighter vs. a rogue suddenly become an even fight? When half the fighter's HP suddenly pool around his feet after that first debilitating strike. I think it'd be a great equalizer. Think about how HARD it currently is to make a successful rogue in the CoCo. Rogues have a super-difficult time in toe-to-toe, and fail Will saves just like fighters and barbarians do. Mort Noir is the level BEST stealth build I've seen so far, and he has to spend money every 3FC to be competitive. It's just not right. {shrug} It's just an idea, anyhow. Thanks for the comment. =)
McJarvis 09-26-06, 11:47 AM	Mort Noir is the level BEST stealth build I've seen so far, and he has to spend money every 3FC to be competitive. It's just not right. {shrug} It's just an idea, anyhow. Thanks for the comment. =) Pretty much everyone has A good number of people have to spend money every 3FC to be competitive: Mort Noir just doesn't spend it all in expendibles. edit- Though most builds don't require 2 credits every three fights to be effective, if that's what you meant....
Zevox 09-26-06, 12:05 PM	Mort Noir is the level BEST stealth build I've seen so far Haven't paid much attention to The Chameleon, eh? ;) Okay, that comment out of the way, I do have an issue I wish to raise here. I've noticed that, among Guild operations, no one is pre-specifying what raids against a Guild's Headquarters are going to do to them. The CEF raids on the EHTC's headquarters caught me by surprise being to damage it, since I had though given Cat's previous statement that he wouldn't try to take out a Guild by that means that they were to steal money from it (note: this is not to criticize those actions, just an example of the issue). Similarly, the TLT's two assaults in recent weeks have just mentioned being raids against the Headquarters, not what the intention is. Considering that back when the system was being implemented Vath (I think it was him) asked if the result of Covert Ops could be decided upon after the fact based on thier wording ("If the Operator has passed all obstacles, the operation is a success, and the Operator can now pick any of the options listed below.") and was told no, I'm curious as to why it appears it can be done with this one. Is this an oversight, or intentional? If the former, it should be corrected; and if the latter, I'm curious as to why. Zevox
TelinArtho 09-26-06, 12:07 PM	I acutally considered using disguise with Illendil when he went on his mission a few weeks back. I had already planned on hiring Trillian and I could have bought a hat of disguise to cover it - but I wasn't sure that the hat would cover a gender change... Disguise could be put to good use with the appropriate amount of preparation - and it would certainly necessitate having a wide array of mercenaries to make it a little more effective. I'm actually not putting aside the "make myself look like Trillian" trick either... just decided that the cloak was probably a better use of my money for now...
Caterane 09-26-06, 01:15 PM	I agree that rogues are still not on par with the other classes but we're working on it. I just promised (NiQil) not to add any new add-on's for some time. Since that was more than half a year ago we could add a new feature: Fight Types. I have fleshed out a few but the interesting one for rogues would be: Ambush! Pitlord compares Hide/Move/Bluff vs. Spot/Listen/Sense. If one PC 'passes' both checks (passing means you have a higher value so that it is immideately clear who passed and who not; requires no additional communication) he is the ambusher. If both pass or both fail, it's a normal fight. Wether the ambush is a surprise round only, or you can actually start wherever you want needs to be discussed further. We can create a vast array of Fight Types, combinations of skills and features. Another example: Getting Lost! Those who fail to have a certain survival value need twice as long as the Time Roll indicates to get to the battle. You get the picture. The online roller would automatically add the fight type (provided Dracazar adds it) behind the pairing, next to the map. This would be a good chance to make skills without function finally useful, and with it, the skill monkeys ie rogues and bards. What do you think of that?
Zelck 09-26-06, 02:25 PM	Well, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Spot, and even Bluff and Sense Motive have uses now. Let's hold off on changing them for now and focus on the more useless skills. Here's a list of them: Survival (Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, Nomad) Use Rope (Ranger, Rogue) Disguise (Bard, Rogue, Shaper) Intimidate (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Kineticist, Wilder) Decipher Script (Bard, Rogue, Wizard) Intimidate is included because it's very close to useless in its current incarnation. There have also been some concerns voiced about certain parts of CoCo: Allies overpowered Skillmonkeys underpowered And perhaps others I don't know of right now So, we could possibly kill two birds with one stone so to speak: use skills to address the concerns. My proposed change with Intimidate helps mitigate the impact of allies. We could also assign another skill to help mitigate allies, if we think it's a big issue. The best skills to address the skill monkey underpowered issue would be Use Rope. Disguise was also nice, but Shapers get it too. Decipher Script was promising, but Wizards also get it as a class skill. Full rangers aren't that powerful, so... let's see if we can find a good use for Use Rope. Maybe if your Use Rope modifier exceeds your opponent's level + dex, they're entangled until they make an escape artist or strength check equal to half your level + 10 as a full round action? Might also require a hide/move silently check too. Disguise can be reasonably powerful, since Shapers aren't common, but I'm still not sure how it'll look. This could be another skill that removes allies if we're concerned about that. Decipher Script should have some minor benefit, probably out of combat or as a free action. Maybe if your Bluff, Disguise, and Decipher Script skills are all higher than your ECL, you get your hands on and decode the Battle schedule, meaning you know when the next fight'll take place and can prebuff or buy spells that last at least 10 minutes, rather than 18 hours. Very powerful, and only Bards and Rogues have all of these skills as class skills. Survival could just be "Beat your opponent's ECL+wis, you know what square he starts in." Simple, not too powerful, but very nice. The forest map provides a +10000 bonus to this check and allows it to be used untrained ;). And that's all I have for skills. I think it'd be really cool if something like this gets implemented.
MindWandererB 09-26-06, 04:01 PM	Haven't paid much attention to The Chameleon, eh? ;) Okay, that comment out of the way, I do have an issue I wish to raise here. I've noticed that, among Guild operations, no one is pre-specifying what raids against a Guild's Headquarters are going to do to them. The CEF raids on the EHTC's headquarters caught me by surprise being to damage it, since I had though given Cat's previous statement that he wouldn't try to take out a Guild by that means that they were to steal money from it (note: this is not to criticize those actions, just an example of the issue). Similarly, the TLT's two assaults in recent weeks have just mentioned being raids against the Headquarters, not what the intention is. Considering that back when the system was being implemented Vath (I think it was him) asked if the result of Covert Ops could be decided upon after the fact based on thier wording ("If the Operator has passed all obstacles, the operation is a success, and the Operator can now pick any of the options listed below.") and was told no, I'm curious as to why it appears it can be done with this one. Is this an oversight, or intentional? If the former, it should be corrected; and if the latter, I'm curious as to why. Zevox Covert Ops don't require a battle (unless there's a dungeon), and thus there's no delay between the intention to attack and the result. Assaults, on the other hand, always involve a fight. Not that this is a particularly strong argument; I could easily see it both ways.
Caterane 09-26-06, 04:55 PM	The skill uses shouldn't be too abstract and I prefer skill combinations over single skill applications. It's too easy to frontload one skill. Disable device has also no use here, and it's THE rogue skill. That's why I'd like to see traps incorporated into the system. Traps are just too frequent to be left out. Perhaps one Fight Type: Traps! Both gladiators face a trap before initiative (pitlord sets it up before tactics are submitted; like with a monster fight). If you have a high enough Search+Disable skill (let's say you take 10) you are not harmed by the trap. Same goes for Open Lock. We have one use in combination with Search but I think such a common skill should find more use. Disguise+Bluff to look like a mercenary to gain an advantage is nice in theory but ineffective practically. No more than one or two mercs are hired in week and how big is the chance that you meet this opponent, and have set up a Free Activity. Maybe it could work on any sentinent ally? This would be better than intimidate since it not only throws the ally out of the match but also grants you a surprise round in the opponent's square? That's too much and would make Intimidate obsolete. We could improve Intimidate so that it finds more usage but extending it to include animals? I don't know. How do you intimidate an animal with your force of personality? Survival would be great for the getting lost fight type, as described above. Double the time roll can become a serious handicap. Perhaps it also works the other way: if you're especially good, you half the amount of time? Perhaps we should work the other way around: What features are there that we could assign skills to? Surprise round, know/pick starting boxes (for you and opponent), prebuff rounds, half/double time roll, get combat boni, give combat mali to opponent, ...let's brainstorm a bit.
TheMagister 09-26-06, 05:27 PM	How about Disguise/Bluff to fool your enemy's allies into believing that you're HIM? Command the stablehand in charge of those grappling horses to take them and stable them somewhere safe (and out-of-the-way...like the GLUE factory...). Meet your enemy's merc ahead of time and give him the wrong time for the arena match! Meet your enemy's Leadership ally ahead of time and do the same thing! Maybe a simple free action: keep an eye on ally(s) could prevent this; or we could actually make it a sense motive check (I favor this option). What do you guys think?
Zelck 09-26-06, 06:01 PM	Well, my thought on Intimidate was that you Intimidate the master, who then doesn't bring his beloved horse because you're going to rip out its guts and paint the walls with its blood and stuff and stuff and stuff... or something like that :). I also think fear immunity/resistance shouldn't matter for reasons of balance (making level 15 wizards immune to this is probably not a good thing) and because even fearless people don't want to see their friends suffer. There is no default skill or action to block this beyond having a high level check (should we use wis or cha for the level check? Wis kind of makes more sense, cha seems more balanced and more ally oriented). However, you can think of this as being "resisted" by Forgery. As long as you don't get greedy and bring too many allies, a maxed Intimidate shouldn't force you to give up your Forged ally. For Disguise/Bluff: I /really/ like Disguise + Bluff + Decipher Script to acquire access to and decode a copy of the Battle schedule, so you know when the next battle will be. Basically, you pretend you're an arena official, but the schedule is written in a code. Since you know when the next fight will be, you're can prebuff or buy spells with a duration of 3 minutes or more, and enter the battle 2 minutes later with those spells running. The great thing about this combo is that only Bards and Rogues have these three skills as class skills, and it's VERY powerful. However, if we mess up the DC and make it too low, a full spellcaster will make the check and that's bad. The easy way to avoid that is to make the level check your ECL + 3, and forbid the use of item/magic skill bonuses for this check. I'd also make this either not an action, or a free action that can be used in conjunction with Burglary. For Survival: I don't really like the "enter battle sooner or later" option, since that messes with continuity and I also imagine the warriors hanging around the arena between fights in an FC not knowing when their name'll get called again, thus why they can't buy stuff in between. To make that work with the Disguise+Bluff+Decipher, there can be spellcasters hanging around the arena to cast spells for a fee, but no other vendors. Disable Device: I once had the idea of an arena where certain areas are accessible only by passing through a trapped area. Rogues can disable or bypass the trap and then access the trapped areas. That requires more arenas though... Or, Open Lock + Disable Device can work as a "reverse burglary": you rob a store for expendables that you can use, rather than denying your opponents the use of their own expendables. Stores would have traps, hence the Disable Device. Bonuses Skills Can Provide: change arena (ick), mess with allies (I like), mess with delay penalty...
MindWandererB 09-26-06, 06:38 PM	I really like the idea of an arena that more closely resembles a classic dungeon. Traps (CR=ECL), locks, secret passages (not sure how to implement that...).... it would be complicated, but a heck of a lot of fun. Of course, I probably say this because I'm not pitlording at the moment....
Caterane 09-26-06, 08:11 PM	If we create an enviroment for sneakers and skill monkeys they will become more interesting to play and en par with fighters and casters. Here are my suggestion. We add two things: new Free Activities and Fight Types. Free Activities You always just compare the skill values on the sheet to determine success or failure. No roll necessary and as with all FA you must write them into the title line. Free Activity: Ambush! - Hide vs Spot - Move vs Listen - Bluff vs Sense If all three are successful, you have ambushed your character. You may determine your and your opponent's start box (in your tacitc) and you gain a surprise round. Free Activity: Assassinate! - Disguise vs Spot - Bluff vs Sense - Gather vs Gather If you succeed on all three checks, the pitlord rolls one unmodified attack+damage roll against a Character with an ally (you disguise as ally) or against the ally (you disguise as master). The target is flatfooted but may heal before the fight begins (specify in tactic). Sneak attacks can be applied as can poison if available. Only one single attack can be made and it must be a physical attack. Only works on humanoidic allies (you cannot disguise into a horse nor does a horse care how you look like) Free Activity: Set Trap! - You need a trap [you can craft or buy it] - Disable device (vs trap DC) [you set the trap] - Search (vs trap DC) [you hide the trap] If your opponent doesn't spot and disable the trap (take 10 each) the trap goes off on Round 0 of the battle. The trap is refunded after the 3FC but you can only install one trap per Free Activity. The pitlord sets this up before tactics are sent (just like with a monster fight). Free Activity: Hunt! - Survival/Track (vs DC in the PHB) - Use Rope (vs Escape Artist or Strength) - Handle Animal (vs Animal DC) If you pass all three checks, you kidnap your opponent's mount which makes it unavailable for the coming fight. Only works on creatures with animal intelligence. Free Activity: Outmaneuver! - Climb (vs Climb) - Balance (vs Balance) - Jump (vs Jump) If you pass all three you may start anywhere on the map (but outside your opponent's box). The Fight Features have been discussed in the past here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8232303&postcount=33). Mal2 offered to add Illumination to Drac's mapmaker here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8243708&postcount=47).
Zevox 09-26-06, 08:50 PM	Free Activity: Ambush! - Hide vs Spot - Move vs Listen - Bluff vs Sense If all three are successful, you have ambushed your character. You may determine your and your opponent's start box (in your tacitc) and you gain a surprise round. Interesting. Seems fine to me - it could be a great boon, but being dependant on three skills is a bit steep of a requirement (particularly since two of the three opposing skills are fairly frequently used on those with them as class skills). If this gets added I think Annalina Vale just found a new Free Activity :plotting: . Free Activity: Assassinate! - Disguise vs Spot - Bluff vs Sense - Gather vs Gather If you succeed on all three checks, the pitlord rolls one unmodified attack+damage roll against a Character with an ally (you disguise as ally) or against the ally (you disguise as master). The target is flatfooted but may heal before the fight begins (specify in tactic). Sneak attacks can be applied as can poison if available. Only one single attack can be made and it must be a physical attack. Only works on humanoidic allies (you cannot disguise into a horse nor does a horse care how you look like) Hm... I'm not sure what to think on this one. It could result in fights being over before they begin (I'm remembering Baelin the Shadow here...), but its not easy to pull off either, being dependant on three skills and on the opponent having an intelligent humanoid ally. Mayhaps someone else can tell better than I can whether this would be balanced or not. Free Activity: Set Trap! - You need a trap [you can craft or buy it] - Disable device (vs trap DC) [you set the trap] - Search (vs trap DC) [you hide the trap] If your opponent doesn't spot and disable the trap (take 10 each) the trap goes off on Round 0 of the battle. The trap is refunded after the 3FC but you can only install one trap per Free Activity. The pitlord sets this up before tactics are sent (just like with a monster fight). Sounds like a nice way to make traps (and Disable Device) worthwhile. Though might I suggest that said trap counts as an ally, given that traps have a CR? Or perhaps give them a way of adjusting rewards seperate from those of allies, if that seems a bit much? Free Activity: Hunt! - Survival/Track (vs DC in the PHB) - Use Rope (vs Escape Artist or Strength) - Handle Animal (vs Animal DC) If you pass all three checks, you kidnap your opponent's mount which makes it unavailable for the coming fight. Only works on creatures with animal intelligence. Eh, probably wouldn't see much use, since only Rangers get the Track feat for free (and only they get all three of those as class skills). Free Activity: Outmaneuver! - Climb (vs Climb) - Balance (vs Balance) - Jump (vs Jump) If you pass all three you may start anywhere on the map (but outside your opponent's box). *whistles* I know of a certain (campaigning) Elf Shadowdancer who would love this, especially in the forest map (start up a tree and hiding). Theoretically it could allow for some annoying first-round kills (fighters/psychic warriors with super alpha strikes - they get climb and jump as class skills, and a decent dex and some cross-class balance ranks will let them beat most others in that area), but that may be rather hard to pull off without knowing what box thier opponent starts in. Still, I'm not too sure about it - perhaps some input from someone else will be of more help. The Fight Features have been discussed in the past here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8232303&postcount=33). Mal2 offered to add Illumination to Drac's mapmaker here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8243708&postcount=47). Ah, I remember that. Well, you could probably do away with the ground composition part, since thats intergrated into the maps now (would be pretty silly to say that the forest map is suddenly all bog or all undergrowth and no bog). Beyond that, I'd still be fine with those being added. Though mayhaps the windstorm weather is a bit much, since it effectively gives an auto-loss to archers. And Cat, could I get an official answer to my question? Much as MWB's input is appreciated, something definitive would be nice: Okay, that comment out of the way, I do have an issue I wish to raise here. I've noticed that, among Guild operations, no one is pre-specifying what raids against a Guild's Headquarters are going to do to them. The CEF raids on the EHTC's headquarters caught me by surprise being to damage it, since I had though given Cat's previous statement that he wouldn't try to take out a Guild by that means that they were to steal money from it (note: this is not to criticize those actions, just an example of the issue). Similarly, the TLT's two assaults in recent weeks have just mentioned being raids against the Headquarters, not what the intention is. Considering that back when the system was being implemented Vath (I think it was him) asked if the result of Covert Ops could be decided upon after the fact based on thier wording ("If the Operator has passed all obstacles, the operation is a success, and the Operator can now pick any of the options listed below.") and was told no, I'm curious as to why it appears it can be done with this one. Is this an oversight, or intentional? If the former, it should be corrected; and if the latter, I'm curious as to why. Zevox
Zelck 09-26-06, 09:14 PM	Sorry about being critical :(. Free Activity: Ambush! - Hide vs Spot - Move vs Listen - Bluff vs Sense If all three are successful, you have ambushed your character. You may determine your and your opponent's start box (in your tacitc) and you gain a surprise round. Sounds good. Not sure it's worth a free activity though. Hunt and Assassinate: the problem is no one is likely to use them since they're both extremely situational, and the benefit isn't /that/ great. Assassinate doesn't remove the ally, and it's not likely to end the fight unless you're using poison against someone with a weak fort save. This option gets worse and worse as levels go up, but Assassinate is completely useless at low levels. In addition, Spot is very common and could easily get higher than Disguise. Hunt doesn't penalize people for trying to use the animal ally; it only removes it from the fight. Combined with their situational use and their multiple skill requirements, they're not really worth it. Free Activity: Set Trap! - You need a trap [you can craft or buy it] - Disable device (vs trap DC) [you set the trap] - Search (vs trap DC) [you hide the trap] If your opponent doesn't spot and disable the trap (take 10 each) the trap goes off on Round 0 of the battle. The trap is refunded after the 3FC but you can only install one trap per Free Activity. The pitlord sets this up before tactics are sent (just like with a monster fight). I'm worried that this will turn many arena fights into "make a skill check against the trap or die" as opposed to an actual fight. Stuff like the 100 ft. deep pit trap and the 50 ft. deep pit trap with very strong poison come to mind. If someone really focuses on traps, they could buy something like the Destruction trap; the fight now is a question of whether you can get past the trap, not whether you can beat your opponent. Also note that Kineticists get Disable Device as a class skill, and that Grey Elf Kineticists usually have a high Search modifier to begin with. Andurwin would love to spend 21,300 gold (10k for a +10 search item, although he could probably get away with less) to force people to make a DC 16 Disable Device check and a DC26 Fort save or take 3d6 strength damage. Or 35,000 total gp to deal 18d6 damage, no save. Free Activity: Outmaneuver! - Climb (vs Climb) - Balance (vs Balance) - Jump (vs Jump) If you pass all three you may start anywhere on the map (but outside your opponent's box). Interesting. I'm a bit worried about a Rogue/PsiWar sitting right outside his opponent's box and unleasing a first round Greater Manyshot alpha strike though. There's also another problem: Nomads also get two of these skills as class skills and they only need to beat their opponent's skill with the third, and their alpha strike would be much more devastating. With good dexterity, Improved Initiative, and a Nimble Psicrystal, they'd have a good chance of winning initiative. The problem with Outmaneuver and Set Trap is people shouldn't be sunk if they don't have a skill. Burglary currently is the only skill that hurts your opponent, and that only removes expendables which no one should depend on. My proposed Intimidate change only removes your opponent's allies, which again no one should be depending on. Outmaneuver and Set Trap are almost like save or dies, except your save doesn't automatically increase with levels.
Zevox 09-26-06, 09:55 PM	Sounds good. Not sure it's worth a free activity though. I am. :) Hunt and Assassinate: the problem is no one is likely to use them since they're both extremely situational, and the benefit isn't /that/ great. Assassinate doesn't remove the ally, and it's not likely to end the fight unless you're using poison against someone with a weak fort save. This option gets worse and worse as levels go up, but Assassinate is completely useless at low levels. Its true that its not much good at low levels, but imagine what an upper-level rogue or assassin could do with it. If you're interested, check the EHTC retired members roster for Baelin the Shadow - that guy armed with the Assassinate free activity could probably have taken out casters or high LA characters without a fight, or certainly many an ally before the fight even began. Hunt doesn't penalize people for trying to use the animal ally; it only removes it from the fight. So? Since when are we looking to penalize people for using allies? I'm worried that this will turn many arena fights into "make a skill check against the trap or die" as opposed to an actual fight. Stuff like the 100 ft. deep pit trap and the 50 ft. deep pit trap with very strong poison come to mind. If someone really focuses on traps, they could buy something like the Destruction trap; the fight now is a question of whether you can get past the trap, not whether you can beat your opponent. Which is one reason I mentioned making traps function like an ally: do it that way and you can't use anything with a CR greater than your ECL -4, and your opponent gets greater rewards for the fight. And don't forget you only get each once per cycle. Such things could still be a problem of course, but not until high levels. And they're also very expensive - those many thousands of gold you're talking about having Andurwin spend won't even be available to you until level 8 or 9+, and only if you save nearly all of your winnings for it. Interesting. I'm a bit worried about a Rogue/PsiWar sitting right outside his opponent's box and unleasing a first round Greater Manyshot alpha strike though. There's also another problem: Nomads also get two of these skills as class skills and they only need to beat their opponent's skill with the third, and their alpha strike would be much more devastating. With good dexterity, Improved Initiative, and a Nimble Psicrystal, they'd have a good chance of winning initiative. Which is why they don't know what thier opponent's start box will be. They get a 1 in 4 chance of doing that from this. Granted that may arguably still be too much, but its worth pointing out. I would say that prohibiting starting with LoS to your opponent's box may work, but of course you always have that in the Plains, so thats out. The problem with Outmaneuver and Set Trap is people shouldn't be sunk if they don't have a skill. [...] Outmaneuver and Set Trap are almost like save or dies, except your save doesn't automatically increase with levels. Outmanuever only has a chance of being such (depending on the character as well as the guess as to thier opponent's start box), and Set Trap will take a lot of money and levels to become such. Granted I could certainly see Set Trap becoming broken at truly high levels - a level 15 character, for instance, could afford three of those nigh instant kill traps just fine - but thats more a problem with traps in general than the activity (if you get faced with things like those without a good Rogue at your side, you're in a world of trouble - thats why they have those CRs), which means any integration of them into the arena will result in such. Zevox
MindWandererB 09-26-06, 10:04 PM	That Hunt is pretty icky. The ability to negate a mount--a critical part of many characters' strategies--is very powerful, even if it does use two seldom-seen arena skills. The Assassinate worries me a lot--alpha-strikers will get a huge boon from this. It would require specific, uncommon skills... and such a character may or may not be any good in the arena. I think this one would need to be playtested.
NiQil 09-26-06, 10:29 PM	@ Cat: Let me preface this commentary with a suggestion of my own. If we are going to add something new to the arena...let's start small. You have really large ideas sometimes and, while I applaud the creativity, I think maybe if the implementation of those large ideas on a small scale occurs, they are easier to handle. Let me add here a suggestion for an addition of my own. Currently we have a roll for the amount of time that passes between fights...I would like to add another to that...a time of day roll. Basically we create a chart with something like 4-6 different times of day. As an example, we could have Dawn, Mid-Day, Dusk, and Overnight. This would set the amount of light present in all arena fights that week. The reason? To allow people to take advantage of their low-light and darkvision, which currently have no use whatsover in the arena, but are normally very powerful in tt games. This also allows a greater use for thinks like a tiefling's darkness or a daylight spell. We create rules that allow low-light users to see normally at dawn and dusk...everyone to see normally at midday, and darkvision users at night. This means that characters will have to account for things such as light sources or equipment to allow them to see in multiple environments. Granted, the above example is a very off-the-top-of-my-head rough draft, but you get the general idea. Now...on to your suggestions: If we create an enviroment for sneakers and skill monkeys they will become more interesting to play and en par with fighters and casters. Here are my suggestion. We add two things: new Free Activities and Fight Types. Free Activities You always just compare the skill values on the sheet to determine success or failure. No roll necessary and as with all FA you must write them into the title line. Free Activity: Ambush! - Hide vs Spot - Move vs Listen - Bluff vs Sense If all three are successful, you have ambushed your character. You may determine your and your opponent's start box (in your tacitc) and you gain a surprise round. I like the idea behind this one...surprise rounds are something that I think we should try and implement. My dislike of this idea is that it makes use of two skill checks (Hide vs Spot and MS vs Listen) that are already used a great deal. It's not really that hard to gain this free activity, and would quickly become a must-have free activity, in my opinion. Free Activity: Assassinate! - Disguise vs Spot - Bluff vs Sense - Gather vs Gather If you succeed on all three checks, the pitlord rolls one unmodified attack+damage roll against a Character with an ally (you disguise as ally) or against the ally (you disguise as master). The target is flatfooted but may heal before the fight begins (specify in tactic). Sneak attacks can be applied as can poison if available. Only one single attack can be made and it must be a physical attack. Only works on humanoidic allies (you cannot disguise into a horse nor does a horse care how you look like) I really dislike this one. Any alpha strike character that uses this is going to have a great chance at a one-shot kill before his opponent ever gets a chance to even roll initiative. We want to avoid something that is going to increase one-shot kills, in my opinion. Free Activity: Set Trap! - You need a trap [you can craft or buy it] - Disable device (vs trap DC) [you set the trap] - Search (vs trap DC) [you hide the trap] If your opponent doesn't spot and disable the trap (take 10 each) the trap goes off on Round 0 of the battle. The trap is refunded after the 3FC but you can only install one trap per Free Activity. The pitlord sets this up before tactics are sent (just like with a monster fight). I agree with a previous assessment of this one...since disable device is such an exclusive class skill, this could quickly turn into "which rogue can buy the best trap" free activity. Also, this one doesn't really have a way to defend against it that is feasible for most classes. Free Activity: Hunt! - Survival/Track (vs DC in the PHB) - Use Rope (vs Escape Artist or Strength) - Handle Animal (vs Animal DC) If you pass all three checks, you kidnap your opponent's mount which makes it unavailable for the coming fight. Only works on creatures with animal intelligence. I like the idea behind this one, but not the implementation. Handle Animal is already a very highly used skill, and as someone stated earlier, this would only see limited use by a couple of classes that have skill points to spare. Free Activity: Outmaneuver! - Climb (vs Climb) - Balance (vs Balance) - Jump (vs Jump) If you pass all three you may start anywhere on the map (but outside your opponent's box). I think this one could be made to work, but with some changes. Getting to start *anywhere on a map is a huge advantage. If I could adjust this one, I would recommend making it a little more concentrated, such as being able to pick the starting box that you start in.
Zelck 09-26-06, 11:10 PM	@Outmaneuver: If you don't know where your opponent starts, it's much more sane. I sure wouldn't use it :P. @Set Trap: 35,000 is a lot, but it's a save-or-win against like 70% of the population. Sounds good to me. @Lighting: It makes things more complex, but I like it. Lighting is very important in most D&D games. @Hunt/Assassinate: One of the key principles of good game design is that a counter should always be better than the thing it's countering. We can illustrate this with a very simple example. Suppose there's a level 3 spell which takes a standard action to cast whose sole function is to counter the "Fly" spell. It does so with a 100% effectiveness. Would you use it? Unless you had a bunch of extra spell slots or for some reason Fly is absolutely devastating to your strategy and you have no other way of getting around it, then no, you probably won't. Why? Because sometimes it will get you back to square one, and other times it'll be one less useful spell you can cast. And it doesn't even deal with all the other ways someone could be flying. If you're taking a cost to get a benefit that only might come into play, the benefit better be good. If you've played Magic: the Gathering, it's like the reason why Disenchant/Naturalize is rarely maindecked. Their function is extremely narrow and usually rarely comes into play (ignore Affinity for the moment... anti-artifact was more like Burglary than Anti-Fly in that era). And note that even when they do come into play, they're usually cheaper than the thing they take out. Now, Hunt. It's situational; around, what, half the people don't have animal allies? It's going to whiff a darn good portion of the time. It requires 3 skills, and it only counters 2 skills at most (Handle Animal + Ride). It doesn't give you a great benefit when you use it; all it does is return you to square 1. It has an opportunity cost: you can't use another free action with it. We can clearly see that it's a suboptimal investment. Assassinate is similar. It's even more situational than Hunt; how many people have humanoid allies? 33%? It requires 3 skills, and sort of counters either 1 skill or a feat. Its benefit is arguable. A character built around a 1-Hit KO is going to win on this when this free activity lands, but it won't do so very often and the character may be suboptimal for normal play. Baelin the Shadow had a 1-7 record. If he had this and fought two opponents with allies and managed to land the 1HKO both times, he'd have a 3-4 record. Not something to base your build around. On the other hand, this free activity doesn't deny the use of an ally. The damage dealt with that one hit may be worse than the denial of an ally; in that case, Assassinate doesn't even get you back to square 1. Oh, and it eats up your free activity. And here's the kicker. Even in the 50/50 or worse case that this thing hits a target with the right kind of ally, it might still fail because one of his skills was too high and provide no benefit at all. Compare these to my proposed change to Intimidate. While Intimidate is still situational, it's much less so: it hits all non-class, non-mercenary allies. Intimidate is one skill, and it counters up to three skills and a feat (probably not at the same time), which is great. It has the potential to be nullified through high wisdom, Forgery, and/or a low CA ally, but that chance isn't too high. It still carries the opportunity cost of your free activity and only brings you back to square one, but excepting some very unlikely incidents WILL bring you back to square one and the number of things it counters makes it worthwhile. Things could play out differently, but I don't see how Hunt or Assassinate will balance skillmonkeys or allies.
False_Keraptis 09-27-06, 12:07 AM	My two cp on the skill monkey question: we should accept that some skills (and even some classes) might not be an optimal choice for arena combat, which is what the board is about. Adding options with the potential to end a fight before it begins takes away from that. If we want to add rules to make allies a less effective choice, perhaps it would be best to go directly to the source and change how allies are handled.
McJarvis 09-27-06, 01:06 AM	Yea, but that's only 5 points. Nothing requires anything more than that. True. Let's make Decipher Script capable of making income.((I can easily see it as a profession of sorts))
Caterane 09-27-06, 07:02 AM	Decipher Script: Income is lame. We already have 4 of them. Decipher Script can be perfectly combined with Knowledge History for another Free Activity. Thanks for your comments. Here are some corrections to my last proposal, mostly adding skills so that you need skill points to shine. Outmaneuver: add swim to the skills. Margin of opposed check is # of squares you may start outside your box. Assasinate: add open lock. It may be situational but if it hits, you have a good chance to take out that wizard ally. We should include all allies (and/or exclude the master). Ambush: add knowledge local. Set Trap: We will definately set a maxCA for traps although it will be higher than ECL-4. Probably = ECL. And it counts as ally. Hunt: add knowledge geography and heal. Function could be better than what I proposed. Any ideas? @NiQil: Very nice idea with the daytime roll! @Zevox: I think unspecified works better. Comments on your comments: [Assasinate] I really dislike this one. Any alpha strike character that uses this is going to have a great chance at a one-shot kill before his opponent ever gets a chance to even roll initiative. We want to avoid something that is going to increase one-shot kills, in my opinion. It's an unmodified roll so no dissolving weapon, dissipation touch powerstoring, greater psionic shot whatever strike. You may apply sneak damage and poison though which makes it a rogue activity. You have to hit, and I doubt the 1d6/2levels will take anyone out in one hit. But it hurts and that's what a rogue does. Or we can restrict it to allies and allow prebuffs to be used. [Set Trap] I agree with a previous assessment of this one...since disable device is such an exclusive class skill, this could quickly turn into "which rogue can buy the best trap" free activity. Also, this one doesn't really have a way to defend against it that is feasible for most classes. Traps are expensive and use up a great part of the PCs wealth. If you look at the traps you'll see that few traps up to ECL 10 can mean instant kill. Most are there to hamper the opponent. Assassinate doesn't remove the ally, and it's not likely to end the fight unless you're using poison against someone with a weak fort save. No one said we want to remove allies from the game! That's not our aim. Nor is assassinate intended to end the fight; just give the rogue a bit of an advantage by doing what he's supposed to do. Outmanuever only has a chance of being such (depending on the character as well as the guess as to thier opponent's start box), and Set Trap will take a lot of money and levels to become such. Granted I could certainly see Set Trap becoming broken at truly high levels - a level 15 character, for instance, could afford three of those nigh instant kill traps just fine - but thats more a problem with traps in general than the activity (if you get faced with things like those without a good Rogue at your side, you're in a world of trouble - thats why they have those CRs), which means any integration of them into the arena will result in such. You still don't know where your opponent is. A ECL 15 character has also ways to defend against traps if we incorporate traps into the system. My two cp on the skill monkey question: we should accept that some skills (and even some classes) might not be an optimal choice for arena combat, which is what the board is about. Actually, we're a living enviroment and the arena is just one small part of it. The times when we only had the arena and 1 vs 1 combat is long past. We have to include situations that can come up in any campaign.
Zelck 09-27-06, 09:42 AM	I still dispute the usefulness of Assassinate and Hunt. To be honest, it really doesn't affect me. All it does is really not address the feeling that allies are extremely strong and almost mandatory at higher levels. If you really want to put them into the game as they are, I'm OK with that, but please do something else to deal with the issue of allies. I see my previous argument about counters being better than what they countered didn't go over too well, so I'm going to try again using real feats. Both these feats deal with being prone. One is in Complete Warrior. It's called prone attack, has requirements of a good dexterity score, Lightning Reflexes, and a minor BAB, and basically allows you to ignore your armor and attack penalty while being prone, and if you hit something you stand up instantly. The second is in the PHB II. It's called Combat Acrobat, requires two skills as prequisites, and basically allows you to make a balance check against a fixed DC to stay on your feet if you would otherwise fall prone and to ignore difficult terrain. Both of these are really good against trippers, pretty much negating feats like Improved Trip and Knock Down. Now, how many PCs would take them? If you check the CharOp section of the boards, how many builds include those feats? I bet almost none. Why? Because they're really situational, and don't do more than get you back to square one. How many enemies that they meet will try to knock them prone? These feats are too situational, and don't provide enough of a benefit to justify their situationalness (although Combat Acrobat is tempting for the negating difficult terrain...). Prone Attack also has some pretty hefty requisites. Compare that to how we've set up Assassinate and Hunt. We can do some cost-benefit analysis. Assassinate: Costs: Free activity, three (or four?) skill points per level, easily negated by: Ring of Invisibility (worn on ally then handed over after fight begins), (Dancing) Shield of Fortification (worn on ally then handed over after the fight begins), Contingent Blur, etc. Benefits: say, 5% chance of fighting someone with a valid ally and killing it, and 10% chance of fighting someone with a valid ally and hurting it. Hunt: Costs: Free activity, three (or five?) skill points per level Benefits: 50% chance of fighting someone with a valid ally and removing it from the fight. I'd also like to point out there'd still be nothing against undead allies or outsider/abberation allies. I mean, if you really don't want to address the issue of allies dominating the upper level fights, that's OK. But honestly, these two free activities aren't going to do it. I know allies are here to stay; at least with the proposed Intimidate, people who don't want to deal with that issue can still remain competitive.
Caterane 09-27-06, 10:58 AM	If we think allies are overpowered then we should adress the ally rules themselves and not make intimidate a must have skill. We cannot lower the maxCA further because the DMG clearly says Leadership allies can be up to your ECL-2. An idea would be that the ally penalty is only deducted from your gold but not from XP. I don't agree with your situational assessment. It almost never happens that someone would attack from prone, even in a real game, and then it's probably better to just stand up. The feat is just crap. Meeting someone with an ally in the coco is not so situational but can happen often enough. The comparison with the mentioned feats is not accurate although I understand what you're saying.
Zelck 09-27-06, 12:28 PM	If we think allies are overpowered then we should adress the ally rules themselves and not make intimidate a must have skill. We cannot lower the maxCA further because the DMG clearly says Leadership allies can be up to your ECL-2. An idea would be that the ally penalty is only deducted from your gold but not from XP. You're right... One issue though is the ally really contributes to a win more than any other skill or feat would. Lowering their gold might work, although people who currently have allies would not be retroactively rebalanced. I don't agree with your situational assessment. It almost never happens that someone would attack from prone, even in a real game, and then it's probably better to just stand up. The feat is just crap. Meeting someone with an ally in the coco is not so situational but can happen often enough. The comparison with the mentioned feats is not accurate although I understand what you're saying. The Prone Attack feat allows one to basically ignore all of the penalties for being prone except for movement. And if you hit with an attack (which doesn't suffer the usual -4 penalty because the feat removes it), you stand up instantly. The Combat Acrobat feat means you'll never hit the ground in the first place. With a good balance mod, you will never fall prone except when you want to. As for the situationalness of Hunt and Assassinate, I compiled a list of players levels 6-10 with allies. I didn't count stuff like Bag of Tricks or Figurines of Power. I didn't count people who were rebuilding or retired, but I counted fighters who hadn't been activated in a long time. Here are the results: Targets for Hunt/Total Number of Gladiators: Level 10: 8/22 Level 9: 4/12 Level 8: 6/11 Level 7: 2/11 Level 6: 2/9 Targets for Assassinate/Total Number of Gladiators: Level 10: 4/22 Level 9: 0/12 Level 8: 1/11 Level 7: 0/11 Level 6: 0/9 We can see right away that Assassinate is a waste of a free action most of the time. Hunt will fail more than half the time in all but the level 9 bracket, and it's only barely above 50% there.
Caterane 09-27-06, 01:56 PM	That's why I proposed to include all allies into the assassinate category. Hunt needs a new function now.
hogarth 09-27-06, 02:10 PM	You're right... One issue though is the ally really contributes to a win more than any other skill or feat would. Lowering their gold might work, although people who currently have allies would not be retroactively rebalanced. The way I see it, any given gladiator with an ally is a tougher opponent than the same gladiator without an ally. So why not require a gladiator with allies to "fight up" one or more categories to equalize the challenge level? For instance, according to the Encounter Calculator (http://www.d20srd.org/encounterCalculator.htm) at www.d20srd.org, an ECL3 gladiator has an encounter level of 3; thus by CoCo standards, that's a suitable fight for a level 3 character. Using the same logic, shouldn't an ECL3 opponent plus a CR1 ally, which has an encounter level of 4, be a suitable fight for a level 4 character?
Zevox 09-27-06, 02:43 PM	The way I see it, any given gladiator with an ally is a tougher opponent than the same gladiator without an ally. So why not require a gladiator with allies to "fight up" one or more categories to equalize the challenge level? For instance, according to the Encounter Calculator (http://www.d20srd.org/encounterCalculator.htm) at www.d20srd.org, an ECL3 gladiator has an encounter level of 3; thus by CoCo standards, that's a suitable fight for a level 3 character. Using the same logic, shouldn't an ECL3 opponent plus a CR1 ally, which has an encounter level of 4, be a suitable fight for a level 4 character? This has been suggested and turned down before, for a variety of reasons. First, it would be impossible to track. Any given character can always choose whether or not to bring an ally with them, and even after prebuffing them can leave the ally behind, so how do you know when to pair them up and not? Second, it would instantly mean that anyone who uses a non-class ally is a harder character to use. Mounted combatants suddenly have to face foes at least one level above them (probably more quite quickly as they level up and buy Heavy Horses and flying mounts) just because they have a mount. Druids, Rangers, or Lycanthropes who want to have some pets for thematic reasons now have to fight tougher foes even if those pets aren't much help (like Destra Stormwind's wolves, for example). Dog pack Bards like Tan definitely don't deserve to face higher-level foes. The Leadership feat instantly bumps you several leagues, which would mean you freeze sooner, and ultimately can't get to as a high a level as those who don't use allies. Its just far too steep a drawback. Theres probably other reasons I'm forgetting, but those jump prominently to mind. Zevox
hogarth 09-27-06, 02:57 PM	First of all, let me agree that this will never get adopted. Now that that's out of the way, let me address your comments. First, it would be impossible to track. Any given character can always choose whether or not to bring an ally with them, and even after prebuffing them can leave the ally behind, so how do you know when to pair them up and not? If a gladiator prebuffs an ally and don't use it, that's too bad for him. The current system still penalizes a gladiator in terms of gold/xp for an unused ally, doesn't it? Mounted combatants suddenly have to face foes at least one level above them (probably more quite quickly as they level up and buy Heavy Horses and flying mounts) just because they have a mount. This is not correct. The "heavy horses and flying mounts" in question will have CR <= ECL-4 which will only increase the encounter level by one, the same as an ECL3 character with a CR1 light warhorse. Druids, Rangers, or Lycanthropes who want to have some pets for thematic reasons now have to fight tougher foes even if those pets aren't much help (like Destra Stormwind's wolves, for example). Why would a druid/ranger/paladin's class feature count as an ally, when it doesn't count now? Dog pack Bards like Tan definitely don't deserve to face higher-level foes. So because certain gladiators can choose allies that don't make them more dangrous, all allies have no effect on how dangerous a gladiator is? :confused: The Leadership feat instantly bumps you several leagues, which would mean you freeze sooner, and ultimately can't get to as a high a level as those who don't use allies This is a legitimate concern for which I don't have a good answer. Maybe having enough characters with leadership cohorts/thralls would unfreeze the higher leagues.
Zelck 09-27-06, 03:02 PM	For skills, how about this. We make Hunt take on Assassinate's functions. So, Survival, Use Rope, and Disguise allows you to (sneak) attack all the allies. Makes sense, you track down and tie up the master, then dress up and stab the allies. Meanwhile, we add this really powerful free action for Disguise, Bluff, and Decipher Script: Free Activity: Steal Schedule (Disguise, Bluff, Decipher Script) As a free activity, you can disguise yourself as a Coliseum official, getting access to the Coliseum's battle schedule. The schedule is encoded, however, so you must also decipher the script. If your Disguise, Bluff, and Decipher Script modifiers are all higher than your ECL + 3, you succeed in this activity. Magic items and spells providing a bonus to skills are not factored into your skill modifiers for this activity. If you succeed, you now know when your next battle will take place, and you may prebuff and/or buy spells that last at least 3 minutes. You enter the fight two minutes later with those spells running. For Disable Device: Free Activity: Rob Store (Open Lock, Disable Device, Search) As a free activity, you can rob a store and steal a number of expendables for use in your next fight. You must include what expendables you steal in your prebuffed actions, and they do not count against your expendables cap. The stolen expendables are usable for only your next fight, and are returned afterwards for no gold. This activity has two steps. First, you have to break in with Open Lock and disarm the trap with Disable Device. If you have at least 5 ranks in each Open Lock and Disable Device and your Open Lock and Disable Device skills are both higher than your ECL +5, you succeed in this free activity. Second, you use your Search modifier to determine how valuable the expendables you steal are. Add 5 to your Search modifier, square it, then multiply that value by 2. For example, a character with a +5 Search modifier can steal expendables worth up to (5+5)2*2=200 gp, while a character with a +10 Search modifier can steal expendables worth up to (10+5)2*2=450 gp. These expendables are only usable in your next fight and do not count against your expendables cap.
Zevox 09-27-06, 03:17 PM	If a gladiator prebuffs an ally and don't use it, that's too bad for him. The current system still penalizes a gladiator in terms of gold/xp for an unused ally, doesn't it? Yes, it does, however I was more so refering to the fact that they may simply not prebuff the ally in some weeks. Pitlords/Cat does not have the time to check and see who has and who hasn't every single week. This is not correct. The "heavy horses and flying mounts" in question will have CR <= ECL-4 which will only increase the encounter level by one, the same as an ECL3 character with a CR1 light warhorse. My mistake then - didn't check to see how that worked specifically (hence the "probably"). Why would a druid/ranger/paladin's class feature count as an ally, when it doesn't count now? I was refering to Handle Animal allies (hence the inclusion of Lycanthropes in there), not class allies. So because certain gladiators can choose allies that don't make them more dangrous, all allies have no effect on how dangerous a gladiator is? :confused: No, its just an example of an instance in which such a rule would be distinctly unfair to the gladiators in question. This is a legitimate concern for which I don't have a good answer. Maybe having enough characters with leadership cohorts/thralls would unfreeze the higher leagues. First, Thralls are class allies and wouldn't count towards that. Second, the higher leagues are frozen because of waiting for the Iron Man Tournament. Adding this rule would actually be detrimental to getting that going - several ECL 10s would go up due to having Leadership themselves (Archangel Ixenthor, Indri'ynar Per'Elereth, Uhmentarymster the Old, Laph Jeirehneen, and soon Archdevil Asran), and some have non-leadership allies that would push them to 11 or 12 (Ceres for instance has a Pegasus and a Light Warhorse), as would anyone with that feat who is pushed above ECL 10 by it. It would quite distinctly hurt the goal of having the ECL 10 Iron Man soon, thus making it take longer to unfreeze those leagues. Zevox
Hirumajoe 09-27-06, 03:20 PM	The way I see it, any given gladiator with an ally is a tougher opponent than the same gladiator without an ally. So why not require a gladiator with allies to "fight up" one or more categories to equalize the challenge level? For instance, according to the Encounter Calculator (http://www.d20srd.org/encounterCalculator.htm) at www.d20srd.org, an ECL3 gladiator has an encounter level of 3; thus by CoCo standards, that's a suitable fight for a level 3 character. Using the same logic, shouldn't an ECL3 opponent plus a CR1 ally, which has an encounter level of 4, be a suitable fight for a level 4 character? Essentially what you'd be doing is getting rid of the xp/gold penalties and bonuses which are there making that seem like an ECL 4 versus ECL 3 fight. Which is not a bad way of doing it, although this would mean people would be popping up and down in which category they should be fightning each week as allies were brought or not brought (due to death and so forth). That might make the pairing job each week that much more complex. The other way of balancing it is as Cat remarked, making the allies cost gold. At the moment, there are rules for buying basic animals and some exotic ones (such as Hippogriffs). Those tend to cale like CR^2 it looks like. I understand that the cost is supposed to be the fact that you've spent points on the Handle Animal or Diplomacy skills. Basically trying to make those skills useful. However, skills are cheap. A +10 skill item which doesn't take any slot would cost 20,000 gp. A slotless continous Summon Monster IV effect for a CR 3 creature (which a diplomacy of +10-12 can get you) would cost 112,000 gp. Or conider the Summon Lesser Planar Ally spell (4th level Cleric). Which costs 100gp per HD per minute level. Maximum of 6 HD elemental or outsider. A single fight would cost 300-600gp for a typical CR 3 creature, plus the use of the spell slot (or having someone cast it for you). Even though getting Handle Animal or Diplomacy allies requires a quest, that doesn't actually cost anything in terms of the character's power (i.e. something the character is giving up as opposed to the player in terms of credits). By paying a significant amount of gold for a signifcant ally, you begin to balance things. Just briefly looking over the costs for exotic allies (like Golems), maybe a rough rule of thumb would be CR*CR*500 gp. Allowing Handle Animal or Diplomacy to reduce this cost might be reasonable (in one case you don't have to pay the trainer and in the other you're negotiating the terms of service down). Perhaps reduce the cost by skill*500 to a minimum of half? In any case, the numbers could be tweaked, but I think the general idea that Handle Animal and Diplomacy allies need to cost more than just the skills themselves is true. On a side note, I think class allies and leadership cohorts do satisfy the "cost" requirement, by either taking a particular class thats been balanced with that ally or by taking a feat. Anyways, just my two cents.
MindWandererB 09-27-06, 04:05 PM	Let me just say that requiring Swim for outmaneuver is pretty darn silly in some maps, e.g. the Temple or Plains.
Zelck 09-27-06, 04:07 PM	Well, if we want to change the ally rules so players with allies are 1 CR higher, we can do this after the Iron Man. Additionally, we could make it so dead allies are instantly revived for the next battle. It should be the player's responsibility to make sure he's placed in the right league, and we could simply include that as part of the fight title. If they're in the wrong league, it's an auto-forfeit. I'm worried about using gold to balance class allies because we'd have to retroactively apply it to people who currently have allies and it'd be a mess to deal with that gold (much easier just to raise your ECL by 1). Anyway, does anyone have comments on the free activities (Steal Schedule and Rob Store) I proposed? I think Steal Schedule can really improve a skillmonkey's chances. For just 10*spell level*caster level gold per fight, a skillmonkey can start in battle with a 10+ round stat buff, or a 10+ round Enlarge/Reduce Person (!), or a 10+ round Invisibility, or a really long duration Spider Climb, or Blur, or whatever! Just think of the possibilities! The downside is they have to be prebuffed so you can't get specific buffs in response to specific arenas/opponents. Still, this is extremely powerful. It also makes sense. Skillmonkeys in real campaigns can scout and give advance warning of enemies. Disguise + Bluff + Decipher could allow the skillmonkey to impersonate a guard and acquire and decode a copy of the guard shifts, or a map detailing where monsters will be. That allows the party time to buff, even against "surprise" encounters. Rob Store gives the Rogue free expendables. Pretty good IMO, and works all the time. Stores would have traps, thus the use of Disable Device.
hogarth 09-27-06, 04:13 PM	Rob Store gives the Rogue free expendables. Pretty good IMO, and works all the time. Stores would have traps, thus the use of Disable Device. I think it's a bad idea to have Rob Store increase by the square of your modifier; it blows out of proportion with other money-earning activities (like Profession). An ECL3 character can trivially get a modifier of +10, which is enough for 450 gp per battle under your proposal. Also note that the exact set of three skills is needed for Burglary, too, so there's quite a lot of overlap.
TheMagister 09-27-06, 04:26 PM	Also note that the exact set of three skills is needed for Burglary, too, so there's quite a lot of overlap. Which kinda makes sense, since you're burgling a store in one case and an opponent's stash in another. =)
Zelck 09-27-06, 04:42 PM	Yea, and Disable Device really isn't used for Burglary (how many people have traps?). So this technically requires one more skill. The ECL^2 thing was me being lazy. I wanted to make this scale non-linearly so it can match the exponentially scaling expendable prices. Hmm... an ECL3 elf can get 6 ranks + 3 int +... ok fine :P. Skill^2 is too much. How about 4*ECL*Skill? That gives the following distribution. The formula used to create this was 4*ECL*Skill = 4*ECL*(ECL+3+number along the top representing extra bonuses to the skill like +int, +items, etc.): ECL +3 +6 +16 3 108 144 264 4 160 208 368 5 220 280 480 6 288 360 600 7 364 448 728 8 448 544 864 9 540 648 1008 10 640 760 1160 11 758 880 1320 12 864 1008 1488 13 988 1144 1664 14 1120 1288 1848 15 1260 1440 2040 16 1408 1600 2240 17 1564 1768 2448 18 1728 1944 2664 19 1900 2128 2888 20 2080 2320 3120 Which may seem really large, but just one 5th level scroll is 1125gp. We might actually have some dedicated UMD scroll users if we decide to go with this free activity. EDIT: Also note the difference between +6 and +16 is about 500 at level 12 (gets higher as ECL rises, up to 800 at ECL20). So, it should take like... 17 fights to pay off a 10k +10 skill item, although the higher limit allows you to possibly grab higher level scrolls earlier. EDIT2: I'd also like to point out that as long as we set up the free activities correctly so only Rogues and Bards can really benefit from them, we can make them a little more powerful. These classes and especially the Bard isn't exactly going to challenge for highest ranking anytime soon, so this boost could be very nice.
SauroGrenom 09-27-06, 06:15 PM	I haven't read every single post above carefully, so I don't think I can offer any criticism that hasn't already been given. But I do have a bit of input to give to this conversation. First we are talking about utility of skills. In a normal game all of these skills come into play in non combat encounters. I'm reminded of this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ab/20060728a) where the general layout of a standard adventure's encounters is described. The break down is : 2 Skill Encounters (bypass an creature or obstacle by using skills) 4 Basic Combat's (Fight it out at your CR) 2 Magical Challanges (Lore Based or using spells to defeat the obstacle or creatuer) 1 Divine/Natural Challange (Undead or Nature Encounter for the Cleric or Druid/Ranger) 1 Puzzle or Trap (For the Rogue's Disable Device Skills) 2 Role Play encounter (For RP and using "conversation" skills bluff, sense motive, diplomacy, disguise, gather info...) 1 Mook (Very Easy Encounter at CR below Party level) 1 Polder (Safe place where party can rest and recover) 1 Overwhelming Encounter (Encounter a bit above the parties CR to get the party worried about slacking off too much) 1 Big Finish (Deadly Encounter with Big Bad Evil Guy and all the minions) To summarize... of the 16 encounters, there are 5 that are non-combat and 7 that are defintely combat and a few that may be combat. Non Combat Encounters are intended to be about 1/3 of all encounters. The reason I bring this up is because I want to remind everyone that CoCo has no non-combat encounters. There is no such thing as a Role Play Encounter in CoCo. There are no Skill Challanges, no Magic Challanges, no Traps. What the previous suggestions are trying to do is to force role play or trap encounters to influince combat encounters. So this is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. We may be able to force it in with enough effort, but the fit will not be seamless. I suggest we recognize that from both the perspective of trying to make new ideas fit and from the perspective of accepting how well those new ideas work. My ideas for new kinds of skill uses will mostly revolve around allowing characters to do various things outside of combat. The game characterizes skills in combat rather well. We have spot, listen, move silently, ride, hide, spell craft, handle animal and a few more being used every week in CoCo. We can make the other skills usefull without introducing new kinds of Free Actions and without placing artificial effects on combat. What I think we can do is to create kinds of "fights" that are realy encounters. These can be introduced into the pairings maker at about a 1 to 4 change of happening. That means that instead of a fight you may get a trap or an encounter you can avoid with high enough diplomacy. I suggest the following kinds of encounters: Trap: You character encounters a trap. A random trap at your ECL is rolled, and you must spot it and defeat it with disable device. If you defeat the trap you win rewards as if you lost a battle at your ECL. If you cannot defeat the trap, you suffer the effects of the trap and win no rewards and enter the next battle wounded. In either case, such an encounter does not advance the 3FC. Skill Barrier: In this encounter a random skill is needed to bypass some kind of barrier. A randomly determined skill is rolled and a DC is set. The character must meat the DC of the check. If they can meet this DC, they win loosers rewards and do not advance in the 3FC. If they cannot meet the DC, then they have a monster fight (you must go the long way around and fight the Ogre if you cannot jump over the chasm.) Let me go down the list of skills and just toss out a few specific ideas about how I'd like to see each skill be more usefull. Appraise: Instead of the never used CoCo ability to buy items at a discount, allow characters to sell items at closer to market value. The gauntlets of ogre strength that you guy at ECL5 may need to be replaced with a girdle of strength +4 at a latter point. But you eat a loss of 2000gp selling it. This skill can allow you to sell those gauntlets for closer to full market value. (Self crafted items are not eligable to use this skill) Autohypnosis: This skill is never used because those times when it comes into play don't happen in CoCo. You rarely feal the secondary effect of a poison. If you resist dying, no big deal. Instead every 5 ranks in this skill should allow someone to buy powerstones at +1 ML without credits. Balance: This skill has uses in many of the new maps, so we can include it as a Skill Barrier skill and nothing more. Bluff: This skill can be synergistic with the Appraise skill to increase "Sell Back" prices of sold equipment. Also I'll suggest we change our allies rules as follows... The MaxCR of Diplomacy or HA allies is ECL-6 (Instead of ECL-4) and every 5 ranks in this skill allows you to move it up by one. This may also be a Skill Barrier skill. Climb: Like Balance this skill has some uses in many of our new maps. Perhaps we can add in a few more chances to climb, but other than that it can be a skill barrier skill. Concentration: Very usefull in combat. Craft: Lots of Money Making Uses. Decipher Script: Hmmm... Very hard. Diplomacy: For getting Allies Disable Device: Defeat a Trap Encounter Disguise: Evade/defeat some Skill Barriers Escape Artist: Usefull in Grappling or with evading various kinds of entanglement. Forgery: Well established use for allies Gather Information: This skill has a use, but is most valuable to archers and those who want custom single use magic items of low level. We may allow people to use the skill to cumulatively buy blackmarket items. There is now a rather low limit on the value of the items you can buy. The skill would be more popular if I could spend 4 weeks of free actions to get a more expensive item. Handle Animal: Lots of Uses Heal: Another hard one here... Hide: Combat uses already Intimidate: Can be used in the Skill Barrier Jump: Usefull on some maps, but could be a Skill Barrier. Knowlege: For Monster fights and polymorph, already working well. Listen: Combat uses already Move Silently: Combat uses already Open Locks: Skill Barrier Perform: Makes Money and is usefull to bards only in a Core manner, no need for further uses. Profession: Makes money Psi Craft: Combat uses already Ride: Combat uses already Search: Helps defeat Trap Encounters Sense Motive: Usefull in Skill Barriers, and could be used in conjunction with Appraise to sell back items at closer to full price. Sleight of Hand: Makes Money, and is usefull in crafty tactics. No need for further uses. Speak Languages: Usefull apropreately for quests and allies Spell Craft: Combat uses already Spot: Combat uses already Survival: Skill Barriers can be defeated by this. Use Magic Device: Combat uses already Use Psionic Device: Combat uses already Use Rope: Skill Barriers again. My idea is a bit contrived, and generic and simple, but I think the introduction of a few more kinds of encounters will help with making skills usefull. In these kinds of encounters players who focus on skills will get to win a few without using any resources to win. It's a bit of a neutral sum game, but you get slightly ahead and advance your character due to skills. Most of the time, the rewards are the same as if you lost a battle but nothing is used in your 3FC to get those rewards. Also you can use skills to succeed especially if these kinds of encounters comprise 1/4 or 1/3 of all battles as is suggested in the article above. They are simple to pitlord, since there is either no battle or a monster fight (only tactics from one player). That's my brainstorm for today.
Caterane 09-27-06, 07:10 PM	Sauro, I would of course love to incorporate a roleplaying enviroment and also such encounters like you describe but the former is completely arbitrary, and the latter is not really much fun as you just look how your pitlord makes one online roller roll instead of you devising tactics to defeat a foe. I would feel deprived of something if the Harvester would face a skill encounter. And monster fights, well the reasion why we don't see many these weeks is that we have no pitlords for a 1 Player fight. I already combine fights to multiplayer ones. If we find a solution to these problems I'm all for adding a non-combat enviroment but this has to challenge the human player just like a normal fight does by requiring tactics. @all: Pairings ally PCs in a different week doesn't work for reasons that give me a headache just by thinking about it. We also won't fix anything retroactively; we never do that.
SauroGrenom 09-27-06, 08:20 PM	Well introducing new encounters may not be as much fun, but I can still highlight a few of my ideas from above that can play a role in CoCo and make some skills usefull without effecting combat directly: Appraise: Instead of the never used CoCo ability to buy items at a discount, allow characters to sell items at closer to market value. The gauntlets of ogre strength that you buy at ECL5 may need to be replaced with a girdle of strength +4 at a latter point. But you eat a loss of 2000gp selling it. This skill can allow you to sell those gauntlets for closer to full market value. (Self crafted items are not eligable to use this skill) So you can add together the score in Appraise, Bluff and Intimidate to improve the selling price. Say that you have Bluff +11 and Appraise +4 and Intimidate 5, you can sell your old +3 shortsword for 70% of the market price instead of 50% and buy a +3 Rapier instead (or whatever). Autohypnosis: Every 5 ranks allows you to buy PowerStones at +1 ML above your manifester level in that class (without credits). Bluff: This used with the Appraise skill to increase prices of sold equipment (not self crafted). Decipher Script: Every 5 ranks allows you to buy scrolls at +1 CL above your caster level in that class (Without Credits). Disable Device: Combines with Search and Open Locks to provide a boost in gp rewards for a battle when used as a free action. The amount of the boost is a % determined by the average of the three modifiers. So a +3 Disable device +10 Search and +5 Open locks provides a +6% gold rewards after each battle. (Less money than crafting at low levels but more money than crafting at high levels. The idea is find a secret cach of gold, disable the trap and open the lock.) Disguise: Can be used as a free action to "confuse" the intelligent allies of a foe. The skill check take 10 sets a DC opposed by the opponent's spot check. If the ally fails the check, they are "Confused" as the spell for one round/5 ranks in the skill. The effect is defeated by telepathy, scent or some other abilities. Gather Information: This skill has a use, but is most valuable to archers and those who want custom single use magic items of low level. We may allow people to use the skill to cumulatively buy blackmarket items. There is now a rather low limit on the value of the items you can buy. The skill would be more popular if I could spend 4 weeks of free actions to get a more expensive item. For example let's say I'm ECL5 with a +10 Gather Information. According to the rules now I can buy an item at most worth 220gp. This is very limiting. I can only get a few single use items and a few arrows. But I suggest that I can use two free actions to buy an item worth 440gp, or I could spend 5 free actions to buy an item worth 1100gp. That's an amulet of wisdom+1 or some simular low level item, but not overpowering and it's better than a single use item. Heal: score in this skill produces a % chance that slain allies are recovered for the next fight in the 3FC. edit: suggested by Cat Intimidate: Gives a boost in selling price of items not self crafted. Open Locks: Works with Disable device to increase rewards. Search: Works with Disable devic to increase rewards. Sense Motive: Also I'll suggest we change our allies rules as follows... The MaxCR of Diplomacy allies is ECL-6 (Instead of ECL-4) and every 5 ranks in this skill allows you to move it up by one. So if you have 10 ranks in Sense Motive, you can get an ally that is ECL-4. If you can get 15 ranks, then you get ECL-3... and so on. (Leadership or class allies are not restricted by this.) Survival: This works simular to the Sense Motive, but with respect to HA allies. The typical max CR of a HA ally is ECL-6 and every 5 ranks in this skill allows that to be improved by +1.
Caterane 09-27-06, 08:26 PM	Heal: Skill value = % chance for killed ally to be available for next fight in your 3FC. As said, if you can make these non-combat encounters fun, I'm all for it.
SauroGrenom 09-27-06, 08:47 PM	What do you think of the others? Making some kind of skill interaction where each human player submits tactics, is going to be realy hard. Lots of new rules to invent in something like that. There needs to be things that oppose various skills... it's a big deal to make that many new rules. I don't want to make pitlord jobs harder. I don't want to make a bunch of new rules that are part of fights. That won't help us any. Rather just make all the skills usefull. I think my previous post has a few good things in it. Rogues and Bards can sell back items with decreased loss, they can get some new sources of income that scale better with level than crafting. The Gather Info skill can be used cumulatively to get an item over several weeks. The ally strength issue is addressed by Multi Ability Dependancy. Diplomacy is paired with Sense Motive and HA is paired with Survival. So there are Cha and Wis in the mix determining how powerfull and how many allies you can get. Autohypnonis and Decipher Script can help with scrolls/stones for those characters that want high level scrolls without paying credits. What do you think? It looks like a fairly complete package, and it doesn't make a pitlord's job any harder. It allows skill monkey characters to recieve benefits that effect the arena indirectly through rewards, items and allies instead of positions on the battle map or sneak attacks or direct damage. I think that's resonable. Don't you?
SauroGrenom 09-28-06, 12:51 AM	First off, I'd like to get some feedback on the above suggestions. NiQil is a great litmus test. If a suggestion is bothersome, unnesessary or confusing he is fantastic at pointing out the flaws, so I invite your comment. Anyone who has comment please offer criticism as well. I posted my first character on 8-26-05. So I've been around just over a year now. I've noticed that recently the number of pitlords and the number of fights and the number of active characters is not what it once was. Back on January 11th of 2006 we had 116 active characters in one week. I don't know if that was a max, but it was more than we have now. This week we have 74 active characters and barley enough pitlords to handle the need. Something has happened over the last year that I've been around. Our membership has dropped. Why? :weep: Since then we have introduced a few new rules, and we've had the boards update problems that ate several weeks. The new rules includes the guild system overhaul, the 3FC, new maps, Unearthed Arcana content and new limits on allies and expendibles. But we also have the new CoCo roller, and the CoCo map tag generator, and Dracazar's battle template that help pitlords run their battles a bit quicker. Since January we have many new members, but apparently more members have been lost than have been gained. This trend worries me. It's hard for us to grow quickly because our senior members (who make the best pitlords) are streached thin already and they cannot accommodate droves of newbies. I suppose that my point right now is that I feel we who are already a part of CoCo, find new rules to be no big deal. We add in new stuff every few months. Each addition is easy for us to take, since it's a small difference from what we already know. But for a newb, each new rule increases the difficulty of getting started. I see dozens of new characters posted in the characters thread that end up going nowhere. Lots of people find CoCo and post a character, but they don't stay for some reason. I suppose right now, I'm just musing about why that is... What makes someone read the entire rules thread and spend several hours building a character and then run it for two battles and quit? Are new and old members quitting because the burden of rules is becomming too heavy? I don't know. But maybe we can think about some of our rules and keep in mind that realy fun games are easy to play. Tactical and strategic options are fun as well, but endless rules upon rules can be a barrier to play also. It may be worthwhile for us to think about making our rules easy to play. That means no additional rolls, no new tables in the rules thread, no fancy equations that must be calculated for each battle, just simple D20 battles. That's it. That's what we are here to play.
NiQil 09-28-06, 01:50 AM	Well introducing new encounters may not be as much fun, but I can still highlight a few of my ideas from above that can play a role in CoCo and make some skills usefull without effecting combat directly: Appraise: Instead of the never used CoCo ability to buy items at a discount, allow characters to sell items at closer to market value. The gauntlets of ogre strength that you buy at ECL5 may need to be replaced with a girdle of strength +4 at a latter point. But you eat a loss of 2000gp selling it. This skill can allow you to sell those gauntlets for closer to full market value. (Self crafted items are not eligable to use this skill) So you can add together the score in Appraise, Bluff and Intimidate to improve the selling price. Say that you have Bluff +11 and Appraise +4 and Intimidate 5, you can sell your old +3 shortsword for 70% of the market price instead of 50% and buy a +3 Rapier instead (or whatever). I don't see this getting used a whole lot. Most people who sell things are those that are already crafting weapons and armor, and they already aren't taking a loss of any kind. I very seldom see people sell things that they didn't craft themselves. Autohypnosis: Every 5 ranks allows you to buy PowerStones at +1 ML above your manifester level in that class (without credits). This skill already has an in-combat use...it just doesn't see much use in that fashion. The problem with this idea is that it puts psionics ahead of casters because there is no arcane or divine equivalent skill. I also think that messing with the expendable limits we have in place now is a step backwards. Bluff: This used with the Appraise skill to increase prices of sold equipment (not self crafted). This skill already has an in-combat use...feinting. It just doesn't see much use because it primarily benefits rogues. Decipher Script: Every 5 ranks allows you to buy scrolls at +1 CL above your caster level in that class (Without Credits). I see now that we want to use this as a caster equivalent to autohypnosis. But my original response stands...messing with the expendable limits we already have in place seems to be a step in the wrong direction. We've worked very hard to get expendables under control, and I think things as they are now are pretty close to optimum as far as expendables go. Disable Device: Combines with Search and Open Locks to provide a boost in gp rewards for a battle when used as a free action. The amount of the boost is a % determined by the average of the three modifiers. So a +3 Disable device +10 Search and +5 Open locks provides a +6% gold rewards after each battle. (Less money than crafting at low levels but more money than crafting at high levels. The idea is find a secret cach of gold, disable the trap and open the lock.) I'm with Cat on this one...I think we have enough money-making options in skills...this comes across as a slightly more complicated version of making money with Craft or Profession. Also, some of these skills are already used in the burglary free activity. In my opinion, we should look for uses of non-used skills, not multiple uses of the same skills. Disguise: Can be used as a free action to "confuse" the intelligent allies of a foe. The skill check take 10 sets a DC opposed by the opponent's spot check. If the ally fails the check, they are "Confused" as the spell for one round/5 ranks in the skill. The effect is defeated by telepathy, scent or some other abilities. I don't really see that this would be an activity that anyone would want to use on a regular basis...just not blowing my skirt up. If I were to come for an idea for Disguise, I would make it something like "with x ranks or x modifier in Disguise, you can use a free activity to receive the gold reward for your arena fight equivalent to one ECL higher than your current ECL. So as an example, an ECL 3 character that meets the criteria (whatever it may be) for Disguise can earn 900 xp and 1200 gp for an ECL 3 win, or 300 xp and 400 gp for a loss. That's just something I came up with off the top of my head. Gather Information: This skill has a use, but is most valuable to archers and those who want custom single use magic items of low level. We may allow people to use the skill to cumulatively buy blackmarket items. There is now a rather low limit on the value of the items you can buy. The skill would be more popular if I could spend 4 weeks of free actions to get a more expensive item. For example let's say I'm ECL5 with a +10 Gather Information. According to the rules now I can buy an item at most worth 220gp. This is very limiting. I can only get a few single use items and a few arrows. But I suggest that I can use two free actions to buy an item worth 440gp, or I could spend 5 free actions to buy an item worth 1100gp. That's an amulet of wisdom+1 or some simular low level item, but not overpowering and it's better than a single use item. I don't really have an opinion on this one, other than it would be somewhat cumbersome to track how may free activities you have saved up to purchase something, and puts more of a burden on Cat to make sure it is accurate. Heal: score in this skill produces a % chance that slain allies are recovered for the next fight in the 3FC. I like this idea. Maybe something like total Heal modifier x ECL / 2= the % chance of recovering a slain ally for your next fight. So an ECL 3 character with a total mod of 10 would have a 15% chance...an ECL 4 with with a +15 would be at a 30% chance, etc. The drawback to this idea is that it is very situational, and if your ally does not get slain, you just wasted a free activity. Intimidate: Gives a boost in selling price of items not self crafted. See above Open Locks: Works with Disable device to increase rewards. See above Search: Works with Disable devic to increase rewards. See above Sense Motive: Also I'll suggest we change our allies rules as follows... The MaxCR of Diplomacy allies is ECL-6 (Instead of ECL-4) and every 5 ranks in this skill allows you to move it up by one. So if you have 10 ranks in Sense Motive, you can get an ally that is ECL-4. If you can get 15 ranks, then you get ECL-3... and so on. (Leadership or class allies are not restricted by this.) Survival: This works simular to the Sense Motive, but with respect to HA allies. The typical max CR of a HA ally is ECL-6 and every 5 ranks in this skill allows that to be improved by +1. I'm not sure what I think about these last two. I am generally against any allies that are not granted by a class or a feat, so I may not be the best one to critique these two. But I will say that allies definitely still need to be tweaked...they are still too powerful.
MindWandererB 09-28-06, 02:16 AM	At this point, I have a confession to make. I've been tracking the visitors I've spotted in the CoCo and written down their names, to see if they later join. As of today, I've tracked 24 visitors who chose not to create a character (and keep in mind, these are only the ones who were on when I loaded the forum, and not invisible). I also only tracked those who were reading the rules or character threads, not our old archived debates and whatnot. And as a social scientist, what do I do with that population? Collect data, of course. I have send PMs to 20 of those 24 people (in batches of 5) why they chose not to join us. The answers (of which I have received only 5 6) have been all over the place: one mentioned the time commitment, one the lack of direct control over character actions, two disliked the need for credits to do many things, one just didn't like PvP, one complained about the inconsistency with restricting sources that weren't commonly owned, but not allowing web enhancements, and only one two complained that the rules were too complicated. So, not much to go on there, although I plan to continue my polling. I saved the original responses, if anyone is interested. Now, what I could do is repeat the same methodology with those who created characters, but never advanced past, say, ECL 4. I just never bothered establishing that population, but it would be easy enough to do. I'll get on that when I have free time, and we'll see if there's any outstanding factors that crop up. With a standing response rate of only 25%, the data is questionable, but it's worth a try.
Caterane 09-28-06, 10:38 AM	I think a revision of our skill system is in order. The coco isn't very skillmonkey friendly; the many comments that skills are not as worthy as a feat confirm this time and again. Rogues and Bards are almost non-existent, and if then they're always combined with another wellestablished class. In a real campaign, rogues are as favored as wizards and fighters and the reason is that there is an enviroment for them. Let's start to create it. Free Activities with Skill Packages Hide (vs Spot) Move (vs Listen) Bluff (vs Sense) Sense (vs Bluff) | Task: All four skills must be higher than the mentioned opposed skills of your opponent. | Effect: You may pick your and your opponents starting boxes, and you gain a surprise round. The boxes still can't be the same. Disguise (vs Spot) Gather (vs Gather) Bluff (vs Sense) Open (vs ECL+5) or (vs Open) | Task: All four skills must be higher than the mentioned opposed skills of your opponent. | Effect: You gain one attack roll against an opponent's ally. You may apply any prebuffed effect. You need a trap Search (vs Trap DC) Disable (vs Trap DC) | Task: You must own a trap, and pass the DCs with a Take 10. | Effect: Your opponent faces this trap just before combat begins. Traps are returned after the 3-Fight-Cycle. Traps count as allies with a max CR = ECL-2. Balance (vs Balance) Climb (vs Climb) Jump (vs Jump) Swim (vs Swim) | Task: All four skills must be higher than the mentioned opposed skills of your opponent. | Effect: You may start outside your home box by a number of squares equal to the margin of the sum of your skills opposed to the sum of your opponent's skills. Survival or Search (vs Track DC) Use Rope (vs Escape artist) Knowledge Geography | Task: You have to pass the Track DC (Indoor: Dc15; Outdoor: Dc10; plus modifiers on PHB p101). Your Use Rope value must be higher than your opponent's escape artist. | Effect: You gain one free prebuff round just before the fight per 5 points in Knowledge Geography. | Note: Without the track feat, you can only find tracks up to DC 10. Sleight Open | Task: You must have at least 5 ranks in both skills. | Effect: You gain one expendable item for your fight up to the product of Sleight x Open value. The item is lost after the fight. Open (vs ECL+5) or (vs Open) Search | Task: You have to have an open lock value higher than your opponent's ECL+5 or his open lock value (whichever is higher). | Effect: You may remove one item from your opponent's sheet for the fight up to a marketprice value of Search x ECL Modifier (see table below). The item is returned to the opponent after the fight. You may not use this item. Appraise Bluff Sense | Task: You need at least 5 ranks in all three skills | Effect: Gain discount for one bought item in percent equal to the lowest of the three skills. Appraise Gather | Task: You need at least 5 ranks in both skills. | Effect: Sell one item for a higher value equal to the lowest of the two skills in percent. Normally, an item is sold at 50% its marketprice. New Free Activity: Hide Trail! The track DC to scout you increases by 5. In addition to that, there should be a new rule that you can use two Free Activities but then all skill values for both activities are halved. Other revisions: Intimidate: If you have a handle animal value equal to the animal's CR, you may intimidate allies of the animal type aswell. For magical beasts with animal intelligence and vermin, the HA DC increases by 5. Gather Info: You can accumulate several Gather information free activities over the weeks but they must be in uninterrupted succession.
SauroGrenom 09-28-06, 10:44 AM	I don't see this getting used a whole lot. Most people who sell things are those that are already crafting weapons and armor, and they already aren't taking a loss of any kind. I very seldom see people sell things that they didn't craft themselves.That's my point. I've often wished that Kracknol could sell a piece of equipment at closer to full market value. His Griffon is showing it's age, but it cost 8500gp. So he's not going to sell. I would sell it if I could get more money back on the sale. The loss of money is the barrier that I'm not willing to accept, and if that barrier were deminished I would be more willing to buy and sell items. I suspect that there are other players who whould appreciate the flexibility to sell magic items and exotic mounts without loosing as much gold in the process. I've never seen any player use the current Appraise skill to buy items cheaper, so it's obviously not a favored use of the skill. With an option like what I propose, perhaps the skill will be used. This skill already has an in-combat use...feinting. It just doesn't see much use because it primarily benefits rogues.I've seen the skill be used in combat on one character. There may be more, but it's not common. Using it well in combat requires a feat. I'm just trying to make the point that it's a seldom used skill, and perhaps skill based characters will be more viable in CoCo if another use is given to the skill. I see now that we want to use this as a caster equivalent to autohypnosis. But my original response stands...messing with the expendable limits we already have in place seems to be a step in the wrong direction. We've worked very hard to get expendables under control, and I think things as they are now are pretty close to optimum as far as expendables go.I can see your point that if it ain't broke don't fix it. This an autohypnonis are skills that have little to no other utility, and I realy doubt that even with an option to have more powerfull scrolls/stones this skill will see lots of use. I may be wrong about how many people will use Authypnosis and Decipher Script, but the skill is a class skill for only a few classes. I don't know... even my proposed benefit for this skill sounds rather wimpy. I doubt that even with that, we will have many characters taking these skills since they must still pay for the expendibles under the expendibles cap. I'm with Cat on this one...I think we have enough money-making options in skills...this comes across as a slightly more complicated version of making money with Craft or Profession. Also, some of these skills are already used in the burglary free activity. In my opinion, we should look for uses of non-used skills, not multiple uses of the same skills.Well with respect to money making, I think there is a clear difference we can talk about between what I suggest and what we already have. If you optimize a character with craft at low ECL you get a certian amount of money. At higher levels and with more ranks, the money grows, but not nearly as fast as the gp rewards at higher ECL's A 20th level character. A ECL20 character who wins earns 80,000gp as the gold reward. If he is crafting as a free action he can earn about 600gp. That's 0.75% of the fight reward. Crafting at ECL3 earns about 50gp compared to 900gp. That's 5.5% of the fight reward. You see as levels increase crafting looses value. I suggest a way to make money that is fundamentally different in that it scales better with high levels. It's not just another way to make money, it's a way that makes less money at low levels and more at high levels. And it has multi ability deppendancy and it requires lots of skill points. Only a few character classes can do it. I don't really see that this would be an activity that anyone would want to use on a regular basis...just not blowing my skirt up. If I were to come for an idea for Disguise, I would make it something like "with x ranks or x modifier in Disguise, you can use a free activity to receive the gold reward for your arena fight equivalent to one ECL higher than your current ECL. So as an example, an ECL 3 character that meets the criteria (whatever it may be) for Disguise can earn 900 xp and 1200 gp for an ECL 3 win, or 300 xp and 400 gp for a loss. That's just something I came up with off the top of my head.Disguise is a hard one to make something fit with. My suggestion may not work. Perhaps yous will. *shrug* I don't really have an opinion on this one, other than it would be somewhat cumbersome to track how may free activities you have saved up to purchase something, and puts more of a burden on Cat to make sure it is accurate.We already do something like this with crafting. I've seen in the past people crafting mithral full plate as free actions that span over several weeks. I'm suggesting something simular. I like this idea. Maybe something like total Heal modifier x ECL / 2= the % chance of recovering a slain ally for your next fight. So an ECL 3 character with a total mod of 10 would have a 15% chance...an ECL 4 with with a +15 would be at a 30% chance, etc. The drawback to this idea is that it is very situational, and if your ally does not get slain, you just wasted a free activity.It can be made more usefull by allowing it to be a free activity on the fight you are about to play. So you set the free activity if your ally is dead, and your tactics must be situational for if the ally recovers or not. I'm not sure what I think about these last two. I am generally against any allies that are not granted by a class or a feat, so I may not be the best one to critique these two. But I will say that allies definitely still need to be tweaked...they are still too powerful.Yea it's clear that a successfull character needs allies. I was trying to introduce another barrier that is not too strong, but not meaningless either.
Caterane 09-28-06, 10:48 AM	Sauro, the reason why we don't see Discount or Feint in use is that it's a rogue feature and we have almost no rogues. Discount saves you ten times more money than any money earning free activtiy so obviously it isn't deemed too weak. We need to become more rogue friendly, that's the point.
TheMagister 09-28-06, 11:03 AM	Remember The White Hand? He used the discount skill ability once or twice (once on a wand) and saved up to 450 gp once. It was nice. Heck of a skill point drain, though. These new skill addendums would possibly induce me to re-try that build with a higher Int modifier and other little tweaks. Let me tell you: being able to start off in an opponent's square and get a surprise round is (for a rogue) PRICELESS. It can make an impossible fight merely manageable. All those HP won't help you much after two +3d6 sneak attacks (if I win initiative). There would also be plenty of other nasty combos that could result. A surprise round grease spell on a heavy armor wearer could give just the right advantage. An rogue/assassin could gain enough rounds to death attack someone on the first or second round of combat. Time, precious time! It's everything to a rogue.
hogarth 09-28-06, 11:39 AM	Let me tell you: being able to start off in an opponent's square and get a surprise round is (for a rogue) PRICELESS. It can make an impossible fight merely manageable. All those HP won't help you much after two +3d6 sneak attacks (if I win initiative). I think low-level wizards are in big trouble if this activity is allowed. Surviving two immediate attacks before getting to cast a single spell? That's just about impossible for a level 3 wizard, IMO.
Zevox 09-28-06, 12:22 PM	Let me tell you: being able to start off in an opponent's square and get a surprise round is (for a rogue) PRICELESS. It can make an impossible fight merely manageable. All those HP won't help you much after two +3d6 sneak attacks (if I win initiative). Where do you see one of those letting you start in an opponent's square? I see ambush letting you pick what squares you start in, and outmanuever letting you start a certain number of spaces beyond your start box, but neither of them says anything about lifting the prohibition against two opponents start in the same square. Anyway, one thing I'd like to bring back up is the traps. Given that they have a CR, shouldn't they adjust the rewards of a fight? As our allies do perhaps, or with another formula? Zevox
TheMagister 09-28-06, 12:27 PM	Where do you see one of those letting you start in an opponent's square? I see ambush letting you pick what squares you start in, and outmanuever letting you start a certain number of spaces beyond your start box, but neither of them says anything about lifting the prohibition against two opponents start in the same square. Anyway, one thing I'd like to bring back up is the traps. Given that they have a CR, shouldn't they adjust the rewards of a fight? As our allies do perhaps, or with another formula? Zevox Prepare Ambush Hide (vs Spot) Move (vs Listen) Bluff (vs Sense) Sense (vs Bluff) | Task: All four skills must be higher than the mentioned opposed skills of your opponent. | Effect: You may pick your and your opponents starting boxes, and you gain a surprise round. I don't see what's so confusing about that.
Zevox 09-28-06, 12:36 PM	Effect: You may pick your and your opponents starting boxes, and you gain a surprise round. I don't see what's so confusing about that. The fact that it does not say that it permits you to ignore the rule that no two opponents can start in the same box. Why would you think it does when it does not say that? Zevox
hogarth 09-28-06, 12:38 PM	Effect: You may pick your and your opponents starting boxes, and you gain a surprise round. I don't see what's so confusing about that. Oh, I see -- Zevox is saying you pick the two starting boxes, but they can't be the same box. That would be O.K., then (although I wouldn't really call it an "ambush").
Caterane 09-28-06, 01:19 PM	Of course, you do NOT start in your opponent's box. Why would anyone take outmaneuver or assassinate if he can do both things, combined, easier, and better? I thought that would be obvious but I added a line to prevent accidents. Also, traps count as allies.
Zelck 09-28-06, 02:14 PM	I'm really leary of allowing traps. I'm REALLY worried that trap use will just turn battles into "save or die". Honestly, that's not fun for both the winner and the loser. I know they cost gold and are allies, but stuff like a water filling room or that CR10 crushing walls can instantly kill the victim. Let's not lose sight of our goal here: we want to make skillmonkeys better. I'd like to argue for fewer really good new activities for skillmonkeys as opposed to making a lot of mediocre ones for two reasons: 1. Easier to learn. The more free activities we have to keep track of, the harder it is on everyone here. I think we're all better off keeping things as simple as possible. 2. There's a limited amount of free activities. You can only do one, or two (but the two are both halved in effectiveness, possibly leading both to do nothing). Creating a few really powerful free activities allows skillmonkeys to do a lot better than giving them the option to choose between many weak options of which they can only do one, or two (making them even weaker). So, when we evaluate these free activities, we need to ask this question: "Will this free activity benefit skillmonkeys enough to close the gap between them and say a fighter or a caster?" Again, I'd like to plug my "Steal Schedule" free activities, and my version of the "Rob Store" free activity. The version of Rob Store Cat proposed is much more limited, and isn't worth much without a significant investment at low levels. Let's suppose a sleight value of +7 and an open value of +7; 7*7=49, not even enough for a potion. Even if it's a bit higher, how much will one extra potion for the low level fights help Rogues win more? Besides, it gives a powerful use for Disable Device, which is what we wanted. Scout is kind of like Steal Schedule, but there're two problems. First and most importantly, non-skill monkeys can take advantage of it too. The search or survival check is against a low fixed DC, and the Use Rope check only has to beat your opponent's Escape Artist check. So, get a Druid with an item of Use Rope, and he gets potentially many rounds to prebuff. That's not good. On the other hand, Steal Schedule's skills are only class skills for Rogues and Bards, and it doesn't allow items to affect the check. Second, prebuff rounds are weaker for Rogues, who don't have thir own spells. Steal Schedule, on the other hand, allows them to purchase spells from vendors which gets around that. Disguise (vs. your ECL + 4) Bluff (vs. your ECL + 4) Decipher Script (vs. your ECL + 4) | Task: The three skill modifiers must be higher than or equal to your ECL + 4. Items or spells cannot boost your skill modifiers for the purposes of this free activity. | Benefit: You may prebuff spells, effects, or NPC-bought spells that last at least 3(?) minutes. You enter the fight 2(?) minutes later. *The time numbers can be tweaked Open Lock (vs. your ECL + 4) Disable Device (vs. your ECL + 4) Search | Task: Your Open Lock and Disable Device skill modifiers must be higher than or equal to your ECL + 4. | Benefit: You may use expendables with a gold value of at most 4x(your ECL)x(your Search modifier) for free in your next fight. These expendables must be chosen in advance and listed in your prebuffs. They do not count against your expendables cap. These expendables are returned after the fight. Credits - What Are Credits? The Core Coliseum is made possible only by a host of people giving their personal time and effort to keep the place running. Without them, we cannot have fights, quests, or even the roster. As a measure of thanks, we have set up a rewards system. For their time and dedication, they receive credits. Credits are marked with this symbol: ° which is always accompanied by a number that determines the amount of credits. Players can accumulate credits to spend them somewhere else. Every player with at least 1° has an account in the CoCo. A complete list of the credit balances of our members can be found in the Characters thread: the Pitlord List. Credits - Ways of Earning Credits You can earn credits in numerous ways, including running fights, running quests, or performing administrative tasks. You're certainly not required to do any of this, and many highly competitive characters required no credits to build, but please consider helping us out. Not only do you receive credits for doing this, you also help make the Coliseum possible. Below is a list of ways to earn credits. {insert list here} I'm getting the feeling that what I'm saying isn't getting across to clearly, and it's probably an issue with how I'm presenting things. Are there certain things you're looking for that I'm not doing? Is it my tone, or am I being too critical? How can I be more effective at getting my points across? Or do my ideas just suck so bad they're not even worth commenting on?
SauroGrenom 09-28-06, 02:27 PM	Ambush: You have Hide, Move Silently, Bluff and Sense Motive. There will be few rogues with high stats in dex and charisma and wisdom. Rogues have notoriously low charisma, and sense motive is a wisdom skill (rogues have los wisdom in general as well). Everyone and their cousin has ranks in spot. I think it's going to be highly unlikely for a character to get enough ranks in all 4 of these skills to pull this strategy off with any regularity. If anyone is able to do that, then oppossing it only takes is a few ranks in a skill based on your character's best stat. If I'm a sorcerer, I take ranks in bluff to defeat this. If I'm a cleric it's sense motive. This may sound like a good tactic, but it will be almost impossible to pull off. Assasinate: Again this ability suffers from MAD (multi ability dependancy). This is a Dex and 3 Cha skills. Rogues have low Cha, and only one of the skills has synergy bonus for another skill in the list. Even rogues will have a hard time getting a disguise check and a bluff check that will consistently defeat the spot and sense motive checks of the opponents. This is an ability more for bards, who don't have a sneak attack. Set Trap: If my character takes ranks in serach and disble device can I defeat this trap? I think I should, but the rules simply say I "face" the trap. What does that mean? Does the trap go off and hurt me dispite my ranks in the protective skills? If the trap goes off without my being able to block it, then many low HP characters end up dead. Raskos at ECL10 only has 21 hp. Most ECL8 traps cause average damage enough to kill him. No fun. Outmanouver: All but one of these skills is strength based. Rogues are not strength based characters. This strategy will be used by barbarians and grapple builds more than anyone else. Also keep in mind that on a small map, you could get very very close to your opponent with a high strength. This may be more powerfull than you think, and it isn't tailored for Rogues to recieve the benefits. Discount: As before, the ability suffers from MAD terribly. The three skills all have different abilities associated with them. Limiting it to the lowest of the three puts this ability out of reasonable reach for characters to use. At best you get a few% off on the price of things. This is the same as the current rules, and we already know that only one or two characters have ever used this ability. Change it to the average of the three. That way you can at least focus the skill points on bluff or sense motive and get a small benifit without also dumping points into the otherwise useless appraise. Sell Items: Same problem as above for Discount. Also self crafted items need to be exempted from this or else it can be used to sell items and make money. .
Caterane 09-28-06, 02:29 PM	I agree with Niqil that the CL cap for expendables is good as it is. What we can do for Autohypnosis and Decipher Script is to allow a bonus in percent to your expendable gold cap. Autohypno for stones stuff, decipher for scrolls. Example: Autohypnosis 10 means all your powerstones count as 10% less gp for the limit. Might be difficult to track though but something along this line would be acceptable. We could also combine it with Knowledge Psionics and History, respectively. These skills have no function either and synergies well with the ones above.
Zevox 09-28-06, 02:36 PM	I'm really leary of allowing traps. I'm REALLY worried that trap use will just turn battles into "save or die". Honestly, that's not fun for both the winner and the loser. I know they cost gold and are allies, but stuff like a water filling room or that CR10 crushing walls can instantly kill the victim. If they're counted as allies, you won't be able to use CR 10 traps until ECL 14. And you can hardly bring an entire room with you, so I don't think a water filling room trap would be viable (unless youre playing as a water breather and are on the temple map or some such). Not that there aren't some damn scary options for traps out there, but perhaps we should at least test it before passing judgement on the idea. Zevox
Zelck 09-28-06, 02:42 PM	If they're counted as allies, you won't be able to use CR 10 traps until ECL 14. And you can hardly bring an entire room with you, so I don't think a water filling room trap would be viable (unless youre playing as a water breather and are on the temple map or some such). Not that there aren't some damn scary options for traps out there, but perhaps we should at least test it before passing judgement on the idea. Yea, but there's a 3d6 Strength Damage poisoned doorknob too (CR6? or 7?), or a very deep pit trap ("Fly or die, sucker!"). What I don't like about this is that you have no chance. At least if you're facing an opponent with save-or-die abilities, you can use tactics to avoid them or hide or buff or whatever. Against a trap, you don't even have your buffs, you don't have tactics, you just roll the dice and hope. The potential for traps to seriously affect the fun value of fights means we should be VERY careful about allowing them. Mess up and we could lose a lot of people.
Caterane 09-28-06, 03:28 PM	I'm really leary of allowing traps. I'm REALLY worried that trap use will just turn battles into "save or die". Honestly, that's not fun for both the winner and the loser. I know they cost gold and are allies, but stuff like a water filling room or that CR10 crushing walls can instantly kill the victim. CR 10 traps are for ECL 12 characters but you have a point here. The suggested traps have the problem of having highlevel spells and poison included. We should rather use the create your own trap table and any spell must be bought normally. We should also exclude the option to spend credits to buy higher-level spells for a single investment of 10° can get you that prismatic spray trap. That way we're always having traps that are ok for their level. The CR is another factor to balance it. I also want to underline once again that traps and ambushes are an integral part of the D&D system which is currently lacking in the coco. Coincidently that're the domains of the rogue and that's the class that is missing here. The same is true for bards and support but that's another story. Again, I'd like to plug my "Steal Schedule" free activities, and my version of the "Rob Store" free activity. The version of Rob Store Cat proposed is much more limited, and isn't worth much without a significant investment at low levels. Let's suppose a sleight value of +7 and an open value of +7; 7*7=49, not even enough for a potion. Even if it's a bit higher, how much will one extra potion for the low level fights help Rogues win more? Besides, it gives a powerful use for Disable Device, which is what we wanted. You're a rogue and have +7? With a minimum of 5 ranks you have dex 14? Any 1st level rogue with Dex16 can get +8; most rogues have dex 20 even. 8x8 = 64 and that's a potion or a CL 2 scroll which you gain for free at ECL 3 and this is totally fine. But the main advantage here is not the value anyway but the option to pick an item after the deadline! Both skills have other applications thus are not wasted and if you specialize in that you can easily negate the main attack of any opponent! That's powerful enough. Scout is kind of like Steal Schedule, but there're two problems. First and most importantly, non-skill monkeys can take advantage of it too. The search or survival check is against a low fixed DC, and the Use Rope check only has to beat your opponent's Escape Artist check. So, get a Druid with an item of Use Rope, and he gets potentially many rounds to prebuff. That's not good. On the other hand, Steal Schedule's skills are only class skills for Rogues and Bards, and it doesn't allow items to affect the check. First of all, the name "Steal Schedule" is totally going into the wrong direction. The CoCo is more than the arena with 200 gladiators but a living world where only a few on the roster are actually gladiators. Archangel Ixenthor and the Harvester, all paladins and most other creatures surely don't fight for money infront of a bloodthirsty audience. I really like to get away from that narrow picture and open possibilities to roleplay your character however you want. Additionally, we want to simulate a campaign world to some extend and while any DM would allow to earn moeny with Craft and Perform, discern health stati with Heal or Gather info for rare items, no DM would grant you prebuff rounds because you have decipher script, can open locks and disguise. In a campaign, this is highly situational and I remember that you opposed such things earlier. Then, let us look at your druid example more closely. A druid gains 2 skills per level and intelligence is not known to be spread among that class. Neither escape artist nor use rope is a class skill, and he needs 5 ranks in each => 20 skill points just to get to +5. Search is no class skill either so he needs survival and survival needs track. Survival costs additional skill points, perhaps another 10, and then, after spending 30 (!) skill points, he can do nothing else (no spot, listen, spellcraft, concentration, etc etc). He also needs the track feat and what does he gain for all that? One prebuff round. No, Scout is for Rangers, rogues, and skill monkeys. I'm getting the feeling that what I'm saying isn't getting across to clearly, and it's probably an issue with how I'm presenting things. Are there certain things you're looking for that I'm not doing? Is it my tone, or am I being too critical? How can I be more effective at getting my points across? Or do my ideas just suck so bad they're not even worth commenting on? No, I love your participation! Really, good work. Keep it up. I just don't always have time to respond right away becuase the post will become rather long (see this one). Ambush: You have Hide, Move Silently, Bluff and Sense Motive. There will be few rogues with high stats in dex and charisma and wisdom. Rogues have notoriously low charisma, and sense motive is a wisdom skill (rogues have los wisdom in general as well). Everyone and their cousin has ranks in spot. I think it's going to be highly unlikely for a character to get enough ranks in all 4 of these skills to pull this strategy off with any regularity. If anyone is able to do that, then oppossing it only takes is a few ranks in a skill based on your character's best stat. If I'm a sorcerer, I take ranks in bluff to defeat this. If I'm a cleric it's sense motive. This may sound like a good tactic, but it will be almost impossible to pull off. What you're saying is that other classes will also invest in skills? Great. For clerics it means you have to lower your strength and raise intelligence to gain more skill points (the 2/lvl go into concentration and spellcraft solely) and other classes have to adept likewise. Skills become more important. We also don't want to make Ambush an autosuccess so the rogue has to invest something too. He may have a low cha or wis but bluff and sense are class skills. He just has to be ...a skill monkey ;) Assasinate: Again this ability suffers from MAD (multi ability dependancy). This is a Dex and 3 Cha skills. Rogues have low Cha, and only one of the skills has synergy bonus for another skill in the list. Even rogues will have a hard time getting a disguise check and a bluff check that will consistently defeat the spot and sense motive checks of the opponents. This is an ability more for bards, who don't have a sneak attack. There are magic items, it's a class skill, and it should be no auto-success since it's a powerful ability. I picked the typical rogue skills. And of course, it's better than it was till now and no one complained; they just didn't play rogues. Let's test it for a while; we can always tweak it. Set Trap: If my character takes ranks in serach and disble device can I defeat this trap? I think I should, but the rules simply say I "face" the trap. What does that mean? Does the trap go off and hurt me dispite my ranks in the protective skills? If the trap goes off without my being able to block it, then many low HP characters end up dead. Raskos at ECL10 only has 21 hp. Most ECL8 traps cause average damage enough to kill him. No fun. Uh well, running around with 21 hitpoints at ECL 10 is a bit weak, don't you think? You could compete in the coco enviroment where you had no surprises but in any campaign, Raskos walking through a dungeon is going to face traps and you can't blame your DM then. That just tells me we're getting closer to a real enviroment. But being able to counter a trap is a good point. I add that you can defeat the trap with Search+Disable. Outmanouver: All but one of these skills is strength based. Rogues are not strength based characters. This strategy will be used by barbarians and grapple builds more than anyone else. Also keep in mind that on a small map, you could get very very close to your opponent with a high strength. This may be more powerfull than you think, and it isn't tailored for Rogues to recieve the benefits. They're all class skills for rogues who - if focusing on outmaneuver at the cost for forsaking other skill packages ;) - can start closer to the foe and get off a sneak attack right away. And no one said it's restricted to rogues. Warriors can use a new option too. We just don't add something for spellcasters :P Discount: As before, the ability suffers from MAD terribly. The three skills all have different abilities associated with them. Limiting it to the lowest of the three puts this ability out of reasonable reach for characters to use. At best you get a few% off on the price of things. This is the same as the current rules, and we already know that only one or two characters have ever used this ability. Change it to the average of the three. That way you can at least focus the skill points on bluff or sense motive and get a small benifit without also dumping points into the otherwise useless appraise. Appraise can also be used to sell stuff and I think the reason why it hasn't been used is that we had no rogues in the rogue-hostile coco but we can change it to average. That's really powerful then but craft feats gain you a 50% discount which is unbeatable anyway. Sell Items: Same problem as above for Discount. Also self crafted items need to be exempted from this or else it can be used to sell items and make money. Actually this is the main effect which opens the possibility to become a trader. You can craft as a fullactivity but you can only sell as a free activity which advances you in XP too. The other application you mentioned will be rarely used because most plan ahead.
SauroGrenom 09-28-06, 03:39 PM	The issue with Steal Schedule is that it doesn't fit the concept of CoCo very well. We are trying to change the flavor of the environment to reflect less "Arena" battles and more flavorfull battles of various types. For example a paladin is not likely to willingly fight before bloodthusty crowds. So the base rational only works for a smaller set of character concepts. As for the basic idea, there is no clear limit on how many spells you can have cast on yourself. It could be any number of them. Immagine how bad this can get as a worst case. A character enters the arena with dozens of low level prebuffs that cost only a few gp each. Shield, Mage Armor, Expiditious Retreat, Fly, Energy Resistance, the list goes on and on. The idea is just too powerfull. The Rob Store idea was probably the basis for Cat's suggestion. The two ideas are very very simular. For yours to work at all , a player needs to put 2 skill points in every level (Open Lock and Disable Device). For Cat's to work it's 2 skill points/level and the gp value increases more rapidly (since two number in the equation increase instead of just 1). Also the sleight of hand and open locks Cat suggests are both Dex based skills, so it's easier for a rogue to get a high score with that combination than with disable device, open locks and search (2 int based skills).
Zelck 09-28-06, 04:41 PM	@Traps: Please don't use the trap creation rules! They're so broken it's really funny :D. For instance: Automated Gatling Gun (CR10): Automatic Reset Trigger: Alarm Effect: 18x Magic Missiles at the creature that set this thing off (average 63 damage) Total Cost (self-crafted): 9000 gp Or: Bye! (CR10): Automatic Reset Trigger: Location Effect: Teleportation Circle somewhere far far away... and you don't get a save or SR! Total Cost (self-crafted): 176500 gp (costly, but worth it for an autowin trap) Or: Got Teleport? (CR8): Automatic Reset Trigger: Location Effect: Forcecage (barred cage) on target Total Cost (self-crafted): 45500 gp I rest my case ;). Rob Store: OK, I'm convinced. Still, I'd like to see the gp value multiplied by 2. We might see some more UMD-scroll users that way, if we allow it to possibly hit those higher level scroll gp levels. +20 to both will only get you a 400gp item; doubled it would get you 4th level scrolls. +30 doubled can get you fifth level scrolls. I guess we're not allowing scrolls with multiple spells on it, right? Also, Sleight already has a use. Why not use Disable Device for this? Stores have traps :P. Scout: Well, Druids have 4x skill points per level. I thought they'd have Knowledge: Geography, but they don't. So let's look at the Grey Elf Wizard with 20 Int and 14 Dex instead. 2x skill points per level, but they usually have another +5 from int. At level 9, they'd have 6 ranks in crossclass skills and 12 in class skills. They should also have a modified int of 24. So: Knowledge (Geography): 12rank + 7int = +19 Search: 6rank + 7int + 2elf +5item = +22 Use Rope: 6rank +2dex= +8 So we see a few things. The Use Rope value isn't high, but how many people invest in Escape Artist? If they succeed, they get three prebuff rounds, and are almost on to the fourth. The search should be able to catch just about anything. Steal Schedule: So much for Decipher Script :(. What about Disguise + Bluff + Gather and renaming it (Acquire Intelligence? Meh...)? Think of it like this. *Skillmonkey walks up to his next target disguised as a friend* "Hey old buddy, how're things going? So whatcha doing? Ah, so you'll be walking along that forest path in 30 minutes? OK, cool, well I got to get going, see you soon!" Disguise vs. Spot Bluff vs. Sense Motive Gather vs. Your ECL + 4 | Effect: If you succeed these three checks, you may prebuff up to three spells, abilities, or NPC-bought spells. They must have a duration of at least 5 minutes. You enter the fight 4 minutes later. This free activity may be used in conjunction with Ambush (at no penalty to either free activity). You must list these prebuffs in your prebuff section before you're paired. I capped the number of prebuffs to 3, although I imagine 2 or 4 wouldn't be that bad either, and upped the minimum duration to 5 (so it's a round number; 10 would also work, but would remove minute/level spells altogether). Let's remember that this ability needs to be powerful in order to make Rogues more balanced. The only smidget is that the prebuffs must be chosen before you know who to fight, but technically you know who you fight before you get the spells casted. Maybe you have a contract with the spellcaster, who meets you at a location where you can easily reach your opponent. The contract details which spells you'll receive. If the prebuffs can be chosen after the pairings, the number should be reduced to 1. I like the chosen before though; it gives more incentives to buff offensively than to buff defensively.
MindWandererB 09-28-06, 04:59 PM	It looks like my idea for a survey won't work--apparently, Cat has been pruning the characters off the roster. I remember there used to be a large number of ECL 3 and 4 characters that just sat there because their players left and they never bothered telling anyone, but I guess those are mostly gone now (I found only 2 characters belonging to long-inactive members). Cat, do you have any kind of a record of those characters who got pruned? if so, can I get that list so I can conduct my survey? It would be great if we could figure out why they quit and do something about that. I would like to point out that the Quick Start guide could be more...accessible, both literally and figuratively. Literally in that the link to it is small and hard to notice, and figuratively in that it looks more complicated than it is. If I revised the Quick Start guide to look easier to follow, would you use it? I also notice that the rules therein are out-of-date.
hogarth 09-28-06, 05:25 PM	How about: Throw In The Towel (CR3): Automatic Reset Trigger: Location Effect: Psionic Suggestion "Surrender the battle" (Will DC 13) Total Cost: 3000 gp (1500 gp if self-crafted) @Traps: Please don't use the trap creation rules! They're so broken it's really funny :D. For instance: Automated Gatling Gun (CR10): Automatic Reset Trigger: Alarm Effect: 18x Magic Missiles at the creature that set this thing off (average 63 damage) Total Cost (self-crafted): 9000 gp Or: Bye! (CR10): Automatic Reset Trigger: Location Effect: Teleportation Circle somewhere far far away... and you don't get a save or SR! Total Cost (self-crafted): 176500 gp (costly, but worth it for an autowin trap) Or: Got Teleport? (CR8): Automatic Reset Trigger: Location Effect: Forcecage (barred cage) on target Total Cost (self-crafted): 45500 gp I rest my case ;).
Zelck 09-28-06, 05:58 PM	Throw In The Towel (CR3): Automatic Reset Trigger: Location Effect: Psionic Suggestion "Surrender the battle" (Will DC 13) Total Cost: 3000 gp (1500 gp if self-crafted) You WILL Throw In The Towel (CR10): Trigger: Location Effect: 13x Psionic Suggestion "Surrender the battle" (Will DC13) Total Cost: 39000 gp (19500 if self-crafted)
Caterane 09-28-06, 06:43 PM	Automated Gatling Gun (CR10): Automatic Reset Trigger: Alarm Effect: 18x Magic Missiles at the creature that set this thing off (average 63 damage) Total Cost (self-crafted): 9000 gp 63 damage against a ECL 12 character is not much. A brooch of shielding is not expensive either. Bye! (CR10): Automatic Reset Trigger: Location Effect: Teleportation Circle somewhere far far away... and you don't get a save or SR! Total Cost (self-crafted): 176500 gp (costly, but worth it for an autowin trap) Uh, no. It doesn't work that way. Besides, you can craft this trap at ECL 19 and no level earlier. Got Teleport? (CR8): Automatic Reset Trigger: Location Effect: Forcecage (barred cage) on target Total Cost (self-crafted): 45500 gp Like the teleportation circle, this has a spell that has a very high CL, here CL 13 minimum which means ECL 15 characters face this trap. You should be able to deal with that at such a level or you lose against any spellcaster anyway. And we have the rule that you cannot apply effects that affect the area as prebuff. Throw In The Towel (CR3): Automatic Reset Trigger: Location Effect: Psionic Suggestion "Surrender the battle" (Will DC 13) Total Cost: 3000 gp (1500 gp if self-crafted) Suggestion never worked to force surrender. You WILL Throw In The Towel (CR10): Trigger: Location Effect: 13x Psionic Suggestion "Surrender the battle" (Will DC13) Total Cost: 39000 gp (19500 if self-crafted) ...and we should definately forbid multiple spells or multitraps. Which rules out the Gatling Gun MM trap above too. Do you have any other examples? Thanks to your examples we have some first impression on what we should probably forbid. Knowledge (Geography): 12rank + 7int = +19 Search: 6rank + 7int + 2elf +5item = +22 Use Rope: 6rank +2dex= +8 This wizard has spent half his skill points on these three skills, and he needs track in addition to that to track anything above Dc10. Quite an investment and definately okay for 3 prebuff rounds. Note that casters can just cast rope trick, teleport, meld into stone or such things to gain buff time. This skill package is for those who cannot do such things, ie noncasters. @MWB: Sent.
TelinArtho 09-28-06, 06:47 PM	Well since Suggestion specifically says that asking someone to do something that will cause them bodily harm - that would fail (since "Surrendering the battle" - is in effect "dying" in the arena scenario (which is why you haven't seen a crowd of casters using suggestion to end the fights they are in...). While the examples above might be "impressive" - they are easily thwarted. Any high level character who doesn't spend the 1500gp to cover protection from magic missiles is pretty stingy or simply messing with fire... The teleport is simply too expensive to ever see in the CoCo. Someone who uses it and is confronted by any caster who can cast Teleport can be pretty quickly thwarted. For that matter - since you have to know the spell in order to craft an item with the spell on it - the same logic would go for traps. I honestly could care less whether traps are implemented or not. While they may play a significant part of some D&D games, I have never seen much use for them except to soften up PCs and to distract them temporarily. High-powered traps aren't often "fun" unless there's some improvisation with them. In the scenarios above we seem to be indicating that if you don't have a sufficient search/disable device, you automatically fall for the trap. Well - what if the trap is a door with a lock and a poison needle? What's to stop a player from casting knock to bypass it - or a warrior from busting it down with his greataxe...? Perhaps having a high enough search to merely detect the trap is enough to thwart it - if you have the means and ability to bypass it. So, in other words, my problem is not the potential of many "autowin" traps - but the immutability of requiring specific skills that are probably out of reach of most characters in order to protect themselves from harm.
Caterane 09-28-06, 06:55 PM	Teleport again: You don't lose if you're teleported away. We had this discussion long ago with Maze (no save) and what happens to a character that get mazed and thus violates the 10-round absence rule (ie autolose). You return after 10 rounds automatically. @Telin: It's also only a small number who can use it. Rogues namely and some skill monkeys who have the requisite skills so it's not that a cleric will suddenly place a trap under your feet. For rogues, well, that's just what a rogue does and denying him this feature would be like saying wizards can only cast spells without somatic components. The way the trap is triggered doesn't matter, for simplicities sake. A barbarian doesn't bash in every door especially not since he doesn't know about the trap.
MindWandererB 09-28-06, 07:29 PM	Teleport again: You don't lose if you're teleported away. We had this discussion long ago with Maze (no save) and what happens to a character that get mazed and thus violates the 10-round absence rule (ie autolose). You return after 10 rounds automatically.Maze is a little different, because with that spell, you always return to where you came from. Involuntarily leaving the arena has by several elder rulings (involving a Dislocator weapon, possession of a summoned creature, and turned incorporeal undead to name a few) been ruled to result in a loss. This would be a substantial overturn if changed. Magic Missiles vs. Brooch of Shielding: recall that the Brooch costs 1500 gp to protect against 101 points of damage. That's pretty expensive compared to renewable or cheap sources of the spell (like traps and wands). Also bear in mind that many wizards and sorcerers (who have few HP, and are thus most vulnerable to magic missiles) rely on Shield for protection, which requires a round to put up (so a surprise trap would circumvent it). Clerics and druids also need that precious neck slot for Periapts of Wisdom--if they swap it for a brooch, they lose prepared spells.
Zelck 09-28-06, 07:37 PM	This wizard has spent half his skill points on these three skills, and he needs track in addition to that to track anything above Dc10. Quite an investment and definately okay for 3 prebuff rounds. Note that casters can just cast rope trick, teleport, meld into stone or such things to gain buff time. This skill package is for those who cannot do such things, ie noncasters. There's also the Nomad, who has Survival and Knowledge (Geography) as class skills. If it's going Slayer, it'd have the Track feat. They also have Temporal Acceleration, but that is pricy. I won't argue against this too much, but I'm not sure the benefit is that great. @Traps: At level 13, a character with d4 hit dice will survive 63 damage only if they have a +3 con mod. And what about those water-filling rooms? Really, I don't see how traps would add to the fun factor of CoCo. As said in this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060210a): All told, this adventure will have something like eighty encounters. But there’s one staple D&D challenge that I’m skipping entirely: the hidden trap that goes off without warning… the booby-trap that PCs just react to. You know the type. It’s the poison needle that jabs the rogue picking the lock. It’s the explosive runes on the last page of the book. It’s the slay living spell that goes off whenever someone touches the door of the mausoleum. I think these traps are fundamentally dissatisfying. Look at it from the player’s point of view. Player: I go listen at the door. DM: As you move down the corridor, it fills with caustic gas. Make a Fortitude save. Player: [Rolls.] An 18. DM: Not good enough. Take… [rolls]… 22 points of damage as you choke your way through the gas cloud. Now you’re at the door. Make that Listen check… From the player’s point of view, he tried to do something ordinary, and he took damage for it. He eventually got to do what he wanted to do all along. He just took a little damage and earned some XP along the way. It’s almost entirely a mechanical transaction—no decisions involved. The trap’s only function in the overall adventure is to provide some minor attrition. Worse, the whole table pays a penalty for that minor attrition. Now the PCs start taking 20 on every Search check. They develop elaborate operating procedures for opening a door. The pace of the game slows to a crawl. I ask myself this: Given that you have a finite amount of time at the D&D table with your friends, how much of that time do you want to devote to door-opening? Does that mean no traps? Hardly. It means traps that feel like encounters, where the PCs work their way past them on a round-by-round basis. It means traps that function like interesting obstacles: big, obvious, and cool-looking. An example might suffice: I’ve got a room full of swinging, bladed pendulums—an execution chamber that’s damaged and not exactly functioning the way its makers intended. Is it a trap encounter? Yes, the PCs will still get to use Disable Device to get the bladed pendulums to stop swinging. The PC can still use Search to find the hidden button that turns off the pendulums. And PCs can pile debris in the path of the pendulums or figure out the pattern of their swinging and deftly dart across the room. No matter how the PCs get past the blades, the players feel like they did something. One way or another, they figured out a way to get through the room. If those blades had suddenly dropped out of the ceiling and started slicing up PCs, the players wouldn’t feel like they did something. They would feel like something was done to them. So I’m promising anyone who plays this adventure: No reactive traps. Listen at the door, sure, but you don’t need to check every single one for a slay living spell. There're a lot of traps that can effectively end the fight, and it's not fun to get hit by one and then lose instantly. Nor is it fun to win like that.
hogarth 09-28-06, 08:03 PM	Well since Suggestion specifically says that asking someone to do something that will cause them bodily harm - that would fail (since "Surrendering the battle" - is in effect "dying" in the arena scenario (which is why you haven't seen a crowd of casters using suggestion to end the fights they are in...). I didn't think a Suggestion to surrender would work, but that logic is pretty dubious (surrendering is the same as bodily harm? it makes more sense to argue that coerced surrenders are ignored, I think). Annoying spells to have hit you on the first turn: 2nd level (CR3, 3000 gp): Blindness, Ghoul Touch, Suggestion (something reasonable), Summon Nature's Ally II (hippogriff), Touch of Idiocy 3rd level (CR4, 7500 gp): Bestow Curse, Poison, Ray of Exhaustion, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement 4th level (CR5, 14000 gp): Enervation, Evard's Black Tentacles Whether it's worth the money or not is debatable. I doubt it would be a popular free activity in any event.
Caterane 09-28-06, 08:12 PM	Does anyone have a good suggestion on how we can make: - Knowledge History + Decipher Script (for scrolls) - Knowledge Psionics + Autohypnosis (for stones) affect the expendables gold cap in an easy way? Fight Features The first part (Free Activities for rogues) being done we can now finish this add-on by fleshing out fight features. How does it work. (1) The pairingsmaker adds one feature behind each fight, next to the map. We have to get Drac to add this to the pairingsmaker. Or: (2) I make one general roll for all fights. Easier to do but less variation. We'll see the same fight features in every fight for the whole week. The assigned feature then affects the fight. The following features are possible. Illumination Daylight: Unless the character has no special sensivity to daylight (orcs, sahuagins, etc) he suffers no ill effects. Twilight: Vision limited to 60ft. Low-light vision 120'. Darkvision=range. Moonlight: Vision limited to 30ft. Low-light vision 60'. Darkvision=range. Darkness: No light is in the area. Wind Strength (DMG,p95) Breeze: No Penalties Strong: Listen & Ranged-2, affects tiny flyers (Dc10) Severe: Listen & Ranged-4, affects tiny, small, and medium flyers (Dc15) Windstorm: Listen-8, Ranged impossible, affects tiny to huge flyers (Dc18) Enviroment Temperate: No penalties Very cold: Dc15+1/check. Number of checks = Time Roll. Damage = 1d6 non-lethal per failed check. Fatigued if damage taken. Survival helps (Suvival 5 grants +2 on saves; include 1 creature per additional point). At mid level (ECL7+) characters take 1d6 lethal damage per minute (no save) and PCs in metal armor are affected by a chill metal effect. Very hot: Dc15+1/check. Number of checks = Time Roll. Damage = 1d4 non-lethal per failed check. Fatigued if damage taken. Survival helps (Suvival 5 grants +2 on saves; include 1 creature per additional point). Characters in armor receive a -4 on the check. At mid level (ECL7+) characters take 1d6 lethal damage per minute (no save) and PCs in metal armor are affected by a heat metal effect. Weather Calm: No penalties Fog: Characters have concealment. Rain: Visibility is halved, Search, Spot, and Listen-4. Hail: Listen-4, Expendables and other items with 1 hp cannot be used. From ECL7+ on: Deals 1 damage every round to all creatures. Magic Normal Magic: No modifications Wild Magic: Spellcaster has to pass CL check Dc15+SL (or HD if no SL given) or face wild magic effects (DMG,p150). Impeded Magic: Pass Spellcraft check Dc20+SL or spell does not work. It's still used up. Enhanced Magic: Any spell is automatically enhanced at no cost. Roll 1d9 (1:EMP|2:ENL|3:EXT|4:HEI|5:MAX|6:QUI|7:S IL|8:STI|9:WID) Limited Magic: Spells of 1d3 <random> schools do not work. Roll 1d8 (1: ILL|2: ENC|3: CON|4: ABJ|5: NEC|6: EVO|7: DIV|8: TRA) Plane Material Plane: normal Astral Plane: Subjective directional gravity, Mildly neutral-aligned, Enhanced magic (quickened) Plame of Shadow: Mildly neutral-aligned, Enhanced magic (shadow), Impeded magic (light) Ysgard: Minor positive dominant, Mildly chaos-aligned Pandemonium: Mildly chaos-aligned Abyss: Mildly evil-aligned, Mildly chaos-aligned Carceri: Mildly evil-aligned Hades: Strongly evil-aligned Gehenna: Mildly evil-aligned Nine Hells: Mildly law-aligned, Mildly evil-aligned Acheron: Objective directional gravity, Mildly law-aligned Mechanus: Objective directional gravity, Strongly law-aligned Arcadia: Mildly law-aligned Seven Heavens: Mildly good-aligned, Mildly law-aligned Bytopia: Objective directional gravity, Mildly good-aligned Elysium: Minor positive dominant, Strongly good-aligned Beastlands: Mildly good-aligned Arborea: Mildly good-aligned, Mildly chaos-aligned Outlands: Mildly neutral-aligned Other Lost: Survival Dc15 or take 2xTime Roll to get to fight. If you pass Dc30, the time halves, rounded up. Surprise: All characters start in the same box. Monster: Every character faces one random unknown monster of ECL-4 in addition to his opponent. Monsters only attack their assigned PC. Traps: All players face a trap before the beginning of ECL-4. It is possible to search and disable it by taking 10 and passing the DC. Crowd: Bystanders continuously point out the position of all characters, pinpointing them automatically. If your charisma is at least 4 higher than that of the opponent, they do not point out your position to him.
MindWandererB 09-28-06, 08:18 PM	Let me just suggest right now that the "normal" condition should be vastly more probable than the others (75%+). Even at 75% normal per condition, the chances of having a completely normal arena are only 32%. At 90%, the chances of a totally normal arena are 65%. Somewhere in there sounds good.
Zelck 09-28-06, 08:35 PM	Does anyone have a good suggestion on how we can make: - Knowledge History + Decipher Script (for scrolls) - Knowledge Psionics + Autohypnosis (for stones) affect the expendables gold cap in an easy way? Expendables Cap = 50*ECL*Lower of the two modifiers. Fight Features The first part (Free Activities for rogues) being done we can now finish this add-on by fleshing out fight features. How does it work. *wince* Can we please put the traps one on hold? We can swap Disable Device for Sleight of Hand in the Rob Store free activity to give the skill a use for now, but I'd really like it if we didn't implement traps so quickly. (2x(Disable Device)x(Open Lock) might be a better formula for Rob Store, but I won't belabor it.) (2) I make one general roll for all fights. Easier to do but less variation. We'll see the same fight features in every fight for the whole week. Much easier to deal with, IMO. Windstorm: Ranged impossible, affects tiny to huge flyers (Dc18) Let's take this out of the options. Ranged attacks being auto-fail could severly nerf many characters. Enviroment Let's just change these names to "temperature", "normal", "very cold", and "very hot". Seems easier to explain than how Bob suddenly ended up in the arctic circle. ;) Weather Let's cut this out altogether. Fog would make hiding nuts, and would hurt attackers and Rogues. I don't like how rain shuts down scroll usage alltogether. And I don't like how hail deals damage like that. It could be very annoying on the forest map for instance, or one player with the higher HP can just try to play keepaway and let the hail take care of things. Not to mention all the potential familiar deaths. EDIT: Wait. Did I read the environment section right? It can actually KILL PEOPLE BETWEEN FIGHTS? So the ECL3 Grey Elf Psion with 15 HP dies on average damage if a weather effect comes on a 6 hour time roll? And above ECL7, damage on a 3 hour time roll is 180d6?
Caterane 09-28-06, 08:48 PM	Cap: The problem is not the formula but in that the cap includes all expendables while the skills address scrolls and stones seperately. Traps: Let's just see how it works. Rob: Sleight is bard/rogue only which is very good. That's why I picked that. Disable device will see more use with traps. Windstorm: Well, there should be situations when an archer cannot use his bow. It's a possibility he must face, just like a mounted charger cannot rely on open ground. Same goes for scroll users but we can remove scroll damage from Rain. Enviroment: yeah, deserts can kill people ;) But the min/dam only begins with teh fight, not during the time roll. Eg. a fight that goes into round 30 deals 1d6 dam for the third time in this fight EDIT: Added an "Other" section to the Fight Features.
NiQil 09-28-06, 09:43 PM	@ Cat: I have to interject this again....this is too much too fast. We have two main topics going...new skill sets and now the random fight features. Let's pick one and focus on it and shelve the other one temporarily. I think the random fight features would be the easier of the two to hammer out and put into works. Based on what I have read in the last page or two, the skill sets still need quite a bit of work, and there are still heavy objections to some of them (traps). Might I recommend moving the free activity discussion to a seperate thread? Things are getting convoluted here rather quickly, and that way people's ideas and views aren't getting lost in the shuffle of the other topic. All that being said...I do have one thing I want to point in relation to both of these topics. In my year plus in this forum, we have had a long-standing tradition of not creating any options that would cause harm to an opponent prior to the beginning of a battle so that everyone has an equal chance. We now seem to not only be steering away from that, but steering in the opposite direction. I am curious as to why this has changed. I understand and can appreciate the need to try and develop things that will make lesser-played classes like rogues and bards more affluent with our surroundings, but I think that some of these ideas are headed in the wrong direction. Adding new skill packages to be used as free activities is a good thing, but some of the individual packages I am not so thrilled about. The traps thing is a huge concern for many (as has already been expressed by several). I understand that this is the quintessential rogue ability, but I am honestly not certain if they have a place in this type of environment. I'm all for trying to find a happy medium, but I think the current train of thought on their use is going where it shouldn't. I think that the unwritten rule of "no damage to your opponent before the fight starts" is something we should uphold if at all possible. Just my cynical view on things...do with it as you will.
Caterane 09-28-06, 09:53 PM	Well, some are for some are against it (there was even opposition to cutting spellcasters to 1/3 their spells despite the obvious). Neither you nor me can see how it really works out in the end. There's just a point when a discussion cannot provide any more results. We have to try and see and like with anything we have installed so far, there's always the option to modify or even remove it. And about the tradition you mentioned: this coco tradition is not nearly as important as a core class of the Dungeons & Dragons game. I never subscribed to that tradition anyway; it just happened to be that way. If the board improves, then I'm all for it.
Zelck 09-28-06, 10:15 PM	Cap: The problem is not the formula but in that the cap includes all expendables while the skills address scrolls and stones seperately. Scroll/Stones gold cost only contributes (100-lowest skill modifier)% to the total expendables gp value. They still cost the same to acquire. Traps: Let's just see how it works. Time to save up gold... Windstorm: Well, there should be situations when an archer cannot use his bow. It's a possibility he must face, just like a mounted charger cannot rely on open ground. Same goes for scroll users but we can remove scroll damage from Rain. I don't know... I don't like the idea of these rolls being the main determinent of the outcome of fights. Enviroment: yeah, deserts can kill people ;) But the min/dam only begins with teh fight, not during the time roll. Eg. a fight that goes into round 30 deals 1d6 dam for the third time in this fight Right, but getting killed by the desert is no fun :P. The lethal damage thing is alright, I guess. Just lemme get a fight in the forest with my Energy Adaptation... MWAHAHA! Not sure that's fun for the other person though. :(.
False_Keraptis 09-28-06, 10:18 PM	I suppose that my point right now is that I feel we who are already a part of CoCo, find new rules to be no big deal. We add in new stuff every few months. Each addition is easy for us to take, since it's a small difference from what we already know. But for a newb, each new rule increases the difficulty of getting started. I see dozens of new characters posted in the characters thread that end up going nowhere. Lots of people find CoCo and post a character, but they don't stay for some reason. I suppose right now, I'm just musing about why that is... What makes someone read the entire rules thread and spend several hours building a character and then run it for two battles and quit? Are new and old members quitting because the burden of rules is becomming too heavy? I don't know. But maybe we can think about some of our rules and keep in mind that realy fun games are easy to play. Tactical and strategic options are fun as well, but endless rules upon rules can be a barrier to play also. It may be worthwhile for us to think about making our rules easy to play. That means no additional rolls, no new tables in the rules thread, no fancy equations that must be calculated for each battle, just simple D20 battles. That's it. That's what we are here to play. As a newby myself, let me just say amen to that. From my perspective, it seems like the old hands like adding new rules to keep things fresh. Obviously we should keep the veterans happy, because they're the ones that make this board function. However, speaking for myself alone, the farther things get from core d20 arena combat, the less interested I am.
TheMagister 09-28-06, 11:25 PM	How about: Instead of having the trap spring on the enemy before the fight begins, have the rogue or pitlord secretly set the trap in an advantageous location on the battle map. That way the rogue and the pitlord know where the trap is, and the rogue could perhaps write tactics around the trapped location. Perhaps he lures the warrior into the pit trap, or whatever. I think it would be a FINE idea for the GM (that'd be Cat, or even Niqil) to go through the list of traps in the DMG and rule out those that simply don't make sense (the water-filling room, the crushing wall trap, etc.) and select a certain number of traps per CR that are available for purchase. This will take much of the mind-boggling variety out of the trap application, and allow a span of control over its implementation and provide an easier way to judge the effect of traps on the CoCo. I think that allowing Niqil to pick the allowed traps would accord him the degree of control he's looking for (he's generally [sorry, Cat] the most level-headed Elder when it comes to adding stuff) and give Caterane the opportunity to check out how traps interact with players in the Arena. Sounds like a GREAT compromise. TM
Zelck 09-28-06, 11:45 PM	Maybe we should get some more of the new players' input. I'm fairly new but I usually pick up on things quickly. False Keraptis brings up a good point. After thinking about it a bit, I'd like to make another suggestion about the free activities. IMO, we should have those free activities be a benefit to the user and not a harm to the enemy. The reason for this is twofold. First, people don't have to keep track of as many free activities. For instance, if someone Crafts or uses Forgery, his opponents don't have to worry about that. They don't have to know anything about how Forgery or Craft works. On the other hand, if someone does burglary, you'd have to know about it because it affects you. I'm not saying we should change that, but let's make the new free activities benefit the user rather than hurting the opponent. Second, it's funner for everyone if their character is more powerful, and not as much fun if their character is dismantled and they never had a chance because someone conducted a free activity. Burglary doesn't really cause this problem because people shouldn't depend on expendables, but IIRC it's caused some issues in the past. We should be careful about adding more of such types of activities. And if we allow free customization of traps, I'm building this: Location Trigger (Base 1000 gp) 9d4 damage (22.5 average, CR +3) Automatic Reset (+500 gp) Search DC 20 Disable Device DC 0 (-2000 gp, CR -1) Never Miss (+1000 gp) Multiple Target (CR +0: Never Miss) So, it'd be a CR2 trap that costs 2000 gold on the market. Pretty good, considering this is almost half of one of Niqil's horsemens' HP.
Zevox 09-28-06, 11:54 PM	Geez, I leave for a few hours to go to work and just look where everything gets off too :P . (1) The pairingsmaker adds one feature behind each fight, next to the map. We have to get Drac to add this to the pairingsmaker. Or: (2) I make one general roll for all fights. Easier to do but less variation. We'll see the same fight features in every fight for the whole week. I'd personally prefer the former - as you say, more variation - but until Drac could manage that doing it the latter way would suffice. And I agree with MWB's suggestion that normal conditions be more common than special ones, since then at least you aren't too likely to have totally unusual conditions. Illumination Daylight: Unless the character has no special sensivity to daylight (orcs, sahuagins, etc) he suffers no ill effects. Twilight: Vision limited to 60ft. Low-light vision 120'. Darkvision=range. Moonlight: Vision limited to 30ft. Low-light vision 60'. Darkvision=range. Darkness: No light is in the area. A character either needs darkvision, a light source, or another way to avoid suffering normal penalties for being 'blinded'. Now these I really like. Low-light and Darkvision could use a use around here, and people would now have a reason to prepare "light" cantrips/orisons or buy some sunrods :thumbsup: . Just one suggestion: in Twilight and Moonlight, perhaps dakrvision could go to 2x its normal distance? I mean, in theory Darkvision is suppose to be better than low-light vision, right? Yet most creatures with Darkvision get only 60 ft (see: Goblin, Orc, Xeph, Hobgoblin, etc), which would make low-light vision better in twilight and its equal in moonlight. Or am I misinterpretting the relationship between Dakrvision and low-light vision in that regard? Yep, misinterpretted thier relationship. Nevermind. Wind Strength (DMG,p95) Breeze: No Penalties Strong: Ranged-2, affects tiny flyers (Dc10) Severe: Ranged-4, affects tiny, small, and medium flyers (Dc15) Windstorm: Ranged impossible, affects tiny to huge flyers (Dc18) Good, but like Zelck I don't know about Windstorm. Making ranged impossible could easily determine the outcome of many fights - casters with a good repetoir of ranged spells (see: Leif, Va'ria, anyone with a Wand of Magic Missiles CL 3+) would beat out warrior types even more easily in those conditions. And of course some characters are nearly as screwed even against non-casters without thier bows as a wizard is without his spell component pouch - surely you remember Lissa Longfellow? Where would she be without her bow? Or what about our snipers - The Chameleon, Saeandithas, Obsidian, Cyra, and so on? Granted The Chameleon might pull something off with melee, but only since she has Hide in Plain Sight - the others may as well throw in the towel against most foes if they get that effect. Enviroment Temperate: No penalties Tundra: Dc15+1/check. Number of checks = Time Roll. Damage = 1d6 non-lethal per failed check. Fatigued if damage taken. Survival helps (Suvival 5 grants +2 on saves; include 1 creature per additional point). At mid level (ECL7+) characters take 1d6 lethal damage per minute (no save) and PCs in metal armor are affected by a chill metal effect. Desert: Dc15+1/check. Number of checks = Time Roll. Damage = 1d4 non-lethal per failed check. Fatigued if damage taken. Survival helps (Suvival 5 grants +2 on saves; include 1 creature per additional point). Characters in armor receive a -4 on the check. At mid level (ECL7+) characters take 1d6 lethal damage per minute (no save) and PCs in metal armor are affected by a heat metal effect. Interesting. Hinders casters (with thier low fortitudes and hp) more than anyone else, which is nice. Problem comes if they show up too often - that would makes things a might bit too hard on casters unless they have resist energy/energy adaptation for every fight. Mayhaps this should be the one with the lowest possibility of turning up? And I like Zelck's suggestions of renaming - explaining how the forest is suddenly in a desert or tundra terrain would seem pretty strange to me... Weather Calm: No penalties Fog: Characters have concealment. Rain: Visibility is halved, Spot and Listen-4. Hail: Listen-4, Expendables and other items with 1 hp cannot be used. From ECL7+ on: Deals 1 damage every round to all creatures. Helps sneaks, which is good if we want to help Rogues and Bards become more popular. Though I find it interesting that Hail would probably render a wizard's spell component pouch or a Cleric or Druid's divine focus unusable in addition to their expendables ;) . And I must ask - in rain, if you don't one of the random effects cutting visiblity down, what is the visibility range? Or is that just ignored in that instance and you wind up with simply -4 spot/listen? Other Lost: Survival Dc15 or take 2xTime Roll to get to fight. If you pass Dc30, the time halves, rounded up. Surprise: All characters start in the same box. Monster: Every character faces one random unknown monster of ECL-4 in addition to his opponent. Monsters only attack their assigned PC. Traps: All players face a trap before the beginning of ECL-4. It is possible to search and disable it by taking 10 and passing the DC. Crowd: Bystanders continuously point out the position of all characters, pinpointing them automatically. Nice mostly, but perhaps remove surprise. I had thought we didn't want the possibility of starting in the same box around? Alpha strikers would basically auto-win with that one. Zevox
McJarvis 09-29-06, 12:02 AM	"Just one suggestion: in Twilight and Moonlight, perhaps dakrvision could go to 2x its normal distance?" There are some creatures who get both Darkvision AND low-light vision for this very reason.
Zevox 09-29-06, 12:03 AM	"Just one suggestion: in Twilight and Moonlight, perhaps dakrvision could go to 2x its normal distance?" There are some creatures who get both Darkvision AND low-light vision for this very reason. Ah - then I simply misinterpretted thier relationship. No problem there then. Zevox
McJarvis 09-29-06, 12:09 AM	"Crowd: Bystanders continuously point out the position of all characters, pinpointing them automatically." I think this is a bit harsh to builds that require hiding(like Mort or any mage with Invis). Perhaps make a standard "commoner" spot check(~2 ranks + 0 wis= +2 modifier) and let them take a 20(since there are alot of people). If you can maintain a hide check of higher than 22 then the crowd can't spot you. If you can't- they point you out to the opponent. It should be possible to "hide in a crowd"...but not easy.(and perhaps the "level" of the commoners can increase with the ECL of the fight? I dunno if it's reasonable to have a crowd full of commoners with 4 ranks in spot each- or if it is...whatever) Regardless, Mort wouldn't be able to snipe in that kind of a crowd anyway(only a lowly +18 while sniping), but an invisible character would be able to keep it up at least...at least Mort could *eventually* get a high enough hide check to do it ;)
McJarvis 09-29-06, 12:16 AM	Ah - then I simply misinterpretted thier relationship. No problem there then. Zevox np. easy mistake to make- there are not that many critters with both. Blink Dogs and Dragons come to mind tho.(no races with 0 LA though, to my knowledge...)
Caterane 09-29-06, 08:19 AM	For those who complain that certain enviroments hamper certain builds, I want to say that this is exactly what these features are for. A mounted charger can't charge in the temple, and Ixenthor can't dive in the sewer, as it is now and no one complained. Similarily, it happens that you surprisingly end up in the same box, it happens that there's wind and bad illumination. It is always bad to rely on one method of combat and the many new random situations will finally do away with the coco specific builds. I know what I'm talking about because my characters all exploit the predictable setting. Same goes for King Uther's. I added new features and changed existing ones based on your comments. Here are some things to work on: (1) One question is how we want to determine the feature. Some said the normality should be dominant, and I agree with that. How can we make sure it's that way? One idea would be to add more "normal" points but I don't like that. Another idea would be to roll 1d10, and 8-10 means no feature applied. 1-7 means roll on the respective table to determine the kind of feature (here, the "normal" situation can still come up with a rolled 1). If we get Drac to program that into the pairingsmaker we'll see ~33% normal fights. (2) This might be nothing more than an imagination problem but some features don't correspond well with certain maps. Rain or Hail in the sewer, darkness in the city, or a windstorm in the temple are hard to imagine. We can easily divide the seven maps into 3 Indoor, 3 Outdoor, and the Arena is both at the same time. We just reroll features not meant for a certain map. Problem here is that we have more outdoor features. If you have ideas for Indoor features, please tell us. Illumination Daylight: Unless the character has no special sensivity to daylight (orcs, sahuagins, etc) he suffers no ill effects. Twilight: Vision limited to 60ft. Low-light vision 120'. Darkvision=range. Moonlight: Vision limited to 30ft. Low-light vision 60'. Darkvision=range. Darkness: No light is in the area. Roll again on this table, then on another table. Wind Strength (DMG,p95) Breeze: No Penalties Strong: Listen & Ranged-2, affects tiny flyers (Dc10) Severe: Listen & Ranged-4, affects tiny, small, and medium flyers (Dc15) Windstorm: Listen-8, Ranged impossible, affects tiny to huge flyers (Dc18) Roll again on this table, then on another table. Enviroment Temperate: No penalties Very cold: Dc15+1/check. Number of checks = Time Roll. Damage = 1d6 non-lethal per failed check. Fatigued if damage taken. Survival helps (Suvival 5 grants +2 on saves; include 1 creature per additional point). At mid level (ECL7+) characters take 1d6 lethal damage per minute (no save) and PCs in metal armor are affected by a chill metal effect. Very hot: Dc15+1/check. Number of checks = Time Roll. Damage = 1d4 non-lethal per failed check. Fatigued if damage taken. Survival helps (Suvival 5 grants +2 on saves; include 1 creature per additional point). Characters in armor receive a -4 on the check. At mid level (ECL7+) characters take 1d6 lethal damage per minute (no save) and PCs in metal armor are affected by a heat metal effect. Roll again on this table, then on another table. Weather Calm: No penalties Fog: Characters have concealment. Rain: Visibility is halved, Search, Spot, and Listen-4. Hail: Listen-4, Expendables and other items with 1 hp cannot be used. From ECL7+ on: Deals 1 damage every round to all creatures. Roll again on this table, then on another table. Magic/Psionics Normal Magic: No modifications Wild Magic: Caster/Manifester has to pass CL/ML check Dc15+SL (or HD if no SL given) or face wild magic effects (DMG,p150). Impeded Magic: Pass Spellcraft/Psicraft check Dc20+SL or spell does not work. It's still used up. Enhanced Magic: Any spell/power is automatically enhanced at no cost. Roll 1d6 (1:EMP|2:ENL|3:EXT|4:MAX|5:QUI|6:WID) Limited Magic: Spells of 1d3 <random> schools do not work. Roll 1d8 (1: ILL|2: ENC|3: CON|4: ABJ|5: NEC|6: EVO|7: DIV|8: TRA). Psionics of 1d2 disciplins do not work (1:CLAIR|2:CREA|3:KINE|4:BOLI|5: PORT|6:TELE). Roll again on this table, then on another table. Plane Material Plane: normal Astral Plane: Subjective directional gravity, Mildly neutral-aligned, Enhanced magic (quickened) Plane of Shadow: Mildly neutral-aligned, Enhanced magic (shadow), Impeded magic (light) Ysgard: Minor positive dominant, Mildly chaos-aligned Pandemonium: Mildly chaos-aligned Abyss: Mildly evil-aligned, Mildly chaos-aligned Carceri: Mildly evil-aligned Hades: Strongly evil-aligned Gehenna: Mildly evil-aligned Nine Hells: Mildly law-aligned, Mildly evil-aligned Acheron: Objective directional gravity, Mildly law-aligned Mechanus: Objective directional gravity, Strongly law-aligned Arcadia: Mildly law-aligned Seven Heavens: Mildly good-aligned, Mildly law-aligned Bytopia: Objective directional gravity, Mildly good-aligned Elysium: Minor positive dominant, Strongly good-aligned Beastlands: Mildly good-aligned Arborea: Mildly good-aligned, Mildly chaos-aligned Outlands: Mildly neutral-aligned Roll again on this table, then on another table. Other Lost: Survival Dc15 or take 2xTime Roll to get to fight. If you pass Dc30, the time halves, rounded up. Surprise: All characters start in the same box. Monster: Every character faces one random unknown monster of ECL-4 in addition to his opponent. Monsters only attack their assigned PC. Traps: All players face a trap before the beginning of ECL-4. It is possible to search and disable it by taking 10 and passing the DC. Crowd: Bystanders continuously point out the position of all characters, pinpointing them automatically. If your charisma is at least 4 higher than that of the opponent, they do not point out your position to him. Altar: Roll 1d4 (1:good,2:evil,3:law;4:chaos). Bestows bless on same alignment, and bane on opposite. No save. Roll again on this table, then on another table.
hogarth 09-29-06, 08:35 AM	Nice mostly, but perhaps remove surprise. I had thought we didn't want the possibility of starting in the same box around? Alpha strikers would basically auto-win with that one. Zevox Starting in the same box is unpalatable to me, too. It also raises the question: what if two players wish to start in the same square in the starting box? Is one of them randomly reassigned to another square? It's not totally clear to me why Caterane is proposing a whole bunch of new changes. He just added the Unearthed Arcana stuff and we haven't even had time to see how that will turn out yet! In my opinion, every new rule added just adds a little more hassle to running fights (now pitlords will have to worry about lighting effects?!) and it adds a litte more to the (already intimidating) list of rules a new player has to wade through. Is that the goal -- to ultimately make the CoCo so complicated that only the hardest of the hard-core will want to play in it?
Caterane 09-29-06, 08:43 AM	I have thought about the point that newcomers are overwhelmed by the rules and we can easily fix that: We assign these features from the ECL 5 league on. That way newbies can learn the rules slowly. We can do that for other rules too for the ECL 3 and 4 league: No allies before ECL 5 (except bought ones), no custom items, whatever you think deters newbs from joining. We rewrite the quickstart guide in that it clearly tells a newbie that he doesn't need to know anything else but what's written in the quickstart guide until ECL 5. What would you think should be banned from the ECL 3/4 leagues in that way to help newbs along?
Pittbull 09-29-06, 09:23 AM	@Hogarth: I think these are only suggestions, which need to be discussed. ------------------------------ Newbie-turn-off: Banning extra-stuff for ECL 3-4: Yes, that's a good idea, it makes everything more simple.
lonewolf 09-29-06, 09:26 AM	Newbie-turn-off: Banning extra-stuff for ECL 3-4: Yes, that's a good idea, it makes everything more simple. Agreed IMHO one of the best ideas in the last months.
Caterane 09-29-06, 09:50 AM	Ok, which things do you think could be moved to a higher league? Newbie input appreciated. Let me start the list of what is not available in ECL 3 and ECL 4 league; feel free to add things. Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild; class allies are gained without quest) Fight features Multiplayer fights (except for Inter-League fights which we need) NPC Services Random Maps 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule Customizations (eg improved grapple horses)
SauroGrenom 09-29-06, 10:20 AM	A ranger needs to be able to quest for an animal companion in ECL4.
SauroGrenom 09-29-06, 10:26 AM	What about self crafted armor and weapons? Are they allowed? Self trained animals? Free Actions in general? Crafting, scribing, Gather Info skill for black market items?
hogarth 09-29-06, 10:30 AM	Ok, which things do you think could be moved to a higher league? Newbie input appreciated. Let me start the list of what is not available in ECL 3 and ECL 4 league; feel free to add things. No allies (except bought ones) Nothing that costs credits (except UA stuff) No Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) No fight features No multiplayer fights (except for Inter-League fights which we need) ... Those all sound like good suggestions to me, although I think banning multiplayer fights is unnecessary. I think players kind of like free-for-all fights. The downside to removing things that cost credits is that if you want to begin a character using an Unearthed Arcana class (say), you would have to start at level 5+ (which would cost even more credits). Oops -- gotta work on my reading comprehension a little more...
Caterane 09-29-06, 10:35 AM	@Sauro: Skill should be allowed. For that I reason I just finished the work to make the Skills & Feats section more newbie friendly :) @hogarth: ;)
Zevox 09-29-06, 10:52 AM	I think players kind of like free-for-all fights. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that before. In point of fact I recall quite a lot of dislike being expressed towards them back when Cerebrus13 and NiQil were running polls about things like that. So I personally think excluding them is a good idea. A ranger needs to be able to quest for an animal companion in ECL4. No they don't. They get them via a 24-hour ritual, like a Druid. No quest involved. I do think that removing quests/miniquests is unecessary though. They're not particularly complicated, they're entirely optional (no one forces you to go on one the way you may be forced to face someone with a diplomacy ally or fight in a map with the odd terrain effects, for instance), they don't confer any special advantages to those who do them, and removing them until ECL 5 might be a turn-off to newer plays who are more RP-focused. Lets see, the only other thing I can think of that may be worth removing from lower levels is NPC spellcasting services. Not that it sees much use outside of Spell/Powerstoring weapons, but its there. Beyond that the most complicated things we have are the 3FC, 1/3 rule, and random maps, which I don't think we want to exclude from those leagues (certainly not the first two anyway). Zevox
lonewolf 09-29-06, 10:54 AM	... no random maps ...
Caterane 09-29-06, 10:59 AM	Removing 3FC and 1/3 rule: I am not sure if that wouldn't create more problems than it solves. Technically and balance-wise it's possible. As soon as a character levels to ECL 5, he begins with his cycle. Since spellcasters are at a disadvantage at lower levels anyway it's also not unbalancing to grant them full access to anything they have in any fight. The expendables cap would need to stay in place of course. I still remember the abuse that we had before. It's not hard to learn anyway. We could of course also remove the random maps from these leagues and use the arena only. Question is if that simplifies it to attract new members or turn them away due to lack of interesting battlefields... Btw, someone said that grappling horses are a problem? Perhaps also no customization at these levels.
McJarvis 09-29-06, 11:29 AM	Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) NPC Services 3-Fight-Cycle :(. The first two mainly because I want to keep Mort around, the last one because I reallly like the flavor of it. I think the 3FC would be good enough without restricting by 1/3. - let the spell caster ration his spells as he sees fit. (and I don't think it's terribly complex for a n00b to understand) Also- allowing interleague fights would open up problems of the 5th level character having access to advanced-rules that the 3rd/4th level characters don't. And finally, thumbs up to no-customing allies before 5th level. :) edit- Was just thinking about that no-credits 3rd/4th level thing. It restricts any race with racial hitdie/la that make it start at level 4 as well....it also removes incentive for newcomers to pitlord until after they reach level 5. Maybe that's for the better, but I don't know if all our current pitlords have characters at 5th level or up(for instance, I haven't...though I would certainly keep pitlording). If that rule is going to be implimented, I'd like to know before spending creds on Mort...
Zevox 09-29-06, 11:50 AM	Eh, I think you misinterpretted me Cat. I didn't actually mean to suggest removing the 3FC or 1/3 rule from those levels! Certainly I'd say doing both is a very bad idea - it gives casters all of thier spells in every fight at those levels (I'm seeing arsenals of prepared magic missiles for every fight already... or just imagine a Kineticist with full pp every fight and Energy Missile at that point...). I don't think the 3FC is necessary to remove from there either, though you do have a point about the balance issue it deals with being less of a problem at those levels (if you keep the 1/3 rule anyway). Btw, someone said that grappling horses are a problem? Perhaps also no customization at these levels. If by "someone" you mean "everyone who bothered to comment on it", then yes :P . But that is probably a good idea to solve the problem. Level 5 should have much less of an issue dealing with grappling horses, and it discourages those that use them from existing to begin with. Zevox
Zelck 09-29-06, 11:53 AM	How bout this. Let's split up the third and fourth brackets. In the third, we can do Cat's suggestions, and perhaps disallow bought allies. In the fourth bracket, we can allow things that cost credits, NPC services, random maps, and the 3FC (and bought allies). The other restrictions from the 3rd level bracket carry over. That way, we have a more gradual learning curve instead of a cliff at the fifth level. It also allows characters like Mort to come into play sooner.
TelinArtho 09-29-06, 11:59 AM	Ok, which things do you think could be moved to a higher league? Newbie input appreciated. Let me start the list of what is not available in ECL 3 and ECL 4 league; feel free to add things. Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild; class allies are gained without quest) Fight features Multiplayer fights (except for Inter-League fights which we need) NPC Services Random Maps 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule Customizations (eg improved grapple horses) Are we going to retroactively apply these changes to existing characters? For instance, Zax just spent 3 weeks training his spider and scorpion - are they now going to be removed? I like the option of having non-standard allies and I feel they are most useful in the early levels. By ECL5, Zax will be moving on to bigger and better things - but I'd like to know how viable he is now. By taking away his animal allies would require a complete rebuild for him. In a like respect - having access to quests and miniquests at ECL 3-4 is probably a good draw for the CoCo and I definitely think this would turn off more people than it would help bring in newbies. The 1/3 rule and the 3FC - while complicated - should be in ECL3-4 so that people can get used to them. For the veterans of the CoCo - making changes like this might be fairly easy. For a newbie who just gets to ECL5 and finds out about the 1/3 rule and the 3FC at that point - he might get turned off for that. I think this is one of the "CoCo standards" - and I think it should be universal. Getting used to it at ECL 3 and 4 is about making your characters better for later levels. Fight features I think could be put off for the later levels. When they are added in, I do want to make sure that you will accept character changes from characters within the 3FC to buy lighting equipment and other feature equipment so they don't get screwed when the features are implemented. Random maps are good for the lower levels, but perhaps restrict which ones - maybe the base arena, the city map and the temple or the cavern. The forest map is extremely complex and hard to work with, both as a pitlord and as a player (in my opinion) and the same could be said about the sewer map, just to a smaller extent. NPC services aren't used heavily in the early levels anyway - but if you want to restrict them - I don't see any hard reason not to. I don't think they can be used to great benefit early anyway without a fairly substantial use of credits. I would say the same about most ECL3-4 characters using credits in the first place - with the exception of the people who buy Item of Ability Improvement +1 at ECL4 and the odd character who purchases a skill item. Also - if we removed allowing credit purchases at ECL3-4 - does that mean that Gather Information can't be used at those levels or does it mean that the only way to get custom items or credit purchases is to use Gather Information. In general - I think that most things that apply at the higher levels should also exist at the lower levels so that people can get used to them - new or not. Also - if you are going to restrict these things - I want a hard list of what is being restricted along with what needs to be rolled back (like my question of whether Zax could keep his vermin allies and such). To the comment about wanting more pitlords - I truly think the reason people aren't pitlording has very little to do with the items listed - but rather center around issues of time, people relations (as in - they don't want to bear the heat of arguments from 2+ players) and rule understanding - in that order. Taking out some of these might help drum up some pitlords - but only if the last of those three items was the hindrance. This won't free up time for them, and this won't alleviate concerns of flaming/berating.
MindWandererB 09-29-06, 02:24 PM	I agree with the low-level restriction 90%. However, I still have a few concerns: 1) They still need to prepare for high levels. If I build an ECL 3 character, level them up to 5 over the course of a couple of months, then run into customized, ally-using, uber-optimized opponents, I'm in big trouble if I wasn't aware of those rules to begin with. A lot of players will get very frustrated if their pretty decent build disintegrates when they get into the "big leagues." 2) The 3FC and 1/3 rule are pretty critical to the arena functioning. I could see doing away with the 3FC but keeping the 1/3 (the way it was a few months ago--this will allow folks who make mistakes to correct them quickly), but eliminating both, or just the 1/3, would be very bad for balance and for fun. Besides, I think that this is one house rule that new players need to get used to, and can probably adapt to quickly. 3) I would also add many free activities to the list--basically, anything that affects an opponent, like burglary. New players won't know about these things and will be caught by surprise when their strategy-critical scroll or potion gets stolen, or their familiar gets assassinated. 4) To accomodate existing characters, a little bit of "grandfathering" might be necessary, or else characters who break these rules (like Zax) "get" to do nothing but interleagues. I'd take out all the maps except the Arena. It's just one less thing to worry about (for players to check to see which map they're on). I have mixed feelings about multiplayer fights, but if interleague fights are possible, then so should FFAs (although Hunter fights are confusing to everyone, and should probably be left out). I think NPC services are fine. They're in the PHB. Regarding the proportion of normal fights: there's a simple mathematical formula. N=The percentage of fights (in decimal form) you want to be completely normal. F=The number of different features (light, environment, weather, etc.) O=The percentage chance in each trait (in decimal form) of getting a "normal" (null) result. O = N ^ (1/F) As you can see with some experimentation, the more features you have, the higher O has to be to maintain a high chance of total normality. If you want 33% of all fights to be normal, and you have 7 features, you get .33^(1/7)=.85, so you'd need an 85% chance of rolling a result of "1" in each category. So Wind Strength, for example, would be: 01-85: Normal; 86-90: Strong; 91-95: Severe; 96-00: Windstorm. Or you could do it the way Cat seems to be thinking, which trades the chance of multiple features for single features. It's a bit more complicated to do it that way (more rolls, and very difficult to automatize), but it works. I'd personally tweak some of the probabilities--for instance, I think at least 95% of fights should be on the material plane, and similar for magical traits. The others might be a bit more common to compensate. In this case, the formula would become: N = O1 * O2 ... * ON Which requires a bit more trial and error, but allows for some tweaking.
Caterane 09-29-06, 03:53 PM	Was just thinking about that no-credits 3rd/4th level thing. It restricts any race with racial hitdie/la that make it start at level 4 as well....it also removes incentive for newcomers to pitlord until after they reach level 5. Maybe that's for the better, but I don't know if all our current pitlords have characters at 5th level or up(for instance, I haven't...though I would certainly keep pitlording). You can of course pay credits to start at ECL 4; paying credits for the race is totally fine. I also don't see how no credit-items stops the incentive to pitlord at lower level. Neither are the credits lost, nor do we see many newbies pitlording because of such items. The reasons lie elsewhere. I rather think that they would feel less overwhelmed if they can leave out the "Advanced Rules: Credits section". I didn't actually mean to suggest removing the 3FC or 1/3 rule from those levels! Certainly I'd say doing both is a very bad idea - it gives casters all of thier spells in every fight at those levels (I'm seeing arsenals of prepared magic missiles for every fight already... or just imagine a Kineticist with full pp every fight and Energy Missile at that point...). I don't think the 3FC is necessary to remove from there either, though you do have a point about the balance issue it deals with being less of a problem at those levels (if you keep the 1/3 rule anyway). You may be right. But the impact of the 1/3 rule is the lowest at ECL 3 and 4; we installed this because of the mid-level and higher leagues. At ECL 3, spellcasters and manifesters are no more powerful than an archer or mounted barbarian. IF the 3FC and 1/3 rule makes it harder for newbs to join, then we don't risk much in removing them from these two leagues. How bout this. Let's split up the third and fourth brackets. In the third, we can do Cat's suggestions, and perhaps disallow bought allies. In the fourth bracket, we can allow things that cost credits, NPC services, random maps, and the 3FC (and bought allies). The other restrictions from the 3rd level bracket carry over. That way, we have a more gradual learning curve instead of a cliff at the fifth level. It also allows characters like Mort to come into play sooner. A good idea. We need a second "Quickstart" Guide for those who reach level four in which we explain what's new now. And the third "Quickstart" Guide at ECL 5 with all rules. We could introduce the 3FC and 1/3 rule at ECL 4 which gives newbies 3-9 weeks to play with skeleton coco rules, then gradually learn how to play. I know this from somewhere... ah right, I did that in school :D Are we going to retroactively apply these changes to existing characters? For instance, Zax just spent 3 weeks training his spider and scorpion - are they now going to be removed? [I think existing characters can stay. It'll only be a temporary mix-up as these characters level up. If we remove the 1/3 rule or 3FC you can leave that on your sheet for later; you just don't use it. It's too much of a mess for little gain.] I like the option of having non-standard allies and I feel they are most useful in the early levels. By ECL5, Zax will be moving on to bigger and better things - but I'd like to know how viable he is now. By taking away his animal allies would require a complete rebuild for him. [Of course you like it but we're currently trying to make it easier for newbies. You could keep them anyway, s.a.] In a like respect - having access to quests and miniquests at ECL 3-4 is probably a good draw for the CoCo and I definitely think this would turn off more people than it would help bring in newbies. [They can join guild (that MQ is allowed) and go on operations and missions if they so like to quest but they are to learn the rules, and that's in the arena. They can do quests from ECL 5 on; or perhaps 4 if we do the gradual revision] The 1/3 rule and the 3FC - while complicated - should be in ECL3-4 so that people can get used to them. For the veterans of the CoCo - making changes like this might be fairly easy. For a newbie who just gets to ECL5 and finds out about the 1/3 rule and the 3FC at that point - he might get turned off for that. I think this is one of the "CoCo standards" - and I think it should be universal. Getting used to it at ECL 3 and 4 is about making your characters better for later levels. [As it is now, he finds that cliff at ECL 3 already. Giving him time to learn the fundamental basics and adding the 3FC & 1/3 rule later can only benefit the newbie. Till ECL 5, he has on average about 2-3 months to learn the rules and newbies also read other fights and learn from that.] Fight features I think could be put off for the later levels. When they are added in, I do want to make sure that you will accept character changes from characters within the 3FC to buy lighting equipment and other feature equipment so they don't get screwed when the features are implemented. [Yes, it can be requested in the changes thread ...if related to the new features (I can already see Lonewolf requesting scrolls of fireball to "keep him warm in the tundra" LOL)] Random maps are good for the lower levels, but perhaps restrict which ones - maybe the base arena, the city map and the temple or the cavern. The forest map is extremely complex and hard to work with, both as a pitlord and as a player (in my opinion) and the same could be said about the sewer map, just to a smaller extent. [Either one map or all. Besides, I have thougth about making the forest map a bit simpler; not the map itself but the features on it] NPC services aren't used heavily in the early levels anyway - but if you want to restrict them - I don't see any hard reason not to. I don't think they can be used to great benefit early anyway without a fairly substantial use of credits. I would say the same about most ECL3-4 characters using credits in the first place - with the exception of the people who buy Item of Ability Improvement +1 at ECL4 and the odd character who purchases a skill item. Also - if we removed allowing credit purchases at ECL3-4 - does that mean that Gather Information can't be used at those levels or does it mean that the only way to get custom items or credit purchases is to use Gather Information. [Gather information costs no credits. That's the point about this skill. I don't like to exclude certain skills; this jsut makes it more complicated as you have to check for what's allowed; either all or nothing.] I agree with the low-level restriction 90%. However, I still have a few concerns: 1) They still need to prepare for high levels. If I build an ECL 3 character, level them up to 5 over the course of a couple of months, then run into customized, ally-using, uber-optimized opponents, I'm in big trouble if I wasn't aware of those rules to begin with. A lot of players will get very frustrated if their pretty decent build disintegrates when they get into the "big leagues." [You forget that those ECL 5 guys also just leveled up from ECL 4 and were subject to the same restrictions. In the beginning, now, there will be some characters that started with the old rules in place but that will change soon as they level up] 2) The 3FC and 1/3 rule are pretty critical to the arena functioning. I could see doing away with the 3FC but keeping the 1/3 (the way it was a few months ago--this will allow folks who make mistakes to correct them quickly), but eliminating both, or just the 1/3, would be very bad for balance and for fun. Besides, I think that this is one house rule that new players need to get used to, and can probably adapt to quickly. [As said, a gradual introduction of rules would probably a good compromise. ECL 3 does not need the 3FC nor the 1/3 rule so newbies should only be confronted with the absolute minimum of things.] 3) I would also add many free activities to the list--basically, anything that affects an opponent, like burglary. New players won't know about these things and will be caught by surprise when their strategy-critical scroll or potion gets stolen, or their familiar gets assassinated. [No, that just discourages from playing rogues and bards. Few will make a rogue if they see that they can't use his strengths before ECL 5 which is months away. Unlike the 3FC, these new skill uses ARE necessary.] 4) To accomodate existing characters, a little bit of "grandfathering" might be necessary, or else characters who break these rules (like Zax) "get" to do nothing but interleagues. [We should better leave them untouched] I'd take out all the maps except the Arena. It's just one less thing to worry about (for players to check to see which map they're on). I have mixed feelings about multiplayer fights, but if interleague fights are possible, then so should FFAs (although Hunter fights are confusing to everyone, and should probably be left out). [I agree, arena only. Interleague fights are necessary because of the lack of opponents at ECL 5 & 6. Who'll fight the 4 horsemen in ECL 6? We have no pitlords for monster fights atm. FFA and Team could be introduced at ECL 4; Hunter at ECL 5] I think NPC services are fine. They're in the PHB. [They are also in the Advanced Rules section and that should not bother newbies.] Regarding the proportion of normal fights: there's a simple mathematical formula. N=The percentage of fights (in decimal form) you want to be completely normal. F=The number of different features (light, environment, weather, etc.) O=The percentage chance in each trait (in decimal form) of getting a "normal" (null) result. O = N ^ (1/F) As you can see with some experimentation, the more features you have, the higher O has to be to maintain a high chance of total normality. If you want 33% of all fights to be normal, and you have 7 features, you get .33^(1/7)=.85, so you'd need an 85% chance of rolling a result of "1" in each category. So Wind Strength, for example, would be: 01-85: Normal; 86-90: Strong; 91-95: Severe; 96-00: Windstorm. [I think something's not right with this formula. I roll the category, right? If every category has only a 15% chance to get a feature, then this is not the 67% I was looking for. Even if I dont roll the category, the chance for a normal fight is way greater than to get a feature. And that's also a lot of rolling.] Or you could do it the way Cat seems to be thinking, which trades the chance of multiple features for single features. It's a bit more complicated to do it that way (more rolls, and very difficult to automatize), but it works. I'd personally tweak some of the probabilities--for instance, I think at least 95% of fights should be on the material plane, and similar for magical traits. The others might be a bit more common to compensate. In this case, the formula would become: [Keep in mind that many planes are just mildly aligned which is nothing but a -2 penalty on charisma based checks if you are of opposite aligment. No biggie. But Material Plane should dominate, although not to 95%] N = O1 * O2 ... * ON Which requires a bit more trial and error, but allows for some tweaking. ...
Macbrea 09-29-06, 04:35 PM	Ok, this is my personal opinion on each of these. Take if for what you want. * Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Allies generally become far too powerful at low levels. As you go up the loose their power unless you manage to get something cheezy like a Hydra mount. Cancelling them at low levels just gets people to ignore them as a viable option. * Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) This pretty much means the UA stuff is limited to a very small group of people. At a cost of 10o to play a guy from the desert plus another 8o just to get to 5th level to actually be able to play the character. It means pretty much any of these style character without anything truely amazing about them costs a person 18o just to try. Far too expensive to test. * Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild; class allies are gained without quest) This just is an item to help reduce pitlord load. It's fine. * Fight features Removing fight features removes flavor from the game. Each thing you take away from a setting means pretty much it becomes boring to the new players. * Multiplayer fights (except for Inter-League fights which we need) Ok, I am one of those people that never liked these things. They result in the guy that delays the longest wins most of the time. Those people that actually seek out their targets die quickly. They result in a very messed up method of play. * NPC Services NPC service doesn't play a huge factor in alot of stuff at low levels. Yes, you could possibly get a spell cast on you that would buff you for the day. But that really doesn't do much. Alot of the character in this range are quick killers. * Random Maps I am not particularly sure random maps harm the game in any fashion. They result in you having to write tactics based off your map. That isn't a very difficult thing for most D&D players to be able to do. They add flavor. * 3-Fight-Cycle The three fight cycle is confusing. But represents the way the rest of the leagues are played. Removing it just means a character uses same power over and over til 5th. * 1/3 Rule Ok, removing this rule breaks spell casters. They gain a huge amount of power that they loose at 5th. It poorly represents the game to allow them to have 1 fight for all of their spells. * Customizations (eg improved grapple horses) First, I will state a grappling horse is dumb. Customization should be put up for approvals in the blackmarket. If the concept is dumb or not workable then it should be not allowed. Example: If I walked upto my DM and asked to make the following magic item he would tell me no. Item: Gloves of minor healing --Cast spell Cure Minor Wounds (CL 1) at command at touched target, 900gp You can look at the at the item as a player/dm and tell it doesn't make sense or is too powerful. In CoCo, we do custom items by displaying them to the GM in the blackmarket. He needs to make a decision based off wether he would allow the item in his game.
Caterane 09-29-06, 07:00 PM	Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff): This pretty much means the UA stuff is limited to a very small group of people. At a cost of 10° to play a guy from the desert plus another 8° just to get to 5th level to actually be able to play the character. It means pretty much any of these style character without anything truely amazing about them costs a person 18° just to try. Far too expensive to test. Macbrea, I am not sure what you mean. Why would anyone have to enter at ECL 5 if UA is the only credit-thing that's actually allowed at ECL 3? And it's +5° per level for a total of 10° to enter a lvl 5 Pc. Could be a misunderstanding but you even quoted the "except UA stuff" line.
MindWandererB 09-29-06, 07:44 PM	[You forget that those ECL 5 guys also just leveled up from ECL 4 and were subject to the same restrictions. In the beginning, now, there will be some characters that started with the old rules in place but that will change soon as they level up]My point is that experienced players will be aware of the changes, and be prepared to take advantage of them. If you, for instance, start a new ECL 3 character, as soon as they hit ECL 5 you'll have it quest for allies, start buying 3 sets of critical expendables, and have the skills needed to take advantage of the extra maps. A player who suddenly fights that character will be easily overwhelmed. [No, that just discourages from playing rogues and bards. Few will make a rogue if they see that they can't use his strengths before ECL 5 which is months away. Unlike the 3FC, these new skill uses ARE necessary.]I disagree, but I can tell you won't budge on this one. But I'd rather see more people play, and stay with the game, than have those that do play choose to be rogues and bards. [I think something's not right with this formula. I roll the category, right? If every category has only a 15% chance to get a feature, then this is not the 67% I was looking for. Even if I dont roll the category, the chance for a normal fight is way greater than to get a feature. And that's also a lot of rolling.]It's a mathematics of probability thing, something I happen to be very good at, but people who aren't familiar with find it unintuitive. Imagine there's a 50% chance per feature that you'll get "normal." This is analagous to a coin flip. To get a normal setting with two features, you have to flip, say, Tails on two coins. That's a .502 chance, or 25% (you can see this with the permutations: HH, HT, TH, and TT, where TT is 1/4). Three features, your chance is .503 = 12.5%, etc. So the formula is as I described above. If you roll 1d100 for each of 7 traits, and 01-85 is "normal," your chance of getting a completely normal arena is .857 = 32%. Now, if you roll 1d7 to get a category, this of course falls apart. If you do that, then of course you'd want 01-33 to be "normal," and then you need a 90-100 "roll again." I proposed my system because 1) it's more easily automatized by the pairings generator (1d100 7 times is easier than a contingent reroll), and 2) it has a more naturalistic chance of multiple features. The "roll a category" system makes multiple features unlikely (when in reality, for example, fog should occur just as often at night as during the day), and more than two features are incredibly unlikely. For sanity's sake, the "roll a category" system is probably best if you have to roll manually, but if it gets automatized, the "roll all features" system is probably better. [Keep in mind that many planes are just mildly aligned which is nothing but a -2 penalty on charisma based checks if you are of opposite aligment. No biggie. But Material Plane should dominate, although not to 95%]Well, I'm thinking that in TT games, the overwhelming majority of battles are on the Prime Material. Of course, that declines at higher levels... perhaps it should be a sliding scale? Perhaps needlessly complicated.
Caterane 09-29-06, 08:03 PM	My point is that experienced players will be aware of the changes, and be prepared to take advantage of them. If you, for instance, start a new ECL 3 character, as soon as they hit ECL 5 you'll have it quest for allies, start buying 3 sets of critical expendables, and have the skills needed to take advantage of the extra maps. A player who suddenly fights that character will be easily overwhelmed. That will be no problem since I dont intend to make a level 3 character for a long long time :tie: I disagree, but I can tell you won't budge on this one. But I'd rather see more people play, and stay with the game, than have those that do play choose to be rogues and bards. Provided the fact that people are turned off by the 8 new activities, then you're right. If they actually like to do that, then you're wrong. We need an empiric study for that and I doubt it will produce clear results. It's a mathematics of probability thing...... Ah, now I see that you meant it as an automatic roll. I was wondering why you suggested to let me roll 7 times and sold it off as easier LOL Well, I'm thinking that in TT games, the overwhelming majority of battles are on the Prime Material. Of course, that declines at higher levels... perhaps it should be a sliding scale? Perhaps needlessly complicated. You're right. Do you have another formula for that? Or better: another way to make planes more interesting? I mean you're in the Nine Hells and all your C/G barbarian suffers is -2 to Cha-based checks? :bored:
Caterane 09-29-06, 08:19 PM	We talked about splitting the restrictions up in a basic ECL 3, an advanced ECL 4, and a full version ECL5+. Mindwanderer volunteered to write the three Quickstart Guides necessary for that. All we have to do is to decide what we remove from which leage. Here's my suggestion: Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) Fight features Multiplayer fights (except Inter-League) NPC Services Random Maps 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule Customizations (eg improved grapple horses) To make it clearer I just use strikethrough. Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) Fight features Multiplayer fights NPC Services Random Maps 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule Customizations (eg improved grapple horses) I think that learning the 3FC & 1/3 Rule is enough for ECL 4, plus the Multiplayer fights. Comments?
Erithmu 09-29-06, 08:33 PM	Well I'm just kinda reading along. The only thing I worry about is having enough pitlords. With no multi fights in the low leagues, if we get a huge flux of new people we could kill off our already small supply of pitlords. I think that you could get away with the multiplayer fights in the low level, if only because you have removed the 3FC / 1/3 rule. I would probably go with FFA only, maybe team fights (since we are going to have interleagues anways), but probably not Hunters.
MindWandererB 09-29-06, 08:46 PM	That will be no problem since I dont intend to make a level 3 character for a long long time :tie:Not just you, of course. There are several other players who would be sure to exploit every rule they can find, ones which new players may not even be aware of. Although I suppose they do have 2 levels in which to figure it out.... Provided the fact that people are turned off by the 8 new activities, then you're right. If they actually like to do that, then you're wrong. We need an empiric study for that and I doubt it will produce clear results.True, and probably. Low sample size. We'll see, though. You're right. Do you have another formula for that? Or better: another way to make planes more interesting? I mean you're in the Nine Hells and all your C/G barbarian suffers is -2 to Cha-based checks? :bored:Well, for the chance of an extraplanar battle, it could be just 1% * ECL. That's roughly right, I think. For more interesting... why does Othala have to use the Great Wheel cosmology? It would be a little complicated, but rolling random planar traits would be quite possible. Random rolls for gravity, element, alignment, and magic (shape and size are irrelevant, unless you have a really tiny demiplane, and time would be mostly irrelevant but interact bizarrely with the game's continuity) would cover most of the bases. Alternatively, you could have a few pre-set planes (like the transitive planes), and have the rest consist of random traits: something like 01-15 Ethereal, 16-30 Shadow, 31-45 Astral, 46-70 One random trait, 71-85 Two random traits, 86-95 Three random traits, 96-00 Four random traits.
Zelck 09-29-06, 08:47 PM	Hunter fights should be killed anyway :cool:. Let's allow random maps in level 3/level 4 fights. Doing the same map over and over would probably result in boredom. I doubt it'd be a burden to learn those maps.
MindWandererB 09-29-06, 08:52 PM	Hunter fights should be killed anyway :cool:. Let's allow random maps in level 3/level 4 fights. Doing the same map over and over would probably result in boredom. I doubt it'd be a burden to learn those maps.We used to have only one map, and it was still interesting. The forest is a pain, and the city only slightly less so. I really don't want new players to have to figure out all those rules (some of which are core, some of which are house, and all of which are obsure).
Zelck 09-29-06, 08:53 PM	We used to have only one map, and it was still interesting. The forest is a pain, and the city only slightly less so. I really don't want new players to have to figure out all those rules (some of which are core, some of which are house, and all of which are obsure). You have a point. Maybe we should make a more noticable section on the maps in the rules?
NiQil 09-29-06, 09:00 PM	We talked about splitting the restrictions up in a basic ECL 3, an advanced ECL 4, and a full version ECL5+. Mindwanderer volunteered to write the three Quickstart Guides necessary for that. All we have to do is to decide what we remove from which leage. Here's my suggestion: Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) Fight features Multiplayer fights (except Inter-League) NPC Services Random Maps 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule Customizations (eg improved grapple horses) To make it clearer I just use strikethrough. Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) Fight features Multiplayer fights NPC Services Random Maps 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule Customizations (eg improved grapple horses) I think that learning the 3FC & 1/3 Rule is enough for ECL 4, plus the Multiplayer fights. Comments? ...but I think removing most of these from the lower leagues is an extremely bad idea. Alright...let me put my cynic hat on again.... Let's start with the ECL 3 stuff: Allies (except bought ones and class allies)<----this eliminates any handle animal or diplomacy builds. These builds are very popular. It's not the builds themselves that are the problem, it is the power of the allies. This would also eliminate mercenary use. Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff)<----this one may be ok, as long as we are talking about custom things, rather than things like being able to play a certain UA race/class or start at ECL 4 or 5. Credits are something that most newbies generally don't seem to worry about right away (with few exceptions), so I don't see this one being a big issue. Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild)<---we already have a limit of one Q/MQ per ECL anyway....I really don't see how eliminating them altogether solves anything. Fight features<----this one I am still up in the air on. It depends on what fight features we implement. The problem with eliminating this at lower levels is that if someone is caught off guard by this when they hit ECL 5, all we have done is chase off someone who may have stayed if these were around from the beginning. Also, as much as I like some of the ideas that have been presented for these fight features, the point was brought up that this really increases the worklord of the pitlord. My suggestion was merely for lighting....that apparantly mushroomed into all of the other alternatives. It's getting to be too much too quickly again, Cat. Ya gotta take this stuff slow. Multiplayer fights (except Inter-League)<----as much as I personally am not a fan of multiplayer fights, if this forum is going to keep these types of fights, then all leagues need to have them, so that everyone gets some experience with them. This is the same principle as the Fight features. If we spring it on a new player at ECL 5, we may lose them after then have spent 2 months getting there. Also, if we don't have fight features or multiplayer fights, we may see people that don't like those ideas just continuously recycle characters at ECL3-4 just to avoid the options they don't like. NPC Services<---I don't really see this one being a huge issue at the low-level leagues, so I see no reason to remove it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Random Maps<---see my comments for Fight Features and Multiplayer fights. The same principle holds true. 3-Fight-Cycle & 1/3 Rule<----I can't believe these two are even here. As much as I was opposed to the 3FC when it was introduced, I will be the first to admit that it has helped in ways I did not foresee. The 3FC and the 1/3rd rule are the backbones of balance in this forum. These MUST stay. Taking these away from the lower leagues will make those leagues extremely un-fun, in my opinion. Customizations (eg improved grapple horses)<----this one sort of goes with the allies one. If we remove customization from the low levels, then what happens to the mounted fighter once he hits ECL 5 and wants a better mount? Are we saying he now has to pay additional gold just to get what he wanted to begin with? Will we give him the money back for his old mount? Are we going to allow character changes for these issues at no cost to the player? The problem here is not the customization itself....it is what we allow to be done with that customization that is the problem. Things like Improved Grapple horses and Deflect Arrow crocodiles are what are breaking the customization, not the horse who has Run instead of Alertness or something like that. This is like cutting your hand off because you have a hangnail. In short, in my opinion most of these proposed options need to stay around for all leagues, or all we are going to do is set the higher leagues up for failure, in my opinion. The ECL 3 and 4 leagues are the bread and butter of this forum. If we don't keep our essential rules around in those leagues where everyone is exposed to them, then why bother having those essential rules at all?
MindWandererB 09-29-06, 10:44 PM	Alright...let me put my cynic hat on again.... Let's start with the ECL 3 stuff: Allies (except bought ones and class allies)<----this eliminates any handle animal or diplomacy builds. These builds are very popular. It's not the builds themselves that are the problem, it is the power of the allies. This would also eliminate mercenary use.I see your cynic hat and raise you a cynic periapt. I especially think these should be eliminated from low ECLs, for exactly this reason. Have you ever heard of a "handle animal or diplomacy build" outside the CoCo? No. There's no such thing (or rather, it serves a totally different function). New players won't understand it, they won't use it, and they'll be very confused fighting someone who does. Mercs are confusing to new players, as well. Power isn't the issue (right now), it's accessibility. If you want to create a build that relies 100% on allies (taking the risk, with the 3FC, that they die), then fork over your 10 credits to start at ECL 5. I can tell you that my own experience--one of my biggest sources of hesitation to join--were the ally rules. When I paged through the Great Renown characters and saw the tons of allies nearly all of them had, I nearly didn't join because I didn't want to deal with it, and knew I probably couldn't be competitive without them. To some extent, I still feel that way (I'd give Sunstroke even odds against Harvey if it weren't for his allies--and better-than-even if it weren't for his Blacklight), but if there were ECL 3 powerhouses with CoCo house-rule-allies, I would have written the whole thing off as not being enough like D&D to be worth playing.
Hirumajoe 09-29-06, 10:56 PM	Just a few comments as a player who's only been around 1 month. 1) 3FC and 1/3 Rule: I am in agreement with NiQil on the 3FC and the 1/3 rule. I admit I haven't been around when they were not, but they seem essential to balance. While I understand that wizards are considered weak at low levels when solo, I think other classes are going to dominate with this change, namely psionists. And I personally think you're already addressing the innate weakness of casters by their ability to get consumables at 1/4 the cost of non-casters (i.e. crafted scrolls without xp costs versus bought potions). Personally, I've found the 3FC and 1/3 to be fairly simple to understand and impliment. It also rewards more efficient strategies rather than just simple brute force and mass expenditures. 2) Eliminating MQ: Why? People are completely free to ignore them (as my character has), but if somebody wants a personal little quest, why not? Its more RP and more interactive than the usual arena fare, and that may attract some people. I don't think the concept is particularly confusing or off-putting. 3)Fight features: Having not seen them in action nor understand how much complexity and additional rules they require I don't have a good feel as to whether they should be gradually added or not. However I do have several questions I'd like to see answered regarding them in general (see below). 4) Credits: I personally ran afoul of this when I tried to emulate some other characters but didn't realize the associated credit costs with those options (high level spell pre-buffs and a wand of entangle). This may actually be a good thing to hold off initially, until the higher ECLs. 5) Random Maps: They're not hard to deal with. Initially you're unfamiliar with *all* the maps, even the basic arena. You get assigned a new map with your pairing and you go look at it for 5 minutes and you've got the general idea. I don't think that's particularly difficult. Sure, you might not have all the nuances down, but that's going to be true the first time you actually write tactics for a map you haven't played on before. If you're concerned about the associated rules being obscure, make all the relavent rules available on the map page. Or link them from that page. 6) Multiplayer Fights: I've been in one of these so far and dealing with 2 players is no different than dealing with one. More time invovled with writing the tactics, but otherwise the rules really are the same. (Except maybe a hunter style battle). You might want to ensure that the first fight of a new character is a 1 on 1 fight, but after that I think multi-fights are fine. 7) Customizations: These I could understand limiting to ECL 5 and above since they kinda of go with the use of credits listed earlier. If you wanted to you could impliment it by giving all characters a one shot free overhaul of their equipment and allies when they hit ECL 5. This would allow them to fix any mistakes in purchases they may have made early in their career in addition to opening up the customizations options. Or you could leave the system as is. I don't have any major feelings one way or the other. The only problems I've run into but was quickly corrected on were the credit's required for certain items/services, what does and doesn't count as meaningful interaction for the 10 round limit, and maybe how to indicate my full activity for the week. Otherwise I've found most of the rules of the CoCo to be fairly straight forward. Thats my perspective as a newbie. Whether I'm here in a years time is going to be much more heavily dependant on my real life free time than the rules set (as it currently stands). Questions/Comments regarding the fight features: A) What is the goal of the fight features? Provide additional interesting and fun situations? In which case you might want to reconsider the complete shutdown of a given strategy type features, since a character who's been completely shut down might as well surrender and save his resources. Which is no fun for anyone. Its one thing to adapt to a sub-optimal situation, but its completely another to find that *all* of your class abilities have been negated (as in the case of a level 10 Fighter with all archery feats in a hurricane). I'm not sure what portion of fights should be decided by a single die roll, if any. B)Are all strategies going to be equally affected and with equal chance? If you're going to have features which completely shut down ranged or stealth or any archetypical strategy, then you're also going to want features that completely shut down *all* the major strategies, such as melee (which may be hard to do). And you're going to want them to come up equally often. If only so that you don't find everyone going to the strategies which are affected the least by the fight features. C)Do you want to leave it purely random or enforce a time period between identical fight features? It might be good to make sure a different general category is chosen from the previous week, since getting identical features which adversely affect a character multiple weeks in a row is going to be depressing. And its going to happen at some point if its purely random.
Abyssal Stalker 09-30-06, 02:50 AM	I definitely agree with Hirumajoe on the MQ/quest -thing. Going on a quest is not mandatory in any way, so newbies don't need to learn those rules if they don't want to. But from my personal point of view the whole Living Gladius is the most interesting part of CoCo and it should be open to anyone who wants to join! And we all don't want to make characters that are arena only builds. These characters shouldn't be forced to start on 5th level or forced to fight in the arena for 2 levels before starting to quest and write their part of Othala's history.
NiQil 09-30-06, 03:40 AM	I see your cynic hat and raise you a cynic periapt. I especially think these should be eliminated from low ECLs, for exactly this reason. Have you ever heard of a "handle animal or diplomacy build" outside the CoCo? No. There's no such thing (or rather, it serves a totally different function). New players won't understand it, they won't use it, and they'll be very confused fighting someone who does. Mercs are confusing to new players, as well. Power isn't the issue (right now), it's accessibility. If you want to create a build that relies 100% on allies (taking the risk, with the 3FC, that they die), then fork over your 10 credits to start at ECL 5. I can tell you that my own experience--one of my biggest sources of hesitation to join--were the ally rules. When I paged through the Great Renown characters and saw the tons of allies nearly all of them had, I nearly didn't join because I didn't want to deal with it, and knew I probably couldn't be competitive without them. To some extent, I still feel that way (I'd give Sunstroke even odds against Harvey if it weren't for his allies--and better-than-even if it weren't for his Blacklight), but if there were ECL 3 powerhouses with CoCo house-rule-allies, I would have written the whole thing off as not being enough like D&D to be worth playing. Well, as I stated at the beginning....I am all for eliminating the Handle Animal and Diplomacy allies entirely. I despies them, and will never use them. But the point I was trying to make is that if we *are going to have these rules around, I don't think we should discourage these types of builds. These rules changes are supposed encourage new and different builds, not take away from them. So we should either have these rules available to anyone at any ECL, or eliminate them altogether...I don't think there should be an inbetween in this case. We shouldn't have to require *anyone to fork over credits to play the build they wanna play just because we think that at ECL 3 allies are too powerful or too confusing but at 5 they are ok. That just seems completely backwards from what we are trying to accomplish. So again...either leave em alone, or eliminate Handle Animal and Diplomacy allies altogether. I would personally love to see them go and see what builds like The Harvester can do on his own instead of hiding behind his allies all the time (and I don't mean that as a shot at you, Cat....The Harvester is just the easiest example of these rules)
Stormwind 09-30-06, 03:52 AM	My 2cents on the proposed restrictions for the ECL3-4 leagues. Allies (except bought ones and class allies) No opinion. Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) Probably should be "Anything that costs credits (except starting as a non-standard race/class)". As it is it would prohibit starting at ECL4 as a deep gnome, bugbear, demon (dretch), grimlock, krenshar, sahuagin, sprite (grig/nixie), or troglodyte. Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) This should definitely stay. It is an optional part of the CoCo, and I think that several people are attracted to the CoCo by this. I know I was. Fight features No opinion Multiplayer fights (except Inter-League) No opinion. However we would need to consider the integration problem with inter-league fights. NPC Services I see no reason to remove this. In fact since this is in the PHB, it's removal is actually an extra rule that a newbie would have to learn. Random Maps No opinion. 3-Fight-Cycle This should definitely stay. It is crucial. 1/3 Rule This should definitely stay. It is crucial. Customizations (eg improved grapple horses) This would be good to remove from both the ECL3 and ECL4 leagues. However we need to consider reintegration at ECL5 Thus in my opinion the following things should not be removed: Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule
Caterane 09-30-06, 07:01 AM	You should know that all mentioned things, taken individually, are not complicated. It's the mass that is, and a newbie who can skip the whole "Quest" rules has less to worry about. NPC Services is a good example. It requires little knowledge but the section itself is a lot to read. I also put it into the Advanced rules becuase it's not crucial compared to the other functions. Our aim is to create a new Quickstart Guide (of limited length) that should be all a newbie has to read to join the coco. The first thing he sees is not the eternally long rules thread but this simple post with the basic rules. Anything we keep at ECL 3 will have to be added to that Quickstart Manual, making it longer. Over the coming weeks the newbie learns the other rules by playing his character and reading other fights. We will add references to what he can expect at ECL 4, like Quests, and he can take a moment to read these rules during the ~6 weeks he needs to level up. When the time finally comes, he opens the Quickstart Manual II (for ECL 4) which explains what new features he has to face now. The same goes for the third manual for ECL 5. There will always be a section at the bottom which hints to what he has to expect from next level on so that there are no surprises and *cough*NiQil*cough* "he leaves and never comes back and the world explodes" :P (sorry bud :) ) There will be no surprises; only to those who are too lazy to read the mentioned references during the many weeks they play up to that league, and those would be the ones who wouldn't have joined in the first place by the sheer amount of text they face now. And finally, I want to say that I always hear complaints that it is too difficult for newbies to join with every add-on I propose, and now that we're addressing this very issue, many feel that it's okay as it is? ----- So we're trying to put only the most basic of things into the first Quickstart Manual. Are quests, random maps, and allies really necessary at ECL 3? Clearly no. Is the 3FC and 1/3 rule necessary? Not at ECL 3 but I agree that they should learn it asap, ie ECL 4. I think the questions focus around the 3FC+1/3 rule. Let's see what a newbie has to learn in any case, and then decide if the 2 balance rules are too much to add. A newbie has to learn the character sheet. There are many things in there that are confusing at first. He needs to know what's allowed and not allowed (incl. banned material) Free/Full Activities and skill uses in all their forms. The Arena Map What's a Pitlord. Tactics. How do I fight. The basics of the CoCo: Roster & Pairings Important threads The deadlines and sending tactics. How to list past expenditures and past fights The Cap on Expendables Prebuffs Let's see what the 3FC and the 1/3 rule add. You have to read and learn the rules. You have to set it up on your sheet. You have to update your sheet weekly (the 3FC info) You have to strikethrough used expendables and abilities Is that a lot of extra stuff to learn and do? I don't know. It's a long time since I played at ECL 3 and I've never really been a newbie so I'm not the best person to judge that. I have to rely on those who have more experience with such a situation. Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) Fight features Multiplayer fights (except Inter-League) NPC Services Random Maps 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule Customizations (eg improved grapple horses) To make it clearer I just use strikethrough. Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Anything that costs credits (except UA stuff) Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) Fight features Multiplayer fights NPC Services Random Maps 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule Customizations (eg improved grapple horses)
McJarvis 09-30-06, 01:08 PM	The list doesn't look any more complex than what I had to learn when I first joined the CoCo. I recall that my biggest concern was which race I was going to play, because I was convinced my first character would be this shining beacon of amazing. And then the UMD/UPD thing got decided on and I scrapped the character in three weeks ;) I think if the newcomers posted a message on the tavarn thread saying hi(they already do this- don't they?) then the old-guys could keep an eye on the characters they're making and make the process less-painful. In the end the only thing that will make it really easy for newcomers is the old guys being able to point out things to the new guys...for instance, lots of new players seem to not understand that they need to pre-buff their allies. All that aside- there is still the issue of interleague fights being screwy if the higher ECL char has access to things the lower ECL chars don't.
MindWandererB 09-30-06, 01:24 PM	The list doesn't look any more complex than what I had to learn when I first joined the CoCo. I recall that my biggest concern was which race I was going to play, because I was convinced my first character would be this shining beacon of amazing.Heh... don't we all. That's kind of the point, though: we don't want it to be not "any more complex," bur rather less complex. We want people to be able to jump right in, thinking it's easy to do so (the two biggest complaints my polling got so far were the complexity of our rules and the time it takes to play). We then hope that once they get started, they're hooked (although I still need to do that poll for those who started and quit). No offense, McJ, but you're a relatively exceptional person in that you did actually stay, read the rules, join up, and even become quite involved. We need to recruit not just people like you, but to dredge the barrel a little deeper.
Caterane 09-30-06, 05:53 PM	I think we should leave the 3FC and 1/3 rule in there. We can always move it up a league if necessary but with all the mentioned stuff removed, there's a lot less to worry about for a newbie. Here's the concrete list. Green means it will be added at ECL 4, Red at ECL 5. Quests or Miniquests (except to join a guild) Multiplayer fights (except guild fights) Random Maps (except Arena) Allies (except bought ones and class allies) Anything that costs credits (except class/race) Fight features NPC Services Customizations 3-Fight-Cycle 1/3 Rule
SauroGrenom 09-30-06, 06:16 PM	Looks Good to me. Seriously, the suggestion is just a couple rules away from Core d20 as the masses know it. The 1/3 rule and the 3FC should probably stay due to the need for them as a balancing effect on the contrived CoCo environs. All the other stuff is customization and house rules to make things more interesting. Some of us CoCo regulars try to mix it up all the time (probably too much) so that it keeps things interesting. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but it's probably a good idea to keep that out of the 3rd and 4th levels as much as we can. Cheers! I like it.
MindWandererB 09-30-06, 06:24 PM	The more I think about it, the more I'm of the belief that inter-league battles at ECL 3 are a mistake. I know, that means that ECL 5 characters won't be able to face lower-level opponents (although two ECL 5's could fight an ECL 7), but let me make some observations: · Inter-league battles don't appear on the lower-league roster. That means new players may not see their pairing. · Inter-league battles involve a partner. Inexperienced players may not be able to work out tactics efficiently enough to get them in on time, or worse, they may flake and leave their ally to handle things on their own. I've seen a lot of fights where one of the two partners met forfeit criteria, but the pitlord winged it because it would have been unfair to their partner. · ECL 3 team battles usually aren't very team-y. More experienced players usually discuss tactics and send them in jointly. New players usually just submit their own tactics without regard to their partner. Kind of defeats the purpose, and gives the higher-level character a large advantage. · Inexperienced players should fight other inexperienced players. I know there are many exceptions (when a more experienced player creates a new character), but it really sucks to barely know what's going on, and be paired against a master tactician. That's demoralizing at best. And even if you are competent, your partner may not be (or may be just horribly full of errors), and any hopes you may have of winning are gone. So I suggest that if you don't have enough opponents for the ECL 5 characters, do something else. One monster fight won't break the CoCo, or if you're really desperate you could have a 3-on-1 vs. an ECL 8 (although I normally don't think those are fair). But this would be a big challenge to a new player.
Caterane 09-30-06, 07:22 PM	Sounds reasonable. I changed it to "except Guild Multiplayers" which we cannot forbid.
MindWandererB 09-30-06, 07:25 PM	Sounds reasonable. I changed it to "except Guild Multiplayers" which we cannot forbid. Considering those are on a volunteer basis, that sounds completely fair.
hogarth 09-30-06, 08:33 PM	Caterane, in the future could you at least give us some warning before you change rules around? I just noticed right now in the "Rules of Gladius" thread that you made alterations to the Burglary activity. Previously, a trap on your home would stop a burglar, but now it merely goes off if the burglar cannot disable it. When were you planning on announcing this change?
Zelck 09-30-06, 09:22 PM	Can we remove the sblocks in the Skills section? I used to be able to use ctrl+F to get to the skills I want to look up, and now it's a lot more difficult. Clicking on those hotlinks opens another window which is really annoying. I know the sblocks are pretty, but they're very annoying to navigate.
Zelck 10-01-06, 01:43 AM	I also want to underline once again that traps and ambushes are an integral part of the D&D system which is currently lacking in the coco. Coincidently that're the domains of the rogue and that's the class that is missing here. The same is true for bards and support but that's another story. I'd like to comment specifically on this point. There seems to be two conflicting goals here. One goal is to make CoCo as close a reflection to real campaigning or the real D&D system as possible. The second goal is to make CoCo as fun as it can be. Attempting to maximize one could result in trade-offs with the others. Just as an example, we could look at the issue of fight features, specifically the windstorm. Clearly, windstorms make the arena more like "real" D&D. Sometimes in campaigns, a windstorm will kick up and people won't be able to shoot ranged weapons. However, it reduces the fun people have. Someone can have this great strategy of sniping people from range, only to have a random dice roll that he could do nothing about completely ruin his build. He might as well not waste any time on his windstorm fight and forfeit. That's not fun. Perhaps quickly, people would avoid such builds, and in their eyes, their options have been limited, and they perhaps have less fun because they can no longer play the build they want without fear of just randomly losing without being able to do anything about it. Or, they run with it and just grumble when the one dice roll they could do nothing about eliminates most of their options. Granted, not all limitations of options are bad. In order to evaluate which are and aren't, we must look back to our goals. What are we trying to maximize? Are we trying to make CoCo as close to "real" D&D as possible, or are we trying to make it as much fun as possible? I think we should deal with this issue before the next round of new features. As a footnote, I'd also like to point out one more thing. In campaigns, you have other people around you who can still carry on in case you get shut down. The party Rogue can find and disarm traps and help you beat the encounter when you can't do it yourself. If you're an archer and there's a windstorm, your allied spellcasters can still blast and your tank can still bash the enemies. You can still win if you get shut down. Not so in CoCo. If you get shut down, you lose. Now, often times, you've been out-played or out-built by your opponent, and the loss is a learning experience. Even if the opponent wins out of pure luck, few people would get mad at this. On the other hand, losing before the fight even starts can build resentment. It's very frustrating to think "I could have beaten this guy if only I could have done something in the fight". Again, this goes back to the question: Do we want CoCo to be as "realistic" as possible, or to be as fun as possible? If the former, this is OK; if the latter, it's unacceptable.
MindWandererB 10-01-06, 02:01 AM	This is a good point. It's like when we were debating whether to grant free healing during a 3FC--those who had access to CLW wands were given an unfair advantage, because in a real D&D game, there would be someonein the party who could. Since for sanity's sake we play only individuals, and not parties, we have to compensate in some ways. In a TT game, would a fighter automatically fall victim to any trap in his path? No--because the rogue would handle it. But using traps in the CoCo, yes, he would.
Caterane 10-01-06, 05:18 AM	I think Cat said in the Council thread that he wanted to use the rules for creating custom traps. So, I'm trying to figure out how it'll work :). To be quite frank, I don't actually want to use traps. My goal, plain and simple, is to show they're too good and get rid of them. If someone else wants to do this, I'll pass :). As a last ditch attempt to get traps reconsidered before I mess up my character, I'll show you what I'm going after: Moving Wall (1000 gp, CR0 base) Location Trigger 9d4 damage (average 22.5, +3 CR) Automatic Reset (+500 gp) Never Miss (+1000 gp) Multiple Target (+0 CR: Never Miss) Disable Device DC 20 Search DC 0 (-1 CR, -2000 gp) Totals: CR2, 500*2 = 1000 gp, 2000 gp on the market Note that I could have reduced the CR down to 0 and gotten it for free, but that's easy to get around simply by setting a floor CR of 1. I could also raise the Search DC to 15 and pay 4,000 gp by crafting this myself. Anyway, for illustrative purposes, this trap deals an average of 22.5 damage, and I'll be getting it in the 6th level league. Let's compare that to the HPs of those in the 6th level league right now. Number in parenthesis is what percent of max HP 22.5 damage is. Four Horsemen: 55 HP (40.9%) Saeandithas: 25 HP (90%) Bleargh: 24 HP (93.75%) Faelto: 24 HP (93.75%); Heavy Warhorse: 32 HP (70.31%) Hassan: 14 HP (100%) Destra: 44 HP (51.14%); Carcaruva: 26 HP (86.5%); Carcalce: 13 HP (100%) If custom traps are disallowed, I'll just wait until CR 14 and grab that CR10 Crushing Walls trap. 18d6, never miss, 25,000 gp. Average damage of 63 damage to all opponents. Zelck, I appreciate your effort in this (although not your motives ;) ) because it helps us (you included) to balance traps. Let's see what your latest creation does... First of all, I noticed that many of your horror-traps are 'never miss' versions but they all require one thing you leave out: The onset delay. This bumps your trap into the ECL 9 league and now look at your 22.5 damage again. Now we would defeat the purpose of this delay if we allow any amount of delay to affect the character. We have two ways to handle it: either we only allow onset delays of 1 round (+3 CR) or we forbid onset delay/never miss traps altogether. That removes the water-filling room, the crushing walls, the collapsing ceiling , and similar traps. That means every trap either has a save or an attack roll. I'd rather go with forbidding the 'liquid' trap feature, or just say the character faces the trap for only one round (ie water-filling rooms are useless). Either way, simple fix. * * * * * Search/Disable Furthermore we should come up with a few clarifications on spotting a trap else there's no reason not to set the Disable Dc to 0 (still trained only, so what). It'd be stupid for someone to see the pittrap but still walk into it. We can solve this if we make a small list with semi-automatic and/or alternative counters. Examples: Pit-Trap: If spotted, you can make a jump or balance check instead of disable device (take10 to avoid prefight communication). Doorknob: If spotted, you can bash in the door instead if your average standard damage equals your ECL (ie hardness of door). Since every trap must be approved anyway I can easily make sure that there's an alternative by-pass. No DM would forbid crafty non-rogues to find a way to avoid a trap. This would of course only apply to traps with a Disable DC of lower than 20! Anything from 20 on needs disable device in any case. Magic Traps It is normally possible to buy higher level spells at the market but those cannot be allowed for traps for two reasons: First of all, you can keep the bought spell opposed to a one-shot expenditure, and more importantly, you can buy offensive spells (and 'cast' them via the trap). So spells must be in line with your ECL, I'd say the maximum allowed trap CR is also the max CL you may put into the trap. To avoid the spell-chain loophole, we only allow one spell per trap. Also, to craft a magic trap you need both Craft Trapmaking and Craft Wondrous Item. * * * * * There are some extra features for traps which we should discuss too: Reset Type - No Reset (-500 gp) - Repair (-200 gp) - Manual (---) - Automatic (+500 gp) Obviously, you want the trap back at the end of the 3FC so we should only allow Automatic Resets. If someone wants a one-shot trap, or one that he has to repair with a Free Activity, we could allow it. What's the difference between Manual and Automatic then? Perhaps Manual is at the end of the 3FC and Automatic is during next fight? Trigger Type - Location (---) - Touch (---) - Proximity (+1000 gp) - Timed (+1000 gp) Since we assume that a character who fails his search check walks into the trap in any case, we can leave this section out. We could for example say Location/Touch is default but flyers with good/perfect maneuverability bypass them automatically. You'd need Proximity to get them too. I have no idea on what to do with timed triggers. Bypass Type - Lock [Dc30 Open lock] (+100 gp) - Hidden Switch [Dc25 Seach] (+200 gp) - Hidden Lock [both above] (+300 gp) Any idea on what to do with that?
Traevanon 10-01-06, 10:10 AM	Why among all these new skill rules do we have nothing that allows anyone to choose their opponent, the arena of the match, the interval between matches, the type of match, to change the terrain, the weather and lighting conditions? Did it just not occur to anyone? Outmaneuvering is all about choosing terrain. Why doesnt it allow you to choose your arena?
McJarvis 10-01-06, 10:43 AM	(ie water-filling rooms are useless). Either way, simple fix. So much for my dreams of flooding the arena...
Caterane 10-01-06, 12:06 PM	Caterane, in the future could you at least give us some warning before you change rules around? I just noticed right now in the "Rules of Gladius" thread that you made alterations to the Burglary activity. Previously, a trap on your home would stop a burglar, but now it merely goes off if the burglar cannot disable it. When were you planning on announcing this change? I forgot that when I pasted it into the new section. With the rules for disabling traps it's logical to give rogues the chance to disable them. Since no one has a trap at all it's no biggie. Can we remove the sblocks in the Skills section? I used to be able to use ctrl+F to get to the skills I want to look up, and now it's a lot more difficult. Clicking on those hotlinks opens another window which is really annoying. I know the sblocks are pretty, but they're very annoying to navigate. I think that's how you see it. Others find it annoying to scroll up and down through text you don't need. I'd like to comment specifically on this point. There seems to be two conflicting goals here. One goal is to make CoCo as close a reflection to real campaigning or the real D&D system as possible. The second goal is to make CoCo as fun as it can be. Attempting to maximize one could result in trade-offs with the others. [Wait wait wait. You equate fun = unrealistic or put fun and realism on opposite sides which is just completely wrong and makes your assessment invalid before it even starts. In no way are these conflicting goals!] Just as an example, we could look at the issue of fight features, specifically the windstorm. [Ok, now you picked the only exception in the features that is somewhat debatable and take it as an example for all features being like that; then you apply your realism vs. fun formula... Sorry Zelck, by all respect, but that's not how it is.] Clearly, windstorms make the arena more like "real" D&D. Sometimes in campaigns, a windstorm will kick up and people won't be able to shoot ranged weapons. However, it reduces the fun people have. Someone can have this great strategy of sniping people from range, only to have a random dice roll that he could do nothing about completely ruin his build. He might as well not waste any time on his windstorm fight and forfeit. That's not fun. Perhaps quickly, people would avoid such builds, and in their eyes, their options have been limited, and they perhaps have less fun because they can no longer play the build they want without fear of just randomly losing without being able to do anything about it. Or, they run with it and just grumble when the one dice roll they could do nothing about eliminates most of their options. [The windstorm is a special case and one I am not sure about. My reasoning is that there are other features we already have that make certain abilities (flight, speed, charge, mounts, etc) unavailable for the fight but that happens in D&D. The archer is a bit different because he can always shoot, even in the closest space. Perhaps we should take the windstorm out for now.] Granted, not all limitations of options are bad. In order to evaluate which are and aren't, we must look back to our goals. What are we trying to maximize? Are we trying to make CoCo as close to "real" D&D as possible, or are we trying to make it as much fun as possible? I think we should deal with this issue before the next round of new features. [Again your equation. I mean, we can do a mage only arena so that everyone has to play mages or be handicapped. And if someone (like me) comes and wants to add the druid and cleric and fighter and paladin and psion you say "Do we want realistic D&D or Fun D&D? If we want fun then allow only mages". That thought is flawed.] As a footnote, I'd also like to point out one more thing. In campaigns, you have other people around you who can still carry on in case you get shut down. The party Rogue can find and disarm traps and help you beat the encounter when you can't do it yourself. If you're an archer and there's a windstorm, your allied spellcasters can still blast and your tank can still bash the enemies. You can still win if you get shut down. Not so in CoCo. If you get shut down, you lose. Now, often times, you've been out-played or out-built by your opponent, and the loss is a learning experience. Even if the opponent wins out of pure luck, few people would get mad at this. On the other hand, losing before the fight even starts can build resentment. It's very frustrating to think "I could have beaten this guy if only I could have done something in the fight". [That's correct and we can address that in the future. I mentioned it when I made my first post about the features here; I called it Support. Support is an important element in D&D and is surely worth a distant-future add-on after which we will finally see bards again but that's another story yet to be told] Again, this goes back to the question: Do we want CoCo to be as "realistic" as possible, or to be as fun as possible? If the former, this is OK; if the latter, it's unacceptable. [No that's no question you ask here; it's a suggestion. Everyone wants to have fun. So in putting 'realism' onto the opposite side of fun, you don't ask a question but suggest that everyone should oppose the realism we're currently attempting, ie the features. As explained twice already fun and realism are not on the opposite sides else we should delete the Rules of Gladius thread and let everyone do what he wants.] Zelck, I have debated your point hotly but it's nothing personal. I just didn't like the presumption you made and sold as fact. I really appreciate your participation in this discussion (especially with your trap examples :D) and hope you take no offense. Why among all these new skill rules do we have nothing that allows anyone to choose their opponent, the arena of the match, the interval between matches, the type of match, to change the terrain, the weather and lighting conditions? Did it just not occur to anyone? Outmaneuvering is all about choosing terrain. Why doesnt it allow you to choose your arena? We should keep communication prior to the fight at a minimum. There are a few exceptions to that (burglary, traps, monster fights; I think that's it) but it's always a stopper if the pitlord has to set it up before you can write tactics. Your suggestions are cool but they would require communication. Choosing the opponent is a Challenge which we already have. It must be announced ahead of time and both know about it. Being able to do that without the other one's knowledge is a huge advantage as you can pick the weakest opponent (for you at least) and prepare for this fight on top of that. Besides I would have to cancel the pairings your opponent is in? Doesn't work. But perhaps we can mimic something like challenge matches without credits. Intimidate and some other skills perhaps? Chosing the arena might work a bit better technically. You could write the desired arena type into the title line (like "Free Activity: Outmaneuver (City)") and everyone clearly sees if this overrides the map on the roster. But that is bad for balance as you will then always fight on one map for which you're specialized for. If we could find a way to restrict this a bit, we could consider implementing it. Chosing the fight type makes my work complicated and faces the same problems I mentioned above. Same for picking fight features. The interval between fights is already addressed by "Getting Lost" which needs survival but it works only by preventing not to double your time roll. Reducing the time might be a cool skill package; which skills would you propose and what is the formula?
Zelck 10-01-06, 12:22 PM	Zelck, I appreciate your effort in this (although not your motives ;) ) because it helps us (you included) to balance traps. ;). First of all, I noticed that many of your horror-traps are 'never miss' versions but they all require one thing you leave out: The onset delay. This bumps your trap into the ECL 9 league and now look at your 22.5 damage again. Check page 75 for the Crushing Wall Trap. No onset delay required. In fact, the onset delay would make it cost extra. we forbid onset delay/never miss traps altogether. That removes the water-filling room, the crushing walls, the collapsing ceiling , and similar traps. That means every trap either has a save or an attack roll. There's one problem with this. Instead of a 100% of people starting the game by getting hit by a trap they can't do anything about, now it's only 50%. So now everyone gets to write long tactics that might just be invalid thanks to dying on the trap (or having allies die to the trap). Furthermore we should come up with a few clarifications on spotting a trap else there's no reason not to set the Disable Dc to 0 (still trained only, so what). [...] Since every trap must be approved anyway I can easily make sure that there's an alternative by-pass. No DM would forbid crafty non-rogues to find a way to avoid a trap. This would of course only apply to traps with a Disable DC of lower than 20! Anything from 20 on needs disable device in any case. Sure, this is still abusable. I could put the Search modifier down to 0 and make the Disable DC 21, and they won't be able to bypass even if they find it. Or, I could make the Search modifier high and leave the Disable DC at 0, and they'll never know what hit them. Either way, I can save gold and CR. It is normally possible to buy higher level spells at the market but those cannot be allowed for traps for two reasons: First of all, you can keep the bought spell opposed to a one-shot expenditure, and more importantly, you can buy offensive spells (and 'cast' them via the trap). So spells must be in line with your ECL, I'd say the maximum allowed trap CR is also the max CL you may put into the trap. To avoid the spell-chain loophole, we only allow one spell per trap. Also, to craft a magic trap you need both Craft Trapmaking and Craft Wondrous Item. The spell level of a spell already affects the CR of the trap. There's one big issue with magic traps. There're really only two good types of spells to put in one: no save spells and save-or-die spells. No save spells include stuff like Waves of Fatigue/Exhaustion, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Touch of Idiocy (this probably needs to be maximized for good effect); they'll almost always have an effect on the battle. Save-or-die spells won't because of their usually low DC, but every now and then you'll just win before you even step into the arena. This would probably be the level 5 spell Baleful Polymorph; DC 17 save-or-die CR6 trap. Obviously, you want the trap back at the end of the 3FC so we should only allow Automatic Resets. If someone wants a one-shot trap, or one that he has to repair with a Free Activity, we could allow it. What's the difference between Manual and Automatic then? Perhaps Manual is at the end of the 3FC and Automatic is during next fight? Manual would probably be for stuff like poisons. I'd just say that if they have enough ranks in Craft (Traps), they can reset it themselves as part of the free activity. Any idea on what to do with that? Not really... Wait wait wait. You equate fun = unrealistic or put fun and realism on opposite sides which is just completely wrong and makes your assessment invalid before it even starts. In no way are these conflicting goals! Not at all. All I'm saying is that fun is not equal to realistic. These are two seperate goals. At times, they'll be harmonious; at other times, they'll be in conflict. Maximizing one will not necessarily maximize the other. Ok, now you picked the only exception in the features that is somewhat debatable and take it as an example for all features being like that; then you apply your realism vs. fun formula... Sorry Zelck, by all respect, but that's not how it is. I picked it as an example of where realism might conflict with fun ;). I certainly didn't mean say that all fight features were bad! Just that specific one. Again your equation. I mean, we can do a mage only arena so that everyone has to play mages or be handicapped. And if someone (like me) comes and wants to add the druid and cleric and fighter and paladin and psion you say "Do we want realistic D&D or Fun D&D? If we want fun then allow only mages". That thought is flawed. See, not only can you arrive at this conclusion through a "maximize realism" (saying realism in this context is so funny haha) framework, you can also arrive at this conclusion through a "maximize fun" framework. You have more options! People can play the type of character they want to play! None of it's broken, and it won't harm the enjoyment of other players. Win, win, win. This is an example of where "maximize realism" is harmonious with "maximize fun". Now, you may argue that this argument should also apply to skillmonkeys and try to justify say traps that way. However, traps would harm the enjoyment of other players. Thus, a "maximize reality" framework would say "allow traps!" while a "maximize fun" framework would say "no traps, they're not fun, let's find some other way to make skillmonkeys good". That's correct and we can address that in the future. I mentioned it when I made my first post about the features here; I called it Support. Support is an important element in D&D and is surely worth a distant-future add-on after which we will finally see bards again but that's another story yet to be told. Interesting... I'll have to see it in the distant future before I can comment though ;). By the way, I think it's pretty commonly agreed on that Bards are underpowered. Their buffing really isn't that great and can in many instances be replicated by a Wizard (Polymorph that fighter! or just use Greater Heroism...) or a Cleric (Bless, Prayer, etc.). And they fight much worse than those. Skills, not support, might be the way we want to make Bards better. No that's no question you ask here; it's a suggestion. Everyone wants to have fun. That means anything that opposes fun will be disliked by anyone. So in putting 'realism' onto the opposite side of fun, you don't ask a question but suggest that everyone should oppose the realism we're currently attempting, ie the features. As explained twice already fun and realism are not on the opposite sides else we should delete the Rules of Gladius thread and let everyone do what he wants. Again, I'd like to point out that I did not put 'realism' on the other side of fun, but rather pointed out that they're different goals that sometimes might be at odds (and sometimes not). I'm not suggesting that we should oppose 'realism', I'm saying we should oppose anything not fun. In some instances, that's opposing 'unrealism'; in others, it's opposing 'realism'. And remember, the only thing worse than death is not knowing the rules (spoken by some random RPer at some random convention). Zelck, I have debated your point hotly but it's nothing personal. I just didn't like the presumption you made and sold as fact. I really appreciate your participation in this discussion (especially with your trap examples ) and hope you take no offense. I've done a few years of competitive debate, participated in some politics forums (required a bit more skin than I had...), and still engage in heated discussions at various forums, including I guess this one :). It's unlikely you'd hurt me by anything you say ;). I just hope it's the same way with what I write...
hogarth 10-01-06, 12:22 PM	I forgot that when I pasted it into the new section. With the rules for disabling traps it's logical to give rogues the chance to disable them. Since no one has a trap at all it's no biggie. Actually, all of my characters have traps (Fire Trap). I don't have any problem with the change, but at least pretending to discuss things first might be nice! ;)
Caterane 10-01-06, 12:39 PM	@hogarth: as said, I simply forgot it. That doesn't happen very often. Check page 75 for the Crushing Wall Trap. No onset delay required. In fact, the onset delay would make it cost extra. Then the Crushing Wall trap is illegal as printed in the book. The DMG clearly says you need an onset delay. There's one problem with this. Instead of a 100% of people starting the game by getting hit by a trap they can't do anything about, now it's only 50%. So now everyone gets to write long tactics that might just be invalid thanks to dying on the trap (or having allies die to the trap). And what should the percentage be then? 20%? 10%? THE major rogue ability who spends a helluva skill points and even more money should see his traps 90% of the time not working, wastes his free activity, while he has now used the ineffective trap as his ally slot and he now faces an unharmed wizard with his cleric cohort who has spend the tons of gold into wands and staffs. I don't think even 50% trap success is enough. Sure, this is still abusable. I could put the Search modifier down to 0 and make the Disable DC 21, and they won't be able to bypass even if they find it. Or, I could make the Search modifier high and leave the Disable DC at 0, and they'll never know what hit them. Either way, I can save gold and CR. Good point. Simple fix: Search & Disable must be equal. The spell level of a spell already affects the CR of the trap. There's one big issue with magic traps. There're really only two good types of spells to put in one: no save spells and save-or-die spells. No save spells include stuff like Waves of Fatigue/Exhaustion, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Touch of Idiocy (this probably needs to be maximized for good effect); they'll almost always have an effect on the battle. Save-or-die spells won't because of their usually low DC, but every now and then you'll just win before you even step into the arena. This would probably be the level 5 spell Baleful Polymorph; DC 17 save-or-die CR6 trap. What does it cost? 30,000 gold? At ECL 10? Hardly. Even then you spent all your gold on a trap you can use once a 3FC and which might or might not kill someone off right away. And can't druids just wildshape into something large, and psions manifest as toads? Like all your other traps, this one too doesn't knock me out.
Zelck 10-01-06, 12:52 PM	Then the Crushing Wall trap is illegal as printed in the book. The DMG clearly says you need an onset delay. Where does it say that? Onset delay is listed under "Miscellaneous Features" along with stuff like poison and liquid. And what should the percentage be then? 20%? 10%? THE major rogue ability who spends a helluva skill points and even more money should see his traps 90% of the time not working, wastes his free activity, while he has now used the ineffective trap as his ally slot and he now faces an unharmed wizard with his cleric cohort who has spend the tons of gold into wands and staffs. I don't think even 50% trap success is enough. There should be a 0 percent chance of losing before the fight even begins, IMO. Good point. Simple fix: Search & Disable must be equal. I'll set both at 19, and get -2 CR out of the deal. Now my CR2 trap can do 30 damage on average, which kills most of the ECL6 players outright. What does it cost? 30,000 gold? At ECL 10? Hardly. Even then you spent all your gold on a trap you can use once a 3FC and which might or might not kill someone off right away. And can't druids just wildshape into something large, and psions manifest as toads? Like all your other traps, this one too doesn't knock me out. 22,500, which is about half the wealth of an ECL10 character. Druids are immune to this trap, but getting polymorphed into a toad is probably not a recipe for winning. 5' speed? Lose all your items?
SauroGrenom 10-01-06, 01:07 PM	The quintisential rogue ability is not setting traps. It is sneak attack. Skills are a secondary class feature that allows the rogue to be a scout for the party. In combat the rogue skills are Tumble and Hide (snipe) and Use Magic Device. Two of those skills are focused on getting a rogue more chances to use the sneak attack ability with either flanking positions or sniping. The third skill allows the rogue to do something unexpected. If the goal is to make rogues as effective in CoCo as they are in a TT game, then we need to create more opportunity to use the sneak attack ability of rogues. That involves surprise rounds where the rogue is in close proximity with the opponent (and can attack a flatfooted foe), and that involves more opportunity for rogues to have allies that can setup flanking.
Zelck 10-01-06, 01:11 PM	Or instead of starting off next to your opponent, why not just have a free activity that makes your opponent flat-footed against the first X attacks? No 1HKOs, and perhaps better for Rogues.
Caterane 10-01-06, 02:08 PM	@Zelck: It's written in the "never miss" description. Also, the CR decrease starts below Dc15 and Search +4 is available to anyone. And there's the Feint feat to make your opponent FF. I'm sure we'll see that more often now that the first rogues will be about to pop up. @Sauro: Sneak attacks are too easily negated. I always have a blur spell/potion on my list, among other counters. Flanking would fall into our Support Add-On; until then the rogue is left with allies and summons to get the flanking bonus. Wether we like it or not but traps (and other methods to damage before an open fight begins) are not only an integral part of the game they're also one of the rogue's weapons and in leaving that out we handicap the class. While wizards and warriors work alone well enough, rogues only work in certain situations, situations they pick themselves before going toe to toe with a barbarian or the evoker. Without it they have little chance. The fact that we saw almost no rogues can't be more evident. Also, have you ever seen a character take disable device or disguise? Ever since we introduced burglary, open lock and search has been suddenly used. We just have to provide functions for common D&D features else we could just aswell make the arena a dead-magic zone and wonder why no one plays a spellcaster.
Zelck 10-01-06, 02:44 PM	@Zelck: It's written in the "never miss" description. Also, the CR decrease starts below Dc15 and Search +4 is available to anyone. Disable Device DC15 is not. The never miss thing is interesting, but I can make it a reflex DC24 for 3400 gp self-crafted. Chances are, they'll fail the save and take 30 damage, which is pretty much instant death for most people in the ECL6 arena. Wether we like it or not but traps (and other methods to damage before an open fight begins) are not only an integral part of the game they're also one of the rogue's weapons and in leaving that out we handicap the class. Can't we make Rogues better without implementing damage before the fight begins? For instance, allowing them to pick expendables after the pairings is very powerful. Couldn't that help bridge the gap between them and other classes?
SauroGrenom 10-01-06, 04:58 PM	@Sauro: Sneak attacks are too easily negated. I always have a blur spell/potion on my list, among other counters. Flanking would fall into our Support Add-On; until then the rogue is left with allies and summons to get the flanking bonus. And those buffs have an exceptionally short durration for a reason. You cannot prebuff them and you must waste time in combat to get them going. So if the rogue is good, then he gets a surprise round and wins initiative. So he gets two sneak attacks before your blurr spell is active. Wether we like it or not but traps (and other methods to damage before an open fight begins) are not only an integral part of the game they're also one of the rogue's weapons and in leaving that out we handicap the class.Well I cannot think of a single situation as a player where the DM allowed a party rogue to build a trap in the dungeon. Does the rogue in your party carry around tools to craft a trap in the middle of a dungeon? How much time does that take? In my experience rogue skills and class features dealing with traps prevent traps from hurting the party. In this sense the rogue's skills are protective not offensive. At best the rogue increases the Disable Device DC by 10 so he can bypass the trap and allow it to remain active against the uncommon creature that is following the party. This option is rarely used, and should certianly not be the basis for a set of CoCo trap rules. While wizards and warriors work alone well enough, rogues only work in certain situations, situations they pick themselves before going toe to toe with a barbarian or the evoker.Agreed, but traps are not true to how rogues are effective in DND. Rogues don't set traps in TT games, they defeat traps so the party is not damaged by them. Rogues are benifited by knowing when a battle is comming just a few moments in advance. They get a chance to drink a potion or to approach realy close and surprise the opponent with a sneak attack. They are also good at winning initiative and thus getting two sneak attacks off before the enemy acts and they start to use allies to flank and sneak attack some more (shudder to think of a rogue using sneak attack and a wand of scorching ray in combination with greater invisibility). If you want to make a rogue a viable build in CoCo, then give the opportunity to surprise opponents, and start in close melee with enemies, and to have an extra pre-buff round. Also, have you ever seen a character take disable device or disguise?Are we talking about disguise? Anyway Raskos has 9 ranks in disable device. It comes in handy on quests. He may be the only character with ranks in it, but you asked.
Caterane 10-01-06, 05:12 PM	@Zelck: Your 30 damage trap: 30 damage = +4 CR Reflex Dc24 = +0 CR -------------------- Total CR 4 => ECL 8 League If you want to lower the Search/Disable Dc to 15 to get CR 2, then anyone with +5 Search avoids your pittrap with Climb, Jump or Balance +5. It has no proximity trigger which excludes good/perfect flyers (incl those on flying mounts). And of course, we can always say you cannot reduce the CR (you can reduce the stats to lower the gold cost but the CR stays unchanged). That excludes front-loaded traps. @Sauro: Someone builds these traps and there are plenty of them around in any dungeon. We shouldn't deny a rogue the possibility to build a trap.
NiQil 10-01-06, 05:19 PM	Ok...the trap thing...(puts on my flame-retardant cynic suit) Cat...I'm not sure where you became convinced that traps are what rogues use, but I have *never EVER seen a rogue set a trap to try and deal damage during a battle in any tabletop game I have ever participated in, watched or heard about. What Sauro said above is 100% true. A rogue prevents traps from going off. The only time I have ever seen a rogue do anything other than disable a trap was to reset it after the party went through so there was no evidence that anyone had gone through it. A rogue's defining ability is, was and always will be backstab/sneak attack. Rogues are designed with this ability in mind. Many of their other abilities are steered towards helping get sneak attacks. I have to agree with just about everything Sauro said. We should be looking for things that will allow rogues to utilize this ability. Traps are not only something that seem unfair to implement in the light in which you have shown them here, but the implementation you are talking about is completely against everything else we work for here. What other activity do we allow that does damage to your opponent before the fight ever begins? Even the implementation of a surprise round or something similar would not be as bad as what the trap proposal could be. If you want to implement traps, why not make them a fight feature? Make them something that can be randomly applied in an arena just like the environment or lighting. You seem hell-bent on getting traps into this forum for some reason, though your stated goal is to increase the viability of rogues. If you want to use traps to do this, then why not implement them in the way that they are normally implemented in a tt game? Maybe make an addition to the Fight Features proposal that could randomly introduce a certain number of low CR traps, a slightly less number of medium CR traps, or a few high CR traps (where the CR is relative to the league in question)? That would make much more sense for something like this, and would let rogues use this ability as it was meant to be used...as a preventative measure, rather than an offensive one. That, to me, makes a *lot more sense than the proposal to make them useable as a free activity before the fight.
Caterane 10-01-06, 05:58 PM	Then we would have to make a seperate main-point for traps, and not just a sub-point in the "Other" section because then traps should occur frequently so that rogues can use their skills as you say. That's probably a good idea. I still don't want to deny anyone the ability to craft and place traps. If you have a better way to make them worthwhile tell me. So far I think (with Zelck's help) we have found the problems and created a balanced way to introduce traps. They are much less of a work for a pitlord than an ally and I think they're not as flexible as an ally. They cost money, skills, time to craft, a free activity to set up, use your ally slot, reduce your rewards, and has a chance to do nothing. That's a lot to invest and I doubt that anyone but a rogue will be able to set one up but if you like to invest character power into traps, you can do so as a non-rogue too (at a high price). You all sound like if we'd see traps in any fight when the reality will probably be that they're only a few, but these few are new rogue builds we'd otherwise never see.
Caterane 10-01-06, 07:11 PM	After talking to Sauro we have found an optional way to handle traps. There are three of them: You craft a trap and employ it. Instead of it going off automatically, you write in your tactics where you want to place it on the map and we handle it normally. Traps can be rolled as a Random Fight Feature, like Lighting Conditions and Temperature. In this case, since both PCs face the trap, it goes off automatically as discussed. Anything else results in flame wars in the FotW thread. There also needs to be a use for disable device and that's not during the fight, like with Point 1 above. Traps appear in all monster fights. Either as allies or as partner of the monster (ie a monster on its own). Like above, they go off before combat too. Finally, Sauro had once again a great idea but I'm too tired to explain right now in full length. It has something to do with the way the pairingmaker aligns the characters on the roster. The first character (the left one) is the attacker and the second one (on the right side) is the defender. Based on that we can come up with things that can happen for both sides. For example, if you're the Attacker, you have a chance to ambush your opponent (works like the Free Activity Ambush; compare skills and determine success; just automatically) while the defender gains other benefits, maybe, if his skills are high enough. That way we can just do away with the new Free Activities and make them automatic. That Attack/Defend idea has a lot of potential!
Zelck 10-01-06, 07:39 PM	One day, I don't know how, but one day, we should have a huge CoCo CTF match :). Maybe after Dracazar implements his new magic item thingy. But yea, those are much better ideas than "Don't even bother writing tactics, you just died to the trap". And if we don't make stuff like Ambush free activities, then they also won't carry the opportunity cost of eating your free activity so we don't have to worry about making them much better. I like it :). For disable device, we could again simply give it a use for stuff like Rob Store. Maybe if you have Disable Device greater than equal to your ECL+3, you double the gp value of the item you can steal, and you may steal up to two items instead of one.
NiQil 10-01-06, 08:14 PM	After talking to Sauro we have found an optional way to handle traps. There are three of them: You craft a trap and employ it. Instead of it going off automatically, you write in your tactics where you want to place it on the map and we handle it normally. Traps can be rolled as a Random Fight Feature, like Lighting Conditions and Temperature. In this case, since both PCs face the trap, it goes off automatically as discussed. Anything else results in flame wars in the FotW thread. There also needs to be a use for disable device and that's not during the fight, like with Point 1 above. Traps appear in all monster fights. Either as allies or as partner of the monster (ie a monster on its own). Like above, they go off before combat too. Finally, Sauro had once again a great idea but I'm too tired to explain right now in full length. It has something to do with the way the pairingmaker aligns the characters on the roster. The first character (the left one) is the attacker and the second one (on the right side) is the defender. Based on that we can come up with things that can happen for both sides. For example, if you're the Attacker, you have a chance to ambush your opponent (works like the Free Activity Ambush; compare skills and determine success; just automatically) while the defender gains other benefits, maybe, if his skills are high enough. That way we can just do away with the new Free Activities and make them automatic. That Attack/Defend idea has a lot of potential! These ideas are better than what we had....but they still need work. Why are we so hell-bent on making traps go off before combat? That still runs the risk of characters dying before fights ever begin. Why not just leave them as a random fight feature that you may or may not come in contact with, just like in a regular TT game? Why this obsession with them going off before combat? If our goal is to bring this as close to a regular TT game as we can, then this is what we should be looking at, not making it mandatory that both PC's go against a trap before fights start. Same with the monster fights...we make them mandatory in all monster fights, rolled randomly just like the monster (we could even create some tables like we did for monsters), and they get randomly placed in the arena (again, done by dieroll before the fight...roll the horizontal space and then the vertical space). The pitlord can roll on the monster chart and then the trap in any ECL combination that will lead to a total ECL equal to the ECL of the character.
Traevanon 10-01-06, 09:10 PM	If our goal is to bring this as close to a regular TT game as we can... I hear this alot and it brings up a good question. Obviously the goal of CoCo is not to simulate Gladiatorial Combat, Cat has said as much, but it cant be to simulate Tabletop either since we play PVP one on one battles rather than PVE party battles. It would be useful I think to find out what exactly the goal is, so that we can better help in reaching it.
SauroGrenom 10-01-06, 10:04 PM	As far as I understand it, the goal is to have PvP combat, but in a non-gladatorial setting that is rich with RP and that mimics the balance of a TT game where all character classes have roles that are important to the party and need to be filled.
SauroGrenom 10-01-06, 10:12 PM	Why are we so hell-bent on making traps go off before combat? That still runs the risk of characters dying before fights ever begin. Why not just leave them as a random fight feature that you may or may not come in contact with, just like in a regular TT game? Why this obsession with them going off before combat?Well most trap skills are used outside of combat... It takes a lot of time to make a search and disable device check. So once initiative is rolled, these skills are not a part of the picture any more. If you couple that fact with the fact that pitlords roll initiative at the same time as the characters are placed on the battlefield, then you have the problem that trap skills are useless on a CoCo map. How do you allow anti-trap skills to be rolled as a part of the map when that involves a full round action to search every 5' swuare or to deal with every "simple" trap. Disabeling "intricate or complicated" devices takes 1d4 or 2d4 rounds, and that is a lot of time in a combat. I agree that trap rolls that happen outside of combat are not ideal, but I'm not sure how to get them into combat without totally messing up combat either.
NiQil 10-01-06, 10:36 PM	Well most trap skills are used outside of combat... It takes a lot of time to make a search and disable device check. So once initiative is rolled, these skills are not a part of the picture any more. If you couple that fact with the fact that pitlords roll initiative at the same time as the characters are placed on the battlefield, then you have the problem that trap skills are useless on a CoCo map. How do you allow anti-trap skills to be rolled as a part of the map when that involves a full round action to search every 5' swuare or to deal with every "simple" trap. Disabeling "intricate or complicated" devices takes 1d4 or 2d4 rounds, and that is a lot of time in a combat. I agree that trap rolls that happen outside of combat are not ideal, but I'm not sure how to get them into combat without totally messing up combat either. Which goes back to my original point that I don't think traps in and of themselves are suited to a PvP environment. The trap rules just aren't compatible without severe modification. What I propose is equally as inane as having both parties take damage before combat because 9/10 of our players will never have the skills to deal with a trap. I don't view this as encouraging rogues to be played...I view this as a way that any other fight that involved a trap and two classes not suited to deal with traps will have their fight decided before the fight ever begins. To use some of Zelck's numbers, a trap of appropriate CR for ECL 6 would currently kill every PC at that level except my Horsemen. I have not looked at the traps recently myself, but I am going to guess that this this is going to be true in several different leagues. I really don't see how that increases our enjoyment of this forum. To borrow another one of Zelck's issues, where do we draw the line between being more realistic or more enjoyable?
SauroGrenom 10-01-06, 11:24 PM	Alright, I suppose we should bring the discussion back to the core of it and rebuild from their. OK? Rogues have 4 major class features: Sneak Attack Trap Sense Special abilities: (Defensive roll, crippling strike...) Lots of Skill Points: (and class skills about traps and other things) Special Abilities are high level Rogue abilities and do not play a role in the levels where CoCo is right now. Sneak Attack opportunities are mostly durring surprise rounds and durring the 1st round of combat where the opponents are flatfooted. They also come up if you have allies who can setup flanking for you, or if you are invisible or sniping. Trap sense is totally useless unless you are making saving throws vs traps. Skill Points are usefull for various skills, but in a typical game the value of skills are in the situations you are in. Bluff is interesting an valuable when you are trying to smuggle poison past the castle guard. In CoCo we don't get the DM to set a circumstance for every skill roll to be interesting and valuable. Extra skill points beyond those needed for combat related skills are weakened in effectiveness. There is little need for more than 4 or 5 skill points per level. So all the rogue's major class features are negated by the CoCo environment. Extra skill points are not needed, there are no traps to deal with, only some character builds have allies, and sneak attack opportunities are highly limited. So how do you make the game accomodate the strengths of a rogue? We can talk about putting surprise rounds into combat, but we have huge maps where a surprise round at those distances are useless. We can talk about putting traps into the maps, but they are countered buy skills not well suited for incombat use. We can invent contrived house rules where noncombat skills are usefull, but then we are making up new rules. That's hard to balance and it's always clunky in the end. The closest we can come is to have characters start on the map and not roll initiative untill they sense each other via spot, listen or LOS. Doing that complicates the pitlord's job because he must track when the combat begins in addition to all the other problems of who is doing what at each time in the battle... I don't know how to solve the delema. It's a thorny issue and hard to get at with the needs of our setting. The idea of putting the trap rolls outside of combat all together is an idea that makes it simple to deal with the time involved in each check. It's a simple way to put traps into the setting. Simple may not be the most true to d20 implimentation, but it has benifits that I cannot ignore. I'm not sure if I support Cat's idea of putting the rolls outside of combat. I'm not sure if there is another alternative that's better. I can see how it's not ideal to have character's hit traps before a battle. I can see how it's not ideal to have characters hit traps durring a battle. When else can the traps go into CoCo? If it's not traps how do you offer lots of sneak attack opportunities to a rogue when you roll initiative over 100' away from a foe without LOS to their position?
NiQil 10-01-06, 11:43 PM	Alright, I suppose we should bring the discussion back to the core of it and rebuild from their. OK? Rogues have 4 major class features: Sneak Attack Trap Sense Special abilities: (Defensive roll, crippling strike...) Lots of Skill Points: (and class skills about traps and other things) Special Abilities are high level Rogue abilities and do not play a role in the levels where CoCo is right now. Sneak Attack opportunities are mostly durring surprise rounds and durring the 1st round of combat where the opponents are flatfooted. They also come up if you have allies who can setup flanking for you, or if you are invisible or sniping. Trap sense is totally useless unless you are making saving throws vs traps. Skill Points are usefull for various skills, but in a typical game the value of skills are in the situations you are in. Bluff is interesting an valuable when you are trying to smuggle poison past the castle guard. In CoCo we don't get the DM to set a circumstance for every skill roll to be interesting and valuable. Extra skill points beyond those needed for combat related skills are weakened in effectiveness. There is little need for more than 4 or 5 skill points per level. So all the rogue's major class features are negated by the CoCo environment. Extra skill points are not needed, there are no traps to deal with, only some character builds have allies, and sneak attack opportunities are highly limited. So how do you make the game accomodate the strengths of a rogue? We can talk about putting surprise rounds into combat, but we have huge maps where a surprise round at those distances are useless. We can talk about putting traps into the maps, but they are countered buy skills not well suited for incombat use. We can invent contrived house rules where noncombat skills are usefull, but then we are making up new rules. That's hard to balance and it's always clunky in the end. The closest we can come is to have characters start on the map and not roll initiative untill they sense each other via spot, listen or LOS. Doing that complicates the pitlord's job because he must track when the combat begins in addition to all the other problems of who is doing what at each time in the battle... I don't know how to solve the delema. It's a thorny issue and hard to get at with the needs of our setting. The idea of putting the trap rolls outside of combat all together is an idea that makes it simple to deal with the time involved in each check. It's a simple way to put traps into the setting. Simple may not be the most true to d20 implimentation, but it has benifits that I cannot ignore. I'm not sure if I support Cat's idea of putting the rolls outside of combat. I'm not sure if there is another alternative that's better. I can see how it's not ideal to have character's hit traps before a battle. I can see how it's not ideal to have characters hit traps durring a battle. When else can the traps go into CoCo? If it's not traps how do you offer lots of sneak attack opportunities to a rogue when you roll initiative over 100' away from a foe without LOS to their position? I don't necessarily know if this works, as I have never personally play-tested it, but on several other PvP forums I have come in contact with, a common way to help this issue is to set each fight with a certain number of "pre-buff" rounds before the fight begins. These rounds are used not only for the obvious drinking potions and casting spells, but also to advance out to find your opponent and to hide and things like that. But you cannot affect your opponent in any way during these rounds. Assigning a certain number of prebuff rounds in this fashion might allow rogues to better get to a position where sneak attacks can come into play if that is what they choose. This idea has the potential to work...the problem is that on some of our maps (cavern, temple), only a couple of rounds might be needed. On larger maps like the arena, the forest, the city and even the plains, it is still hardly useful. Therefore, to make an idea of this fashion to work, we would need to set our maps to a uniform size. Maybe 30 spaces square, where a 1 space square is a 5ft block. This would be helpful in any event, as we still see a steady deluge of comments about how the forest and city are too big. Now, as I said, I do not know if this idea is effective or not...but I have seen several rogue builds in other PvP forums that use this pre-buff strategy, and I don't recall seeing any major complaints about them being underpowered or underplayed. Granted, our forum is probably rather unique in it's approach to PvP and D&D in general, but I still think it is worth a look. Because right now, our approach to traps is just not cutting it. I would rather keep traps out of our forum entirely than implement the current ideas that are being put forth.
Caterane 10-02-06, 05:49 AM	Why are we so hell-bent on making traps go off before combat? [Because you cannot search/disable them in combat] That still runs the risk of characters dying before fights ever begin. [Hardly dying but damaged and that's what traps do] Why not just leave them as a random fight feature that you may or may not come in contact with, just like in a regular TT game? [Because you cannot search/disable them in combat. Because in a regular TT game you come in contact with them outside combat] Why this obsession with them going off before combat? [Because you cannot search/disable them in combat] If our goal is to bring this as close to a regular TT game as we can, then this is what we should be looking at, not making it mandatory that both PC's go against a trap before fights start. [Because in a regular TT game you come in contact with them outside combat] Which goes back to my original point that I don't think traps in and of themselves are suited to a PvP environment. [We are no pure PvP enviroment. We are like a solo adventure.] The trap rules just aren't compatible without severe modification. [No we've seen that they can work with two very simple fixes (no multi-traps, no CR decrease, Search/Disable must be equal; done)] What I propose is equally as inane as having both parties take damage before combat because 9/10 of our players will never have the skills to deal with a trap. [Well, yes, but the point is that our players have to adept to the new situation. A trap must still hit you, you must fail a save. You can find it if you have a good search and go around (as discussed, by using jump, balance, climb, whatever). And it's not that any fight will have traps.] I don't view this as encouraging rogues to be played...I view this as a way that any other fight that involved a trap and two classes not suited to deal with traps will have their fight decided before the fight ever begins. [You again paint the devil on the wall. Traps are 4 CR lower than your ECL and Zelck's traps were all invalid. You take damage, maybe, if you're hit or fail a save, but you're not out of the game unless you have Consti 8 or so.] To use some of Zelck's numbers, a trap of appropriate CR for ECL 6 would currently kill every PC at that level except my Horsemen. [NiQil, please. First of all, not even with Zelck's calculation does it kill anyone so I'm not sure why you say that. Then, he forgot the onset delay which is +3 CR and moves his 22 damage trap into ECL 9. I clearly pointed this out above. Are you ignoring this or did you miss it?] I have not looked at the traps recently myself, but I am going to guess that this this is going to be true in several different leagues. [No, that's true for no league. You should look at the traps for yourself before makign such guesses] I really don't see how that increases our enjoyment of this forum. To borrow another one of Zelck's issues, where do we draw the line between being more realistic or more enjoyable? [I don't respond to this. I have expressed how I feel about this equation and even Zelck retroactively said that he didn't mean it that way. Did you read that NiQil? Sorry but I have a feeling that you pick what you like and discard the rest of the arguments. No offense bud :) I could be wrong.] I don't necessarily know if this works, as I have never personally play-tested it, but on several other PvP forums I have come in contact with, a common way to help this issue is to set each fight with a certain number of "pre-buff" rounds before the fight begins. These rounds are used not only for the obvious drinking potions and casting spells, but also to advance out to find your opponent and to hide and things like that. But you cannot affect your opponent in any way during these rounds. Assigning a certain number of prebuff rounds in this fashion might allow rogues to better get to a position where sneak attacks can come into play if that is what they choose. [First of all, I'm really glad you made a suggestion! That helps us more than 1000 complaints and Sauro convinced me yesterday (on Yahoo) not with complaints but with alternatives; and he needed only 10 minutes to let me drop something I argued for 2 weeks. That said, your suggestion, although interesting, is not enough and also not what we want. In the city, forest, and plains, it is impossible to position yourself within 30 ft. The chances are also slim for the sewer. Only cavern, temple, and arena would have an effect. However, in these cases we may want to ask if that's what we want. Such free rounds are too good for a wizard to ignore, and it's also a death sentence to have a rogue starting next to you: surprise round sneak plus win ini fullattack w/rapid shot & haste for 5 sneak attacks (there's the Surprise Fight Feature, I know, but that's one among many and if rolled, it needs to involve a rogue, and it has no surprise round; all in all not that likely. You suggest to grant that opportunity often)] To get this discussion into the right direction: Traps are a too common feature to ignore so we should incorporate it (like we should incorporate support sometime in the future). The question is not if but how. I can only make proposals and if you shoot them down, propose an alternative. Unfortunately we have no rogue clique here to defend this class since no one plays a rogue. That should change. NiQil suggested in-game traps. Problem is that it'd just be an annoyance you cannot avoid because no one, including the rogue, can use the time to search a trap during combat. It would only work in the special case where a rogue prebuffs a trap and places it on the map. I marked that down. NiQil and Sauro argue that traps are mostly encountered as opponents which you have to find/disable. Since it cannot be done in combat we have to do it outside the battlefield. If both players are affected, no one is at an advantage, except those who can find them and either disable or go around with other skills. And these traps will be 4 CR below your ECL so they basically cannot kill you. Remember that it's in our hands to create a set of appropriate traps for monster fights and fight features. That's the situation we face. If you have an idea on how to do it in a better way, by all means, share it with us! PS: What about a Free Activity: Move Cautious! (similar to Guard Home and Hide Trail) which let's you take 20 instead of 10 to find traps. Would be available to anyone. (Do you have a better name for that, btw?)
Caterane 10-02-06, 06:48 AM	I want to come back to Sauro's brilliant idea. It works like that. The pairingsmaker sets the pairings up like that: Chameleon (lonewolf) vs. Uilo (Dracazar) : XXXXX [Arena] With the new idea, The Chameleon would be the attacker (since he's the first or left) and Uilo would be the defender (right side of the pairings). These two terms, "Attacker" and "Defender" determine what options you have. Let's take the attacker. We have just implemented the Skill Packages and made them a Free Activity. Instead of a FA though we could assign them automatically. Example: Ambush: Compare Chameleon vs Uilo in... Hide (vs Spot) Move (vs Listen) Bluff (vs Sense) Sense (vs Bluff) If Chameleon is higher in all four skills, he ambushed. If not, skip Ambush. Assassinate: Compare Chameleon vs Uilo in... Disguise (vs Spot) Gather (vs Gather) Bluff (vs Sense) Open (vs ECL+5) or (vs Open) If Chameleon is higher in all four skills, Uilo's allies are assassinated. If not, skip Assassinate. Outmaneuver: Compare Chameleon vs Uilo in... Balance (vs Balance) Climb (vs Climb) Jump (vs Jump) Swim (vs Swim) If Chameleon is higher in all four skills, he outmaneuvers. If not, skip Outmaneuver. Scout: Compare Chameleon vs Uilo in... Survival or Search (vs Track DC) Use Rope (vs Escape artist) Knowledge Geography If Chameleon is higher in all four skills, he successfully scouts. If not, skip scout. I think these four Skill Packages could be for the attacker. If you've invested in skill points, you are likely to get one effect or the other; only uber-skill monkeys can get all skills to work but they payed for that. If we automate that we have to make a requirement of 5 ranks per involved skill else anyone with high abilities could outmaneuver. It's easy for everyone to see without communication who succeeds in what. We also have to find such things for the defender. One is here: Set Trap: Compare your skills to trap. You need a trap Search (vs Trap DC) Disable (vs Trap DC) If you have a trap in your At Home section and pass all tasks, opponent faces this trap. * Unlike what Sauro and NiQil said about moving adventuring parties and laying traps, your home can very well be secured that way. In my group we have a castle and trapped every corridor against intrusions (there's this annoying lich who always harrasses us and... nevermind). This would also be a great alternative to the trapsetting during combat option addressed above. That adds a new dimension to our pairings. Rematches can be totally different now that the rogue is suddenly the defender. We can also say that I automatically realign the positions of Attacker/Defender if you fought against this opponent before. It also encourages to take more skills. By using Free Activities it's useless to specialize in more than one Skill Package since you can use only one anyway. If we use the four skill packages above we also have to come up with three other options for the defender. Let's try to find them...
hogarth 10-02-06, 06:53 AM	I'm just curious -- is there reading this thread who likes the idea of adding traps?
NedTheDestroyer 10-02-06, 09:29 AM	I kinda like the idea of traps. Though I just though of something, wouldn't the Gladius government have laws against "traping" people? I mean its probably a small beef but ya know if we want to be more like TT its something to think about. I do agree however that Rogues protect the party from traps. In all my games, where i usually play rogue, i've never set one trap. In conjunction with the attacker/defender thing I think then it kinda makes sense to be able to "trap." However Following that logic It'd also make sense to be able to set a map preference because thats your "home turf." Well thats my .02$.
Traevanon 10-02-06, 09:47 AM	@ Hogarth: I like the gladiatorial combat idea of adding traps to the map, or adding them as a penalty against delay. Its true that Rogues dont have the time to search and disarm during combat, but they do have Evasion and Trap Sense that will be used. I dont think the arena is headed in this direction however, judging by Sauro's statement of purpose above. @ all: I'm working on a progressive application of skills at the moment, built based on Cat's latest Free Activity list above but one that isnt completely Pass/Fail based on being one point better than your opponent. The problem with the Pass/Fail system is that it is that you recieve the entire bonus based on having one more point than the opponent. Thus, non-rogue/rangers will be able to steal away this (presumably significant) bonus against anyone without those class levels by just throwing a point into each of them. The net result of this will be that characters with very few skill points will be unable to avoid being ambushed even by non-rogues, when if a D20 was used they aught to have nearly a 50/50 chance (or better) of not being ambushed. As an introduction to the progressive system, let me suggest that we *not* use a "Take 10" on these skill comparisons. The Pitlord will instead, during setup, roll all 4 skills and compare the results. The attacker must pass all 4 checks to ambush (or whatever) the defender. The potential ambusher and his opponent wont know exactly how the fight will begin, but that's not any different from now. It just creates an extra contingency for tactics. Note: This option is significantly more difficult for a rogue to pull off with skills comparable to his target, but remember that spot and listen are not class skills for many classes, and the rest of the skills are so varied that the rogue will be able to specialize in one while the target must be ready to defend all of them.
lonewolf 10-02-06, 09:55 AM	@ Hogarth: I like the gladiatorial combat idea of adding traps to the map, or adding them as a penalty against delay. Its true that Rogues dont have the time to search and disarm during combat, but they do have Evasion and Trap Sense that will be used. I dont think the arena is headed in this direction however, judging by Sauro's statement of purpose above. @ all: I'm working on a progressive application of skills at the moment, built based on Cat's latest Free Activity list above but one that isnt completely Pass/Fail based on being one point better than your opponent. The problem with the Pass/Fail system is that it is that you recieve the entire bonus based on having one more point than the opponent. Thus, non-rogue/rangers will be able to steal away this (presumably significant) bonus against anyone without those class levels by just throwing a point into each of them. The net result of this will be that characters with very few skill points will be unable to avoid being ambushed even by non-rogues, when if a D20 was used they aught to have nearly a 50/50 chance (or better) of not being ambushed. As an introduction to the progressive system, let me suggest that we *not* use a "Take 10" on these skill comparisons. The Pitlord will instead, during setup, roll all 4 skills and compare the results. The attacker must pass all 4 checks to ambush (or whatever) the defender. The potential ambusher and his opponent wont know exactly how the fight will begin, but that's not any different from now. It just creates an extra contingency for tactics. Note: This option is significantly more difficult for a rogue to pull off with skills comparable to his target, but remember that spot and listen are not class skills for many classes, and the rest of the skills are so varied that the rogue will be able to specialize in one while the target must be ready to defend all of them. no way This would increase the workload of the pitlord by much more and thats not something we need right now. We need more pitlords not more incentives NOT to pitlord.
hogarth 10-02-06, 10:08 AM	What was the final decision about an UnCon contest? I still like the idea of running an obstacle course; note that my example even included trapfinding. :)
Caterane 10-02-06, 10:29 AM	@Traevanon: There is actually one safeguard in existance: you need 5 ranks to make use of a skill in such a manner. Since it's a broad mix of skills, only focused investment can get you the activity. Prefight communication should be kept at a minimum; traps actually decrease the pitlord's workload because a trap "ally" is significantly simpler to lord than an acting life ally. As for resisting the ambushes and co, note that you are safe if you resist with only one skill while the attacker has to succeed in all four skills. That makes skill points more interesting and worthwhile, and rewards those who invest in them. We still need 3 defender packages. Choosing the terrain was mentioned of which we could make a package. We take four skills and if the defender "succeeds" (take10 again) vs the attacker's skills, he may pick the map (which overrides what I rolled in the pairings). To avoid communication, everyone just writes his preferred map on his sheet; failure to do so means you use the rolled map. Might need some analysis though: if you specialize in that you have a 50% chance to be the defender and always gain your map. We have to make sure it's not easy to get because it'd be a powerful ability. Other ideas?
MindWandererB 10-02-06, 02:13 PM	Technical question: I don't know how the pairingsmaker is coded, but do all participants have an equal chance of appearing first or second? For instance, skimming through the last couple of months, I see that NiQil's dwarves appear first in every fight they're in except for inter-leagues. That would have to be changed for this proposed system to work. And may I add, it's a lot of work to add to a fight. I would prefer Free Activities instead, so that you only have to deal with one thing at most.
Traevanon 10-02-06, 02:57 PM	I simply dont feel that an ambush or assasination (or detecting them) aught to be something that can be relied upon when the attacker and defender's skill values are relatively equal. The best assasin can accidentally make some noise, or not realize his back isnt covered. Its not something that characters aught to be able to "Take 10" on. As for pitlord workload, its only 4 rolls. Okay, I'm off. I'll leave the rest of the skill creating to those in charge.
McJarvis 10-02-06, 03:12 PM	I kinda like the idea of traps. Though I just though of something, wouldn't the Gladius government have laws against "traping" people? I mean its probably a small beef but ya know if we want to be more like TT its something to think about. They don't seem to mind poison, which is also illegal everywhere...
hogarth 10-02-06, 03:20 PM	Sblocks are annoying; I can't search with Ctrl-F.[paraphrased]I I think that's how you see it. Others find it annoying to scroll up and down through text you don't need. Cat, could you put a list of the Skill Package activities somewhere (that's not in sblocks) so that a Ctrl-F search for "assassinate" or "rob store" goes to the right area instead of coming up empty? Surely that won't add too much extra scrolling.
McJarvis 10-02-06, 04:05 PM	I think Forgery should require 5 ranks to use, like the other skills do. This is where I suggest that, right? :)
Caterane 10-02-06, 05:17 PM	@MWB: That's a question better answered by Dracazar or Usurpator. Note that Interleague fights are set by me because the pairingsmaker cannot roll them so NiQil's guys are there because I put them there. I'd definately say we won't let such activities work in multiplayer fights anyway for several reasons (no clear attacker/defender, unfair if interleague, etc). @Traevanon: The problem is not the 8 (not 4) rolls but the communication necessary. Every player wuold have to wait until the pitlord sets his fight with the prefight rolls up, and if a pitlord forgets that, there are late tactics, which results in late fights. It's ok for a minority of fights like it is now. If you have an idea on how to solve this without communication, yuo're welcome to try. @hogarth: why not search for "Skill Package" then? Or another word closely by. @McJarvis: Hm, good point. Thoughts?
hogarth 10-02-06, 05:26 PM	@hogarth: why not search for "Skill Package" then? Or another word closely by. Well, that's what I did, eventually. My natural inclination however, if I want to know what the "rob store" action does, is to look up "rob store". At any rate, look at the single skill activities list just below it; you set up that section exactly the way I'm asking for (a short list, with the details in an sblock) so the format can't be that objectionable to you! :)
McJarvis 10-02-06, 10:06 PM	@McJarvis: Hm, good point. Thoughts? My thoughts on it were basically that as-is, Psions and Wizards get a free CR 1 ally. +4 int(at least an 18 int is fair-game for psions/wizards) +1 rank(2 skill point investment) return at level 3: +225 gp/xp per win, 75 gp/xp per loss. (more for later levels, but you get the idea) Which makes Forgery the most valuable 2 skill point investment the wizard/psion will ever make. If they are a gray elf with a 20 int, they get forgery as a free activity with no investment needed. That's totally not right. It also reduces the value of the Rogue class since Rogues get Forgery(who else does? I can't think of it...)
hogarth 10-02-06, 10:08 PM	It also reduces the value of the Rogue class since Rogues get Forgery(who else does? I can't think of it...) Aristocrats get Forgery as a class skill (and possibly Experts and Human Paragons).
McJarvis 10-02-06, 10:15 PM	I'm almost sad that I brought this up since my next character concept is a mounted psion :-) But making him is what made me realize it was really unfair...felt I had to bring it up
Zevox 10-02-06, 10:43 PM	My thoughts on it were basically that as-is, Psions and Wizards get a free CR 1 ally. Not quite. That free CR 1 ally is costing them a free activity, and with thier intelligence 5 ranks in the craft skill could easily score them a lot more money than they save from Forgery. Heck, forgery doesn't actually get them anything extra, it just keeps them from being slowed down in thier advancement by the penalty for the ally - if they didn't use it would take longer to level up, but making money using craft skills they could easily wind up with a distinct advantage monetarily over others of thier level (things like that are actually why voluntary xp loss outside of spells that have an xp component is basically banned here). Personally, I don't think forgery without a 5 rank requirement is unfair (maybe if you're only getting to use it because of custom items, but certainly if its because of a high int and/or some cross-class skill point investment its not). It also reduces the value of the Rogue class since Rogues get Forgery(who else does? I can't think of it...) Assassins is the only PC class I think. Experts could pick it, but of course NPC classes like that aren't exactly popular choices in a competitive environment. Zevox
McJarvis 10-02-06, 11:07 PM	Personally, I don't think forgery without a 5 rank requirement is unfair (maybe if you're only getting to use it because of custom items, but certainly if its because of a high int and/or some cross-class skill point investment its not). It's unfair because it's an extra option that any primary-int stat character is getting without having to invest in it at all. It's not supposed to be a feature of Wizards and Psions- why should it be in CoCo? Also, most of our other skill-based free activities have a 5 rank requirement, why not forgery? Why shouldn't clerics get Gather Information as a free activity just because they have high wisdom? Why shouldn't Wizards with high int be able to craft anything they want without having 5 ranks in a craft skill, to make less money? Somewhere along the line someone decided that 5 ranks was a pre-req for these skills, and I think Forgery is similar enough that it should get that pre-req too. Especially since getting a +5 forgery check is the most any handle animal/diplomacy user needs until level 5 anyway.(at least, for CR allies) It's too easy to get without having it as a class skill. All this can do is make Rogues & Assassins more powerful...which seems to be a goal of this council anyway. :)
Traevanon 10-02-06, 11:18 PM	@Traevanon: The problem is not the 8 (not 4) rolls but the communication necessary. Every player wuold have to wait until the pitlord sets his fight with the prefight rolls up, and if a pitlord forgets that, there are late tactics, which results in late fights. It's ok for a minority of fights like it is now. If you have an idea on how to solve this without communication, yuo're welcome to try. Yes 8 rolls, I was counting an opposed roll as one, anyhow... I was thinking there would be no communication needed. If a character wants to ambush, its a Free Activity that all can see is being attempted. At that point there are only two contingencies, success and failure, which can be accounted for in both player's tactics. Am I missing something? Maybe you are thinking that once the Ambushing players sees who his opponent is, he can choose not to Ambush? There's really no point to not trying though, since a failure just results in a normal fight with no penalty.
NiQil 10-02-06, 11:20 PM	It's unfair because it's an extra option that any primary-int stat character is getting without having to invest in it at all. It's not supposed to be a feature of Wizards and Psions- why should it be in CoCo? Also, most of our other skill-based free activities have a 5 rank requirement, why not forgery? Why shouldn't clerics get Gather Information as a free activity just because they have high wisdom? Why shouldn't Wizards with high int be able to craft anything they want without having 5 ranks in a craft skill, to make less money? Somewhere along the line someone decided that 5 ranks was a pre-req for these skills, and I think Forgery is similar enough that it should get that pre-req too. Especially since getting a +5 forgery check is the most any handle animal/diplomacy user needs until level 5 anyway.(at least, for CR allies) It's too easy to get without having it as a class skill. All this can do is make Rogues & Assassins more powerful...which seems to be a goal of this council anyway. :) In point of fact, the Craft activities do not require 5 ranks either...at least they didn't last time I checked.
McJarvis 10-02-06, 11:25 PM	In point of fact, the Craft activities do not require 5 ranks either...at least they didn't last time I checked. yeah you do. you can use certain skills to earn extra money if you have at least 5 ranks in that skill. These skills are Sleight of Hand, all Perform skills, all Profession skills, and some Craft skillsx.
Zevox 10-02-06, 11:27 PM	It's unfair because it's an extra option that any primary-int stat character is getting without having to invest in it at all. It's not supposed to be a feature of Wizards and Psions- why should it be in CoCo? Also, most of our other skill-based free activities have a 5 rank requirement, why not forgery? Why shouldn't clerics get Gather Information as a free activity just because they have high wisdom? Why shouldn't Wizards with high int be able to craft anything they want without having 5 ranks in a craft skill, to make less money? Somewhere along the line someone decided that 5 ranks was a pre-req for these skills, and I think Forgery is similar enough that it should get that pre-req too. The bolded one can be done (its just that most wizards have little need for the more mundane items those craft skills can make). Looking over the list, the activities that don't require 5 ranks to use are Forgery, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Craft (for making items, not money), Burglary, Scout, Outmanuever, Set Trap, Assassintate, and Ambush. Quite a few (and it doesn't appear as though the new ones were oversights either, since a number of new ones do specify needing 5 ranks, yet the ones I listed don't). And Gather Information is charisma-based, not wisdom-based, so even without the 5 rank requirement Clerics would usually have a hard time using it (except the Divine Might ones). All this can do is make Rogues & Assassins more powerful...which seems to be a goal of this council anyway. :) It'd definitely make it a less usable skill, though. No one but Rogues and Assassins could get it until ECL 7 (when they can have 5 ranks using cross-class points), higher if they have an LA. And how many Rogues and Assassins have allies? They could get some diplomacy ones, but even for them thats a significant skill dip to be good with diplomacy, forgery, and the more combat-usable Rogue skills (hide, MS, tumble, escape artist). Plus it would mean putting points (perhaps a significant amount of them) into charisma, not exactly an otherwise useful ability for them. Diplomacy using rogues just make themselves dependant on thier allies, really (I was trying to make one at one point myself - though she was going to be part Telepath as well - and wound up scrapping her partially because of that, partially because of the change to forgery that made it so it couldn't be used to bring in higher CR creatures than normal). Zevox
McJarvis 10-02-06, 11:30 PM	Messed up on gather info...forgot about the cha :-) If Forgery isn't a valid use of 5 ranks required to use, then why do we have a 5 ranks required to use for anything? It's obvious that more ranks will make any of the abilities more powerful in the first place...and if custom items are a concern, why not make all skill usage for free activities require 5 ranks?
Zevox 10-02-06, 11:41 PM	If Forgery isn't a valid use of 5 ranks required to use, Oh, theres no question that it is. I'm simply saying I don't think its particularly a problem if it doesn't require 5 ranks, and pointing out the problem that requiring 5 ranks would introduce (that is, that it would see much less use when it already sees fairly little). Trust me, if it became 5 ranks required, I'd be more than happy to put those ranks into it with the two characters I have using it (Istima and Ceilia) without any hesitation (in point of fact I've always intended to do that and more, since they'll be getting higher CR flying mounts later on that a higher forgery mod will be needed to eliminate). It would just become an annoyance that they can't even use it until ECL 7 when they're sinking so many skill points into it instead of, say, making money with craft or profession. Zevox
McJarvis 10-02-06, 11:42 PM	I think this is what needs to happen: Make forgery impossible to use unless the user has at least 5 ranks in it. Make the effects of Forgery useful to rogues. It's retarded to make the effects of a skill that only rogues have(among the base pc classes) most useful to those who are not rogues & more or less useless to rogues themselves. If rogues don't need allies, then find a use for forgery that doesn't revolve around class allies. possible uses for forgery in place of class allies:(brainstormed for 5 minutes or so. I colored my favorite option in green) Making money(bank fraud): Con:"Making Money is lame- Cat" Credit alleviation like Gather Info Con: Gather Info isn't used much at all Used in new skill-set activities. Used to let your character fight in lower ecl bracketCon: Multiclass character abuse & impossibility to determine what ECL a character is fighting at from week to week Also any character CCing the skill points would DEFINATELY abuse it. Used to STEAL bought class allies/mercenaries from competitors. "That's actually my horse, I have the receipt right here". Used to REMOVE all other forms(except class allies) of allies. This would be exceptionally useful to rogues who depend on hiding & don't want to be sniffed out by allies with scent. The same CR chart currently used could be used for the effectiveness of the forgery. Would not be effective against class allies. edit- I realize this is effectively more useful than the assassinate feature other than the assassinate feature can be used against class allies....but I don't feel this is particularly overpowered...other than the possibility that every rogue build will require forgery if this is the case. But in the end, being outnumbered is such a huge disadvantage to rogues... Used in RP guild conflicts.(Perhaps usable to frame someone who is guarding somewhere...? I don't know much about Guild battles//activities)
NiQil 10-03-06, 12:16 AM	Why are we so hell-bent on making traps go off before combat? [Because you cannot search/disable them in combat] Hence the reason traps do not belong in this arena, in my opinion. That still runs the risk of characters dying before fights ever begin. [Hardly dying but damaged and that's what traps do] Except I haven't seen anyone except yourself state that having traps damage you or opponent (or both) is something we want in this forum. Please correct me if I am wrong. Why not just leave them as a random fight feature that you may or may not come in contact with, just like in a regular TT game? [Because you cannot search/disable them in combat. Because in a regular TT game you come in contact with them outside combat] Hence the reason traps do not belong in this arena, in my opinion. Why this obsession with them going off before combat? [Because you cannot search/disable them in combat] Hence the reason traps do not belong in this arena, in my opinion. If our goal is to bring this as close to a regular TT game as we can, then this is what we should be looking at, not making it mandatory that both PC's go against a trap before fights start. [Because in a regular TT game you come in contact with them outside combat] Thank you for making my point for me. Which goes back to my original point that I don't think traps in and of themselves are suited to a PvP environment. [We are no pure PvP enviroment. We are like a solo adventure.] This is just plain wrong. Quests and miniquests are the solo adventures. The arena is PvP. Call it what you want, but that is what it is. No matter how you dress it up, the arena is PvP. The trap rules just aren't compatible without severe modification. [No we've seen that they can work with two very simple fixes (no multi-traps, no CR decrease, Search/Disable must be equal; done)] Except for that whole damage occuring before battle hurdle that you don't seem to want to discuss. Or the fact that many have voiced their displeasure with all or a portion of this whole trap idea. What I propose is equally as inane as having both parties take damage before combat because 9/10 of our players will never have the skills to deal with a trap. [Well, yes, but the point is that our players have to adept to the new situation. A trap must still hit you, you must fail a save. You can find it if you have a good search and go around (as discussed, by using jump, balance, climb, whatever). And it's not that any fight will have traps.] So in other words, you acknowledge that most of the characters will not have the skills to avoid a trap, and have to rely on the trap missing and/or making a save to avoid taking damage. Doesn't that strike you as a little unfair...and more importantly, un-fun? I don't view this as encouraging rogues to be played...I view this as a way that any other fight that involved a trap and two classes not suited to deal with traps will have their fight decided before the fight ever begins. [You again paint the devil on the wall. Traps are 4 CR lower than your ECL and Zelck's traps were all invalid. You take damage, maybe, if you're hit or fail a save, but you're not out of the game unless you have Consti 8 or so.] Yes, I paint a bleak picture in this situation, because I'm try to make a point. Bottom line..if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen anyone inquire about trap use in this arena in the year-plus I have been here. Trap use is just not something I see as viable, or more to the point, wanted, in this type of environment. To use some of Zelck's numbers, a trap of appropriate CR for ECL 6 would currently kill every PC at that level except my Horsemen. [NiQil, please. First of all, not even with Zelck's calculation does it kill anyone so I'm not sure why you say that. Then, he forgot the onset delay which is +3 CR and moves his 22 damage trap into ECL 9. I clearly pointed this out above. Are you ignoring this or did you miss it?] As I said...I'm using his numbers...didn't say they were accurate. Doesn't really have a bearing on my point, other than to provide an example. I have not looked at the traps recently myself, but I am going to guess that this this is going to be true in several different leagues. [No, that's true for no league. You should look at the traps for yourself before makign such guesses] Umm..isn't that what a guess is..a statement with little to no basis on fact? I really don't see how that increases our enjoyment of this forum. To borrow another one of Zelck's issues, where do we draw the line between being more realistic or more enjoyable? [I don't respond to this. I have expressed how I feel about this equation and even Zelck retroactively said that he didn't mean it that way. Did you read that NiQil? Sorry but I have a feeling that you pick what you like and discard the rest of the arguments. No offense bud I could be wrong.] I am asking you to respond to this. It is my view that the introduction of traps in the method you prescribe is both an unrealistic representation of traps as they occur in a tt game, and that the way in which you propose to enact them in this forum will make things less fun. We can go at this all day. You think that it is ok for characters to take damage before a fight due to circumstances beyond their control. I don't. That's basically what it boils down to. I'm not against traps. I'm just against the idea of them causing damage to a character before a fight ever begins. I don't necessarily know if this works, as I have never personally play-tested it, but on several other PvP forums I have come in contact with, a common way to help this issue is to set each fight with a certain number of "pre-buff" rounds before the fight begins. These rounds are used not only for the obvious drinking potions and casting spells, but also to advance out to find your opponent and to hide and things like that. But you cannot affect your opponent in any way during these rounds. Assigning a certain number of prebuff rounds in this fashion might allow rogues to better get to a position where sneak attacks can come into play if that is what they choose. [First of all, I'm really glad you made a suggestion! That helps us more than 1000 complaints and Sauro convinced me yesterday (on Yahoo) not with complaints but with alternatives; and he needed only 10 minutes to let me drop something I argued for 2 weeks. That said, your suggestion, although interesting, is not enough and also not what we want. In the city, forest, and plains, it is impossible to position yourself within 30 ft. The chances are also slim for the sewer. Only cavern, temple, and arena would have an effect. However, in these cases we may want to ask if that's what we want. Such free rounds are too good for a wizard to ignore, and it's also a death sentence to have a rogue starting next to you: surprise round sneak plus win ini fullattack w/rapid shot & haste for 5 sneak attacks (there's the Surprise Fight Feature, I know, but that's one among many and if rolled, it needs to involve a rogue, and it has no surprise round; all in all not that likely. You suggest to grant that opportunity often)] Hence the reason that I stated that our large maps would need to be reduced to smaller maps so that the map size is uniform. Or did you miss this? I also stated that stated that nothing you do could affect your opponent in any way. If you are worried about the Surprise Fight Feature, eliminate it. We don't need both. If we have prebuff rounds, this allows movement and buffing. If a rogue can get close enough to his target to effect a sneak attack of some kind *and wins initiative, don't you think he deserves to get those attacks? There is nothing preventing his opponent from also moving...there is no guarantee that a rogue will ever get close enough to effect all of these attacks you are proposing. If his opponent would rather stay immobile and buff, that is his choice. No one is making him do so. It's not like...say...a trap...where he would have to go up against it whether he wanted to or not before the battle ever begain. To get this discussion into the right direction: Traps are a too common feature to ignore so we should incorporate it (like we should incorporate support sometime in the future). The question is not if but how. I can only make proposals and if you shoot them down, propose an alternative. Unfortunately we have no rogue clique here to defend this class since no one plays a rogue. That should change. I thought that is what I was doing. I would love to see more rogues. I have one already, and another on the way in a couple of weeks. I would much prefer to play with the prebuff idea I have presented than I would with the traps. I have no interest in traps here, because I don't think they work in this environment. NiQil suggested in-game traps. Problem is that it'd just be an annoyance you cannot avoid because no one, including the rogue, can use the time to search a trap during combat. It would only work in the special case where a rogue prebuffs a trap and places it on the map. I marked that down. So let me see if I have this correct. You are against in-game traps because no one can use the time to search a trap during combat. But your special case allows a rogue to prebuff a trap and place it on the map. So how is that fair to every other class who is now unable to do anything about that trap because they can't use the time to search a trap during combat? Seems like a bit of a double-standard to me. NiQil and Sauro argue that traps are mostly encountered as opponents which you have to find/disable. Since it cannot be done in combat we have to do it outside the battlefield. If both players are affected, no one is at an advantage, except those who can find them and either disable or go around with other skills. And these traps will be 4 CR below your ECL so they basically cannot kill you. Remember that it's in our hands to create a set of appropriate traps for monster fights and fight features. That's the situation we face. If you have an idea on how to do it in a better way, by all means, share it with us! I have yet to see a reasonable argument as to *why we have to do it outside the battlefield. Your only response to this idea has been "because they cannot be searched during combat." That still doesn't explain why we need traps outside the battlefield...it only shows why you think we cannot have them inside the battlefield. I propose that it would be easier to allow the searching of traps and the disabling of traps in combat (in other words, house-rule this so that they are either standard, move or full round actions) than it would be to come up with some artifical way to introduce traps outside of the arena. But this goes back to my supposition that I do not think traps are suited for a PvP environment. I have nothing against them, but I don't think they work in this type of environment. PS: What about a Free Activity: Move Cautious! (similar to Guard Home and Hide Trail) which let's you take 20 instead of 10 to find traps. Would be available to anyone. (Do you have a better name for that, btw?) This is a step in the right direction. How about something like Free Activity: Dextrous Passage, that would require 5 ranks in Search and 5 ranks in Disable Device. If you have both, you can make free action search checks during any 5 ft step or regular move to check for traps (using a take 10 Search roll), and if one is located, you may spend a standard action to manipulate them (either to disable or reset, with a take 20 Disable Device roll). As a final note...don't take any of this personally. It's not meant that way...merely to get my point across. As you and I have both proven in the past, getting each other to see the other's side generally requires that both of us be shot. In the head. With a hammer. :D
NiQil 10-03-06, 12:17 AM	yeah you do. I wasn't talking about making money...I was talking about using them to craft things like armor, weapons, alchemical items and poisons. No rank requirement.
McJarvis 10-03-06, 12:18 AM	We could always make traps a random modifier on maps.(rarity & strength of traps would be open to discussion) instead of a prebuff. If that was already suggested, I apologize...I have not taken the time to read through all the expansive arguements on the traps discussion.
McJarvis 10-03-06, 12:20 AM	I wasn't talking about making money...I was talking about using them to craft things like armor, weapons, alchemical items and poisons. No rank requirement. I think Forgery and Crafting to make items are not comparible features, since forgery gains you benefits every single battle...I'm unaware of any characters that craft mundane items every single battle.
Zevox 10-03-06, 12:35 AM	Make the effects of Forgery useful to rogues. It's retarded to make the effects of a skill that only rogues have(among the base pc classes) most useful to those who are not rogues & more or less useless to rogues themselves. If rogues don't need allies, then find a use for forgery that doesn't revolve around class allies. While of course it would be nice if the skill were useful for them, I would like to point out that the original reason for assigning it its current use was simply to give it any use at all. At the time there was no concern about who it should be useful to - just that an otherwise-useless skill be made useful. And its not that Rogues don't need allies - in point of fact, allies to help them with flanking is among the best things they could have! - just that its quite difficult for them to get such allies (handle animal not a class skill = no easy animal friends, diplomacy very costly to be good at, and leadership costs a feat [which they get few of] and would need them to have a good charisma score, which they have little use for otherwise). Now that thats out of the way, let me mention that I do think giving it a rogue-friendly use is a good idea (though not necessarily at the cost of its current use), and move on to the constructive stuff :). Making money(bank fraud): Con:"Making Money is lame- Cat" I agree with Cat there - we've got plenty of money-making skills, and Craft already accounts for an intelligence-based one. Credit alleviation like Gather Info Con: Gather Info isn't used much at all And its already a Rogue class skill anyway. Do this and Gather Info disappears due to Rogues having more use for intelligence than charisma. Used in new skill-set activities. Possible. Ideas for that? (I'd come up with some, but its late, and I have an essay to finish before tomorrow morning... come to think of it, I probably shouldn't even be posting this much :P ) Used to let your character fight in lower ecl bracketCon: Multiclass character abuse & impossibility to determine what ECL a character is fighting at from week to week Also any character CCing the skill points would DEFINATELY abuse it. Bad idea. Unfair to thier opponent, and even then not all that likely to be used since a lower ECL opponent means lower rewards. Used to STEAL bought class allies/mercenaries from competitors. "That's actually my horse, I have the receipt right here". Used to REMOVE all other forms(except class allies) of allies. This would be exceptionally useful to rogues who depend on hiding & don't want to be sniffed out by allies with scent. The same CR chart currently used could be used for the effectiveness of the forgery. Would not be effective against class allies. edit- I realize this is effectively more useful than the assassinate feature other than the assassinate feature can be used against class allies....but I don't feel this is particularly overpowered... Sounds doable, though balancing it with assassintate would be an issue. Would need some kind of formula for determining success and failure of course, probably based on CR/ECL of target (getting rid of that ECL 8 Leadership ally should of course be significantly tougher than getting rid of a CR 1 horse). The one problem that I see is that it leads to mounties buying backup mounts, since without thier mounts thier strategy falls apart in most cases. Edit: Just noticed the suggestion of using the current forgery table for the CR, I'd like to point that this is probably a bad idea. It'd mean you can't get beyond maybe CR/ECL 4 allies with it without getting modifiers that are basically epic. For example, and ECL 10 Rogue/Assassin could have 13 ranks in it, an int of 14 for +2, and two feats (skill focus and whatever the +2 feat for it is) and get a total mod of +20, which is only CR/ECL 4 allies when thier opponents can bring CR 6 or ECL 8 ones. And thats with a two feat investment, and it gets worse at higher levels. So a new formula will be needed. Used in RP guild conflicts.(Perhaps usable to frame someone who is guarding somewhere...? I don't know much about Guild battles//activities) Already is. See the "Plant Corrupt Official" intrigue operation. The annoying part is that operation also requires the Appraise skill too, which is totally useless everywhere else. Zevox
McJarvis 10-03-06, 12:40 AM	Sounds doable, though balancing it with assassintate would be an issue. Would need some kind of formula for determining success and failure of course, probably based on CR/ECL of target (getting rid of that ECL 8 Leadership ally should of course be significantly tougher than getting rid of a CR 1 horse). The one problem that I see is that it leads to mounties buying backup mounts, since without thier mounts thier strategy falls apart in most cases. If they get backup mounts they still have to dedicate a class ally to that end. Most fighters can't afford two mounts worth of CR...and I don't think a fighter should *need* his mount for fighting a rogue. As far as balancing with assassinate- I think assassinate looks pretty useless already...(lots of character invested for little payback) Though I must say, I'm glad you picked the one I saw as most feasible as the one you liked :-). I have no ideas for the skill package idea yet, but I need to run NiQil's fight right now...I'll think about it more tomorrow.
Zevox 10-03-06, 12:54 AM	Most fighters can't afford two mounts worth of CR...and I don't think a fighter should *need* his mount for fighting a rogue. Any figher of ECL 4+ can bring two light warhorses with them. And they get Handle Animal as a class skill, so they could even use the second one if the first isn't stolen. As for needing it against a Rogue, thats a matter of speed. If a melee-based mounted fighter in full plate (i.e. a mountie who relies on his mount for speed - the most common type) gets matched with a high dex rogue archer, hes screwed without his mount, since the rogue will be able to keep the match ranged and will beat him in the ranged combat battle unless he has a lot of luck. I've seen it happen - my own rogue, Featylec, beat out Dronnar Darkjof that way at ECL 3 (he didn't have a horse, but that priciple was how he beat him), and my Bard Annalina beat Telin's full plate cleric Anakala using expeditious retreat and ranged once her Hold Person failed (again, no mount involved, but an example of that principle working). I did have on instance where I should have been on the recieving end of that - when my Paladin Sir Alboreth fought Ba'al of the Grace - but that was one where luck intervened (two critical hits with a lousy ranged mod [dex 10]). Anyway, I've rambled enough :) . Richard III calls, and after that some nice, deep sleep... Zevox
McJarvis 10-03-06, 02:28 AM	Once again, you show me the big picture. I do tend to think in ECL 3 league terms alot...one of these days I'll level a gladiator into the ECL 4 leagues ;) Edit: Just noticed the suggestion of using the current forgery table for the CR, I'd like to point that this is probably a bad idea. It'd mean you can't get beyond maybe CR/ECL 4 allies with it without getting modifiers that are basically epic. For example, and ECL 10 Rogue/Assassin could have 13 ranks in it, an int of 14 for +2, and two feats (skill focus and whatever the +2 feat for it is) and get a total mod of +20, which is only CR/ECL 4 allies when thier opponents can bring CR 6 or ECL 8 ones. And thats with a two feat investment, and it gets worse at higher levels. So a new formula will be needed. Hum. I suppose it's out of the question to ask the ECL 10 rogue to invest two feats and into a +15 Forgery magic item? ;) (what's 22,500 gp between friends, anyway? ) I'm not going to touch assassinate, since I think it's already hella less powerful than Trap setting.(You have to invest in four skills+an alpha-strike like build, whereas with trap setting you only need 2 skills, PLUS assassinate can only hit an ally, where traps can hit your actual opponent. Who cares if it's an ally? I suppose traps are the one use of forgery that Rogues would care about...) What's a reasonable Forgery score to have? ECL+3(ranks)+2(int)=ECL+5. That +5 is part of the reason why at level 3 it's too easy to get a +5 forgery check, but that's besides the point... At each ECL you should be able to remove your opponents ally that is most powerful. So a good forgery skill check should equate to ECL-2. The question is what defines good. Lets force people to actually dedicate some gold to forgery as well(magic item!) by making the DC for ECL-2 go up by 2 for every level past 3. At level 3 the DC to take down an ECL 1 or CR 1 critter should be 8(6 ranks+~2 int). From there increase it by 2 every level. So the table should look something like: ECL/CR ---> DC of Forgery 1 ----> 8 2 ----> 10 3 ----> 12 4 ----> 14 5 ----> 16 etc, etc. If you want to make it harder, start the values at 9.(which will require a 16 int or +1 Forgery magic item.) If I'm totally off base, no sweat. I've never really made custom rules for a skill before :-) Possible complications: Multiplayer fights in general. Also Forgery will turn into something that new players must watch out for(and will probably be confused by), but this is the same as class allies anyway...so who knows how that will play out. Maybe forgery being used in this way will be banned until 4th level. Also, would this be a skill that could take out 1 ally or multiple ones that add up to a certain CR/ECL? I would hate to encourage mass-allies, seeing as how that adds up to bad Pittlords. Also- when a gladiator is deprived of an ally through this method, that gladiator should not have to face penalties for having an ally that match. This is because the forgery makes it look like the gladiator never actually owned an ally to begin with. :-) (or makes it so he never pre-buffed it, I guess)
Caterane 10-03-06, 10:12 AM	McJarvis has a point in saying that it should require 5 ranks. I go a bit further and say we should find a completely new use for Forgery. The main reason is that allies are already powerful and there should be no way to make them even more powerful. Both Harvester and Ixenthor have a +10 Forgery item (Immortal Inviolability LOL) which is just priceless compare to anything you can get for 10,000 gold. It's also stupid for Ixenthor and Harvester-like characters to specialize in Forgery!? Another reason is that it is based on the "everyone is a gladiator" setting which should be buried 10000 ft under the earth. What would your DM let you do with Forgery. Get more allies? Hardly. You forge papers. Perhaps in combination with the underused Appraise for some merchant stuff? Perhaps as a booster to existing skills?
Caterane 10-03-06, 10:29 AM	@NiQil: I really want to get away from PvP and instead create a living enviroment around a character. The PvP is just the 'combat part' of the solo adventure. You persue a profession, haggle, you embark on quests, the different maps, all that are steps towards a world outside the "arena". The skill packages and the fight features are another one. You now ambush, assassinate, outmaneuver, or scout your opponent before combat begins, ie within this enviroment. Traps belong to that just as anything else. You are attacked at home so the opponent has to pass by the trap before entering combat in the house. You proposed to make search/disable a move/standard action during combat but that would be a huge houserule, and I'd prefer to rather make a coco setting rule than messing with d20 rules. Your suggestion for allowing free rounds is bad because wizards will then focus on getting that; it's just too valuable for them to ignore.
Abyssal Stalker 10-03-06, 11:51 AM	What would your DM let you do with Forgery. Get more allies? Hardly. You forge papers. Perhaps in combination with the underused Appraise for some merchant stuff? Perhaps as a booster to existing skills? Use forgery in conjunction with burglary. Forge scrolls and replace those the opponent would be using and make them explode on his face when he reads them. Or just go puff. :gel:
McJarvis 10-03-06, 11:54 AM	I really like the idea of using Forgery to "frame" someone. In our combat(but not necessarily gladiator ring) setting, it could be using the papers to remove assets of your opponent. Either allies(as I suggested before), or expendibles.(much like putting an opponent in prison for using items which should cost credits....you can use forgery to "temporarily" make certain items unavailable due to confusion over whether they cost credits or not.) Anyway, core reasons I forge papers in games: 1) To claim ownership to what isn't mine 2) To claim someone is wanted by the law when they really are not 3) To prove I am who I say I am(but really am not) 4) To get into exclusive parties :-) 5) To own things(or be able to do things) that are illegal(like poison, murder, etc) 6) To evade taxes Whatever we pick for forgery ought to be along these lines AND be fundamentally useful to rogues.
McJarvis 10-03-06, 12:03 PM	Use forgery in conjunction with burglary. Forge scrolls and replace those the opponent would be using and make them explode on his face when he reads them. Or just go puff. :gel: This would be nasty if your opponent didn't know which scroll you sabotaged. > : ) He would obviously know that you did, but not necessarily what you did... of course, forgery wouldn't make sense to replace powerstones/potions/tattoos, so there are balance/useability issues.
McJarvis 10-03-06, 12:05 PM	We could always make traps a random modifier on maps.(rarity & strength of traps would be open to discussion) instead of a prebuff. If that was already suggested, I apologize...I have not taken the time to read through all the expansive arguements on the traps discussion. I think this idea was great McJarvis. You really have an eye for things. In real DnD games PC's don't set traps, they encounter them! Wow! Rogue Mercs might be popular to hire too. Neat! ;) In all seriousness I think that having traps as a random map mod would be cool. I think it would be best if this feature didn't have particularly deadly traps(don't want the map killing off gladiators), but rather things like a pit trap right before entering that delays the gladiator X rounds, or something that entangles you for the first 5 rounds of play(or a Web trap? Focus on spells & mundane ways of restricting movement) This would give the Rogue those buffing rounds we've been talking about, but give him a reason to have them...it also encourages players without trapfinding to find alternative ways to deal with the various traps encountered throughout the city of gladius. We can just say there's a..."Most Dangerous Game" convention that moves into the city, so there are tons of traps everywhere suddenly. Or maybe they are begining to discover ancient defense mechanisms in the city that were placed there by a long-dead race...authorities at large don't particularly care enough to clean them up since the traps are not deadly.
Caterane 10-03-06, 07:11 PM	Here's the updated list based on all comments. Perhaps it's possible to introduce them soon as test run for some weeks. Illumination Daylight: Unless the character has no special sensivity to daylight (orcs, sahuagins, etc) he suffers no ill effects. Twilight: Vision limited to 60ft. Low-light vision 120'. Darkvision=range. Moonlight: Vision limited to 30ft. Low-light vision 60'. Darkvision=range. Darkness: No light is in the area. Roll again on this table, then on another table. Wind Strength (DMG,p95) Breeze: No Penalties Strong: Listen & Ranged-2, affects tiny flyers (Dc10) Severe: Listen & Ranged-4, affects tiny, small, and medium flyers (Dc15) Windstorm: Listen-8, Ranged impossible, affects tiny to huge flyers (Dc18) Roll again on this table, then on another table. Enviroment Temperate: No penalties Very cold: Dc15+1/check. Number of checks = Time Roll. Damage = 1d6 non-lethal per failed check. Fatigued if damage taken. Survival helps (Suvival 5 grants +2 on saves; include 1 creature per additional point). At mid level (ECL7+) characters take 1d6 lethal damage per minute (no save) and PCs in metal armor are affected by a chill metal effect. Very hot: Dc15+1/check. Number of checks = Time Roll. Damage = 1d4 non-lethal per failed check. Fatigued if damage taken. Survival helps (Suvival 5 grants +2 on saves; include 1 creature per additional point). Characters in armor receive a -4 on the check. At mid level (ECL7+) characters take 1d6 lethal damage per minute (no save) and PCs in metal armor are affected by a heat metal effect. Roll again on this table, then on another table. Weather Calm: No penalties Fog: Characters have concealment. Rain: Visibility is halved [???], Search, Spot, and Listen-4. Hail: Listen-4, Expendables and other items with 1 hp cannot be used. From ECL7+ on: Deals 1 damage every round to all creatures. Roll again on this table, then on another table. Magic/Psionics Normal Magic: No modifications Wild Magic: Caster/Manifester has to pass CL/ML check Dc15+SL (or HD if no SL given) or face wild magic effects (DMG,p150). Impeded Magic: Pass Spellcraft/Psicraft check Dc20+SL or spell does not work. It's still used up. Enhanced Magic: Any spell/power is automatically enhanced at no cost. Roll 1d6 (1:EMP|2:ENL|3:EXT|4:MAX|5:QUI|6:WID) Limited Magic: Spells of 1d3 <random> schools do not work. Roll 1d8 (1: ILL|2: ENC|3: CON|4: ABJ|5: NEC|6: EVO|7: DIV|8: TRA). Psionics of 1d2 disciplins do not work (1:CLAIR|2:CREA|3:KINE|4:BOLI|5: PORT|6:TELE). Roll again on this table, then on another table. Traps Simple: All players face a trap before the beginning with a CR of ECL-5. Normal: All players face a trap before the beginning with a CR of ECL-4. Strong: All players face a trap before the beginning with a CR of ECL-3. Exceptional: All players face a trap before the beginning with a CR of ECL-2. Lethal: All players face a trap before the beginning with a CR of ECL-1. Other Lost: Survival Dc15 or take 2xTime Roll to get to fight. If you pass Dc30, the time halves, rounded up. Surprise: All characters start in the same box. Monster: Every character faces one random unknown monster of ECL-4 in addition to his opponent. Monsters only attack their assigned PC. Crowd: Bystanders continuously point out the position of all characters, pinpointing them automatically. If your charisma is at least 4 higher than that of the opponent, they do not point out your position to him. Altar: Roll 1dX to which spell affects map (1: Dimensional Lock, 2: Invisibility Purge, 3: Dispel Magic every 10 rounds [CL=ECL], 4: Consecrate, 5: Desecrate, 6: Two Effects) Roll again on this table, then on another table. Traps would be picked from a list we compile together and there won't be any front-loaded traps in there. There're also the random planes although I don't like the effects that much. I mean you're in Hell and all you get is -2 to Charisma-based checks :bored: The next step is fire-dominant which deals 3d6 fire damage a round and is thus also not addable before high/epic. Some ideas would be: Timeless = you fight one 3FC fight less (no effect in Week 3) Fast Time = you fight one 3FC fight more Subject.Gravity = fly Object.Gravity = wall walk There are also the positive/negative energies, the magic-affecting planes, and the elemental traits. I'd say we leave planes to the high leagues though and make them therefore more significant. Plane Material Plane: normal Astral Plane: Subjective directional gravity, Mildly neutral-aligned, Enhanced magic (quickened) Plane of Shadow: Mildly neutral-aligned, Enhanced magic (shadow), Impeded magic (light) Ysgard: Minor positive dominant, Mildly chaos-aligned Pandemonium: Mildly chaos-aligned Abyss: Mildly evil-aligned, Mildly chaos-aligned Carceri: Mildly evil-aligned Hades: Strongly evil-aligned Gehenna: Mildly evil-aligned Nine Hells: Mildly law-aligned, Mildly evil-aligned Acheron: Objective directional gravity, Mildly law-aligned Mechanus: Objective directional gravity, Strongly law-aligned Arcadia: Mildly law-aligned Seven Heavens: Mildly good-aligned, Mildly law-aligned Bytopia: Objective directional gravity, Mildly good-aligned Elysium: Minor positive dominant, Strongly good-aligned Beastlands: Mildly good-aligned Arborea: Mildly good-aligned, Mildly chaos-aligned Outlands: Mildly neutral-aligned Roll again on this table, then on another table. PS: Do you know where I can find the ranges for vision?
Highfire 10-03-06, 08:59 PM	As far as I know the ranges for vision are never stated, the closest thing is the spot skill there is a penalty every so many feet. I think I know why it is not stated though. Consider in real life on earth, the earth curves about every 40 miles right? Well on a clear day with enough elevation to have no obstructiosn you can see a limit of 40 miles until the earth curves away from you. This is why I think this is no 'max' range as to suggest a max range would be to limit your fantasy world. Maybe your world is small and curves every 20 miles, maybe your world is not curved at all? But distances of clear vision in illumination is easy they list it under the object, that is considered human vision. With shadowy illumination the equal distance of the illumination outward. Low-Light Vision: Doubles these limits. Superior Low-Light Vision: Triples these limits. Darkvision: Allows for completely different limits. As far as a bright sunny day, you are only limited by your Spot modifier and how far it is until the range penalties stack enough to make it impossible. ~Justin
MindWandererB 10-03-06, 09:28 PM	As far as I know the ranges for vision are never stated, the closest thing is the spot skill there is a penalty every so many feet. I think I know why it is not stated though. Consider in real life on earth, the earth curves about every 40 miles right? Well on a clear day with enough elevation to have no obstructiosn you can see a limit of 40 miles until the earth curves away from you. This is why I think this is no 'max' range as to suggest a max range would be to limit your fantasy world. Maybe your world is small and curves every 20 miles, maybe your world is not curved at all? But distances of clear vision in illumination is easy they list it under the object, that is considered human vision. With shadowy illumination the equal distance of the illumination outward. Low-Light Vision: Doubles these limits. Superior Low-Light Vision: Triples these limits. Darkvision: Allows for completely different limits. As far as a bright sunny day, you are only limited by your Spot modifier and how far it is until the range penalties stack enough to make it impossible. ~Justin Well, the maximum spot range in the plains in daylight is 1440 feet (max of 6d6*40). Presumably that represents the absolute maximum range of vision. Conditions other than daylight don't reduce that, but just grant penalties to Spot checks. If there's someone standing 1000 feet away in partial darkness, and you know to look for them there, you can potentially see them (albeit badly), if they're not trying to hide or they're really bad at it. But since they're concealed, their chances of failing a Hide check (even at penalties for running) are pretty slim. @Highfire: the curve of the earth is gradual--the question there would be how far the earth has to curve to be a visual obstruction? I think the 1440 feet is a more game-based rule... and is way larger than any of our maps anyway.
Zelck 10-03-06, 09:47 PM	@Environment, Trap: both have the potential of killing a player or allies before the fight begins. @Monster: You should get a description and roll knowledge to know what the monster is. Otherwise, how can you even write tactics? "Oh whoops, I forgot a contingency for being grappled, and the monster's great at that" or "Oh whoops, I said to attack my monster and it was a Rust Monster/Delver". @Most Features: The thing I'm worried about is that a lot of them have a huge effect on the fight. Enough so that defeating your opponent may become more a function of the map features than your tactics/builds. For instance, if a level 3 Kineticist without allies goes into a fight where Psychokinesis powers are blocked, he's screwed. There's almost no way he can kill someone at that level without using Energy Missiles if they choose to stay at range. Timeless = you fight one 3FC fight less (no effect in Week 3) Fast Time = you fight one 3FC fight more Fast Time would wreak havoc on the system. How would we calculate SLs? Let's say someone with 6 SLs total faces Fast Time during their second fight, after using up 2 in their first. How many can they use in each of their upcoming fights? Not to mention it's a serious nerf to primary spellcasters and especially psions. We could say Fast Time means you restart the cycle because it was over so fast you had time to rest and such between fights, but that's not a bit broken. Nope ;).
False_Keraptis 10-04-06, 01:52 AM	Well folks, new though I may be I can't resist speaking my opinion (again). 1) Regarding the proposed fight features: they scare me. It would be very frustrating to be placed at a major disadvantage due to a roll completely external to the two combatants. I realize that the random maps already do this to some extent, but although some of the maps obviously favor some character types over others, anyone can more-or-less muddle through on any of them (except maybe a stealth build on the plains). Many of the proposed features, in contrast, just can't be dealt with by some character types. Limited Magic and Impeded Magic, of course, can just shut down a primary caster, especially at low levels, and God help you if you face a primary caster with a non-caster and the free quickened spells result comes up. Traps, of course, have the potential to be brutal to most non-rogues, and -4's to hit due to wind for an archer is pretty gruesome. Now, practically none of them will cause an automatic loss, but many will be the deciding factor of a match, which many players might find frustrating. There's plenty of randomness to the game as it is, I don't see the need for a potentially outcome-deciding roll before the battle even starts. At very least, I think these conditions should apply in a very small minority of battles (maybe 70-80%+ should be completely normal). 2) Lighting: important though it is in tt play, I don't think it should be added at all. As nice as it would be to give some benefit to characters with darkvision or low-light vision and to make characters with light sensitivity feel the sting of that drawback, dealing with light does not really fit with the pvp 1-on-1 environment. In tt play, a human barbarian, even at level 1, is almost never going to have to worry about providing light because there's always someone around to cast a light spell, or at least hold a torch. The only characters that I ever see worry about the need to provide light are rogues and other scout types, who operate away from the party and don't want to reveal their position by carrying a light source. Imagine what this rule is going to do to those poor halfling rogues. 3) Minimum 5 ranks for forgery? Great idea! 4) In tatooing and body-art circles, a common piece of advice is to take things slow; yes, everyone wants to get a whole bunch of tatoos, but in six months or a year, the novelty will wear off and you'll want to get more. So instead you get just one now, and wait while for the next; you stretch out the fun and the novelty because you only have so much skin to cover. In the short time I've been here, we've already added Unearthed Arcana stuff, and now we're planning on adding a whole pile of new stuff. The thing is, even if we add it all, the novelty will wear off and we'll be adding even more in six months. Instead we should be stretching out the new additions as gradually as people can bear. 5) Regarding the basic nature of the board, I think the basic battles should be about fairly straight 1-on-1 core rules combat. This is what they are now, and they do what they do pretty darn well. Moving away from that and toward more accurate simulation of tt play is a mistake in my opinion; we already have quests, miniquests, and campaigns for those who want that. The board is called the Core Coliseum, and I just want to spill blood on the sand before a cheering crowd. Is that so bad? I'm aware I'm probably in the minority on this one. Well, I've said my piece for now. Cheers.
McJarvis 10-04-06, 02:00 AM	Traps, of course, have the potential to be brutal to most non-rogues Exactly! That's why I suggested we make the traps non-lethal and have features that delay gladiators from arriving, rather than killing off combatents. :D
Caterane 10-04-06, 05:13 AM	@False Keraptis: It would only be a test run for now. We could even set a limited time of weeks, 6 perhaps, during which I roll that manually. It surely needs some more work afterwards but most importantly Dracazar needs time to code it into the mapper and he has none atm as he's working on the pitlordinator. Might be some time before features get implemented and the requested 70% (normal fights) it will be. Ok so is anyone ok with a test run from October 18 on? (ECL5+ only) Any last suggestions for modifying the list? Clarifications? Lessen the impact of traps? Put the windstorm back in? :D
Guildmaster (TAO) 10-04-06, 05:16 AM	I'm a bit behind on my council reading. If it's not too much trouble, could there be a post that explains the finalized set of changes/additions?
Caterane 10-04-06, 05:32 AM	Ok, was a lot of talk lately. Perhaps we should focus on one. The Skill Packages: Combinations of skills that are activated as a Free Activity for effects that affects combat directly. Mostly for rogues. These have already been implemented but will probably be changed due to: Attacker/Defender: The alignment of the characters in the pairingspost determines the attacker (first one) and the defender (right one). Depending on that are certain skill packages that are activated automatically if you pass the DCs with a Take 10. We have 4 attacker packages (Ambush, Assassinate, Outmaneuver, Scout) and we now need 4 defender packages (one proposed is Set Trap). Fight Features: Rolled by the pairingsmaker along with every pairings is a special feature that affects the fight, like wind or rain. We probably leave planes for high/epic levels, and for the full implementation we have to wait for Drac to free up time (which might be months away) but a test run could start soon for 4-6 weeks. Traps: The implementation of traps as an option in fights is still heavily discussed. Traps as Fight Features and as Allies of monsters in Monster Fights seems to be accepted if the CR is low enough but placing traps yourself needs some more work. One simple solution to setting traps yourself would be the Set Trap skill package for Defenders (s.a.) Forgery: Since allies are already deemed too strong, we don't need a skill that improves them further. We are looking for alternative uses for forgery. If we don't find them we will just remove forgery from the skill list in 2-3 weeks. Simplify ECL 3 & 4: In order to make it easier for newbies to join we agreed to remove certain functions from ECL 3 (allies, quests, etc) so that a newbie has to read and learn only the most basic of rules. At ECL 4, we add three fucntions, all ECL 5 will be the full coco version. We're waiting for Mindwanderer to finish the three Quickstart Manuals so that I can add it to the rules.
Caterane 10-04-06, 05:42 AM	Didn't we make new lists for monster fights? Does anyone remember where we posted them?
lonewolf 10-04-06, 05:57 AM	In The Council II But they arent complete yet. EDIT: here are the 3 completed lists: CR3: 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 CR4: 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 CR7: 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]
Caterane 10-04-06, 07:08 AM	Awesome lonewolf! Is there a chance to get the rest of the leagues? :smirk: 2° per league.
Abyssal Stalker 10-04-06, 07:18 AM	How does the attacker/defender alignment work in FFA's?
Caterane 10-04-06, 07:22 AM	Not at all. That's only for 1v1 fights
Abyssal Stalker 10-04-06, 09:18 AM	OK. I still have to ask so that I get things clear. I suppose that this is how the skill packages work: 1. The pairings are rolled and at the same time determined who attacks and who defends. 2. The pitlord checks the characters sheet what activity he has as a free activity and then adds the effect to the fight. 3. The fight gets run in the normal way. This might lead into wasted free activities that could be seen as unfair. 1. A wasted free activity if you get involved in a multiplayer fight. 2. A wasted free activity when you are the defender instead of the attacker and the other way round. I for myself don't want to waste FA's and there's always the "make money" -option that I find the most appealing. If there's a chance that several times my FA is wasted, I don't want to use those actions if I have better options available. This would lead in my case to a situation where I don't use those skill packages and they are in vain. Would there be any ways to improve things so that there would be less wasted free activities? I suggest that at least we allow people to have a free activity that includes options for being the defender or the attacker. Like "free activity: outmaneuver/set trap". If there would be a way to implement this kind of thinking into FFA's, those skill packages would become much more useful!
SoulLord 10-04-06, 09:19 AM	Ive been waiting patiently to see the latest set of rules unfold and set in so far personally I have not liked them. Mainly I still don't like the 3FC as a gladiator. As a pitlord I certainly could live without all the extra added complications of house rules different terrains and the like. It seems like it diverts away from the core setting more and more with each discussion. I'm not saying to be away with all the house rules but I think that they should be kept to a minimum. Perhaps the next wave of discussions will bring the CoCo more in line to the core setting.
waywreth 10-04-06, 09:21 AM	The Skill Packages: Combinations of skills that are activated as a Free Activity for effects that affects combat directly. Mostly for rogues. These have already been implemented but will probably be changed due to: Quick clarifying question regarding these packages - you can only use one package per fight, so it just provides more options for rogues more than anything else, right? Also - I'd like to say I'm with False_Keraptis. I enjoy the pure 1v1 (or multiple vs multiple) combat portion, and don't feel the outside events should happen. There's enough randomness involved already. One example - characters in heavy armor have enough problems at high levels, they don't need a heat metal spell as well.
lonewolf 10-04-06, 09:25 AM	If I understood Cat right, those attacker/defender actions are NOT free activities, but they are checked automatically on every fight. => the attacker does all the activities where he beats the opponent on all skills.
hogarth 10-04-06, 09:28 AM	If I understood Cat right, those attacker/defender actions are NOT free activities, but they are checked automatically on every fight. => the attacker does all the activities where he beats the opponent on all skills. To be specific: CURRENTLY, the skill packages are each a free action. IN THE FUTURE, Cat may add this attacker/defender option, in which case certain skill packages will be done automatically, not as free actions. (Personally, I wish rules changes were limited to something like one change every two months. Right now, optimizing a gladiator is a bit like trying to hit a rapidly moving target.)
Abyssal Stalker 10-04-06, 09:29 AM	Ok, was a lot of talk lately. Perhaps we should focus on one. The Skill Packages: Combinations of skills that are activated as a Free Activity for effects that affects combat directly. Mostly for rogues. These have already been implemented but will probably be changed due to: Attacker/Defender: The alignment of the characters in the pairingspost determines the attacker (first one) and the defender (right one). Depending on that are certain skill packages that are activated automatically if you pass the DCs with a Take 10. We have 4 attacker packages (Ambush, Assassinate, Outmaneuver, Scout) and we now need 4 defender packages (one proposed is Set Trap). The highlighted part seems to state that using the skill packages is a free activity. Edit: Check above. hogarth was faster and has a better Knowledge (new rules) modifier.
Pittbull 10-04-06, 09:38 AM	As Hogarth said, please not too many rule-changes!!!! For me highest priority is to make ECL3-4 more simple. Attacker/Defender is nice, so are special circumstances (light, weather,...) for the fights, but so we should add them slowly.
MindWandererB 10-04-06, 12:18 PM	Hold on, I did an ECL 8 monster listing as well. Here it is: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 Ranger 5/Pyrokineticist 3 [CR 8]I should remind all that there were some features of these lists that were still under debate. Cat, would you look them over and give us your feelings on them, so we know how to proceed? FYI, I'm nearly done with Quickstart 1.
McJarvis 10-04-06, 12:36 PM	I'm a bit behind on my council reading. If it's not too much trouble, could there be a post that explains the finalized set of changes/additions? I like this. Like a "what's new in the rules" dedicated thread, so current gladiators know where to look for changes.
McJarvis 10-04-06, 12:59 PM	Ok, was a lot of talk lately. Perhaps we should focus on one. My picks: (favorite in green) Fight Features: Rolled by the pairingsmaker along with every pairings is a special feature that affects the fight, like wind or rain. We probably leave planes for high/epic levels, and for the full implementation we have to wait for Drac to free up time (which might be months away) but a test run could start soon for 4-6 weeks. Forgery: Since allies are already deemed too strong, we don't need a skill that improves them further. We are looking for alternative uses for forgery. If we don't find them we will just remove forgery from the skill list in 2-3 weeks. Simplify ECL 3 & 4: In order to make it easier for newbies to join we agreed to remove certain functions from ECL 3 (allies, quests, etc) so that a newbie has to read and learn only the most basic of rules. At ECL 4, we add three fucntions, all ECL 5 will be the full coco version. We're waiting for Mindwanderer to finish the three Quickstart Manuals so that I can add it to the rules. Reasoning: Fight Features- I think we should implement simple lighting effects first, before messing with wind/hurricanes/etc. It is unrealistic for Orcs to have no downsides(light sensitivity) and for dwarves to have no benefits(darkvision) in this area. Forgery- Discussed before, I think we should implement at least 5 ranks right away & procede from there. Simplify- This is the most important, I think. The reason gladiators are getting skiddish with all these rule changes is that they directly affect ECL 3. The Harvester, Chameleon, etc(high level characters) won't feel these changes right away like the ECL 3 guys will, which doesn't make sense since the new players are the ones who get affected right now.
NiQil 10-04-06, 01:19 PM	I'm gonna weigh in here again... @ Cat: Now I'm not the only one saying that things are moving way to fast. Too many additions. We need to slow this down in a big way. Like many have already stated. We should pick one or two things, focus on them, and shelve the others for a bit. Too many changes all at once tends to drive players away. This has been proven time and time again in my time here, and yet we still try and roll a bunch of things in all at once. I would have to agree with McJarvis' assessment above of what should be concentrated on now. I think the simplification of ECL 3-4 should be a priority. I think the Fight Features should be taken back down to my original suggestion of a single Lighting roll for all fights...one roll to set the lighting condition for every fight that week. I don't necessarily have an opinion on Forgery as I never use it.
Caterane 10-04-06, 03:00 PM	I agree. We got a bit lost in the discussion. Suggestion: - Simplify ECL 3 & 4 - Forgery (that's no new rule but a fix) - Attacker/Defender (that's a fix to our skill packages) The rest should be postponed for some time. We should begin with one type of fight feature, illumination and NiQil's daytime roll, then add other features in there but we need Drac for that. I think we can all live with that compromise. Alright, let's do that. We need 3 more defender packages and an alternate use for forgery (perhaps as a package for defenders)
Zelck 10-04-06, 03:52 PM	Let's go with 3 attack and 3 defense. Simplifies things, and avoids the sticky traps issue. If you really want to go with traps, then they must be THOROUGHLY vetted, and we should consider CR(Trap) being at most half of the ECL of the fight (which makes sense; the highest level trap is 10, and they deal damage and use spells comparable to those dealt and used by level 20s). I'd also highly highly recommend DMG traps only, but a random one and it doesn't take the place of an ally or cost anything. Maybe require Craft(Traps)? Scout makes more sense as a defense activity. I picture an attacker going up against the defender. The defender can scout to a) know where his attacker is coming from (should add that in) and b) get some time to prepare. Maybe instead of use rope for this, we could require both Survival and Search. Instead of using DMG traps, I have an idea for a second defense activity: Set Snare. Requires Disable Device, and Search. If you win the check, all of your opponents (including allies) are entangled until they succeed a strength check or escape artist check against your Use Rope score +10. I also think Outmaneuver should be a defense activity. They should know the terrain better and have the advantage of being attacked where they want to be attacked. To replace an attack activity, let's see if we can find some use for Decipher Script. By the way, I don't think Intimidate should be harder to use against animals. I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to scare animals. Look big, wave your arms, make loud noises, etc. If normal people can do it to bears in real life, it can't be that hard...
McJarvis 10-04-06, 06:08 PM	Alright, let's do that. We need 3 more defender packages and an alternate use for forgery (perhaps as a package for defenders) Possible forgery package: Purpose: To make use of Forgery & play to rogues other strengths- specifically UMD users(maybe). Application: Requires 5 ranks in Forgery, Bluff, and Diplomacy. Description: By forging documents, talking to guards, and lying about your intentions("These are for my Mother officer, honest") you are capable of retrieving packages of items after fights. Ability: To bring a certain gp value worth of expendibles(to be determined by the average modifier of the three skills above) from your home posessions into the expendibles section of your character sheet. You still can not go over (normal cap) in expendibles on your person, but you CAN replace items that you use during the 3FC.
Zevox 10-04-06, 08:46 PM	Problem: You can't have more expendables in your home section than the cap anyway. The expendible cap is on how much you can own, not just how much you bring into the arena. Zevox
McJarvis 10-04-06, 08:47 PM	Problem: You can't have more expendables in your home section than the cap anyway. The expendible cap is on how much you can own, not just how much you bring into the arena. Zevox Is there a particular reason we have that rule? I don't see a harm in having more expendibles at home...only abuses I can think of is recalling them via teleportation effects, but you could just say that gladius has random teleportation disruption that just happens to always disrupt getting to your home stash through magical means. edit- Or wizards starting off with all their gold in crafted scrolls. In that case just put a hard 450gp cap on expendibles you can start a character with...but leave open options to buy/craft more later.
Book5 10-04-06, 11:47 PM	Unfortunatly I do not have the time to review the current sweep of the conversation. Nevertheless I need to mention a few things. I have started a contest (see "CO to CO" in sig) ... and I think Sense Motive should be required on all sheets. Feint is a standard tactic, and Sense Motive is therefore a basic combat stat. I shall return!
MindWandererB 10-05-06, 03:17 AM	Is there a particular reason we have that rule? I don't see a harm in having more expendibles at home...only abuses I can think of is recalling them via teleportation effects, but you could just say that gladius has random teleportation disruption that just happens to always disrupt getting to your home stash through magical means. edit- Or wizards starting off with all their gold in crafted scrolls. In that case just put a hard 450gp cap on expendibles you can start a character with...but leave open options to buy/craft more later. The reason is that you can collect at-home items during a cycle.
hogarth 10-05-06, 06:52 AM	... and I think Sense Motive should be required on all sheets. Feint is a standard tactic, and Sense Motive is therefore a basic combat stat. ...if you mean Feint is a standard tactic for less than 1% of the gladiators in Gladius, then maybe you're right. Seriously, how difficult is it to look up a gladiator's Wis modifier? :confused:
Caterane 10-05-06, 09:25 AM	@Zelck: Good idea. With that we would have: Attacker Ambush (surprise round) Assassinate (kill ally) Scout (prebuff rounds) Defender Outmaneuver (start outside box) Set Trap (which you bought) ???? One last defender package, guys. Let's find it! "Pick Map" was proposed but that's tricky. Would be a logical package for the defender but we would have to make sure it's not easy to always fight on one map (at least the 50% you're the defender). Suggestions for opposed skills? Skills with no use: - Forgery (soon) - Know Nobility - Know architecture/engineering - Know history - Decipher script - Autohypnosis (partially) Brainstorm: History+Decipher+Language => Advantage vs non-humanoids as you have studied texts with tactics of this race. Must speak the appropriate native language and does not work againt humanoids. Architecture/Engineering+Profession+Something else => Prebuff with effects that affect the map; to a limited extend at least; windwall ok, flood plains not ok (although I don't know how that would translate in a TT campaign). Architecture/Engineering+Craft+Something else => Able to produce Renaissance Weapons Nobility+Diplomacy => Aristokrat Advisor, gain bonus rewards in % of average. Or gain bonus in % of nobility+diplomacy sum to any money earning activity (you basically do that for a noble) Forgery: Use in place of any one other skill (we make a list of possible skills that can be replaced by forgery). Or bonus to rewards in % = skill value.
Traevanon 10-05-06, 09:48 AM	The simple solution would be "Remap" which eliminates the current map and re-randomizes from among the remaining choices. Edit: Without communication required, you could instead Eliminate a map, such as Free Action: Avoid Sewer
McJarvis 10-05-06, 10:50 AM	As always, my favorite part is in green. Or bonus to rewards in % = skill value. Wouldn't that make it increase exponentially? The % is based on your level(ranks/how much you can afford items of forgery) & your rewards are based on level too. "Pick Map" was proposed but that's tricky. Would be a logical package for the defender but we would have to make sure it's not easy to always fight on one map (at least the 50% you're the defender). Howabout pick NOT map? For instance, you could have "Free action: (skills): No Plains" and you wouldn't be on the plains.((Edit- Maraxus below this post mentioned this in better terms. "Avoid Map".)) Architecture/Engineering+Craft+Something else => Able to produce Renaissance Weapons I like it. Regarding Expendibles in inventory: I think we already have a system set up for expendibles that you can't use in the current 3FC, but I could see how it would get too involved to flesh that system out for things beyond crafting. Forgery could be used to bypass merc requirements, but that isn't much of an advantage. Just add in the same numbers for diplomacy for forgery checks.(("No, I'm not a wizard...here's my fighters school certificate. This is a book of tactics, not a spellbook.")) final addition- Perhaps a defensive action. Justification: Ambush currently uses hide+ms+sense motive+bluff, which are all combat skills in some form or another. This action will involve three skills that are not used in combat, and thus should be more powerful. Requires 5 ranks in forgery, knowledge(nobility & royalty), & decipher script. description: By knowing the customs of the aristocrats of gladius, you know which messages contain knowledge of where they will be showing up next. By using your decipher script skill you are able to de-code these messages. You then can use an elaborate forgery to make your opponent show up somewhere else first, hitting a crowd due to the noble/royalty being there. effect: You get (one or two?) full round actions before your opponent shows up. notes- The Forgery itself should be an opposed check, the knowledge/decipher checks will be fixed DC's depending on ECL.(After all, it will take a more important official's parade to slow down a more powerful gladiator)
Maraxus 10-05-06, 10:51 AM	I don't know, if it's the missing Defender package (I think "Avoid Map" would be much better there) but if you are looking for a use of Decipher script, I could think of only one: Secret Coordination Decipher Script (vs. Decipher Script) Bluff (vs Sense Motive) This skill has no effect in a duel. Howerer in a team fight, you can choose to pass 1 piece of equipment to your team member and choose yours and his starting place (it can be the same) In a free for all or hunter fight, you can choose your and another fighters starting places, if he accepts it. Note: Decipher is used to pass super-secret messages here (and for the opponent to counter it). Bluff vs. sense motive looks primarry necessary to me, to avoid complications when this goes against Ambush. One can definitly think of an in-game explanation for this, too. It's rather big effect at low cost (compared to ambush) is balanced by the fact, that it's a wasted free activity, if you happen to be paired into a duel or monster fight, imho.
Zelck 10-05-06, 11:09 AM	@Secret Coordination: Seems too situational to be useful... @Attack/Defense Activities: We could use Scout and Set Snare as defense activities, replacing Set Trap and ???. Scout seems like a more defense activity to me (although we'll have to do something about its use Rope), and Set Snare will go over much better than Set Trap and would be much easier to implement. It preserves the "trap" feel, but we wouldn't have to go through the whole DMG trying to find which traps are OK and which aren't and get into the 1HKO before the round starts mess. Which means we have stuff like Forgery, Decipher, and Knowledge (History) or Knowledge (Nobility) to make an attack activity with. Shouldn't be too hard.
McJarvis 10-05-06, 11:13 AM	Which means we have stuff like Forgery, Decipher, and Knowledge (History) or Knowledge (Nobility) to make an attack activity with. Shouldn't be too hard. hehe. Check my post I just edited two up from yours. :-) everyone's reading my mind today.
Zelck 10-05-06, 11:15 AM	hehe. Check my post I just edited two up from yours. :-) everyone's reading my mind today. Right, but I was looking for an attack activity that did that ;). I guess we could keep Scout as attack and make this defense if need be...
hogarth 10-05-06, 11:16 AM	Instead of using DMG traps, I have an idea for a second defense activity: Set Snare. Requires Disable Device, and Search. If you win the check, all of your opponents (including allies) are entangled until they succeed a strength check or escape artist check against your Use Rope score +10. I don't like the Set Snare activity you proposed. It's very similar to a trap that casts Web/Entangle/Entangling Ectoplasm/Snare, except you don't have to pay anything for it! And there's no upper limit on the amount of time you can be entangled! Personally, I don't really like the Attacker/Defender thing at all; I'd much rather have the skill packages remain Free Activities. Or maybe you could choose the whole Attacker/Defender Package as your free activity.
Zelck 10-05-06, 01:45 PM	I don't like the Set Snare activity you proposed. It's very similar to a trap that casts Web/Entangle/Entangling Ectoplasm/Snare, except you don't have to pay anything for it! And there's no upper limit on the amount of time you can be entangled! Yes, but the worst thing that can happen is you get entangled. The worst thing that can happen with traps is you lose. Big difference there. We don't want the skill to be useless on big maps. I think it's best if we just say the victim'll be entangled for 5 minutes.
hogarth 10-05-06, 02:09 PM	[With regards to Zelck's proposed "Set Snare" activity:] We don't want the skill to be useless on big maps. I think it's best if we just say the victim'll be entangled for 5 minutes. What you're proposing is really like is the 3rd-level druid spell Snare. Only with the spell Snare, the rope can be broken with 5 hit points of damage vs. AC 7; apparently the "Set Snare" activity gets you access to Wonder Woman's unbreakable magic lasso! :turkey:
Zelck 10-05-06, 02:14 PM	What you're proposing is really like is the 3rd-level druid spell Snare. Only with the spell Snare, the rope can be broken with 5 hit points of damage vs. AC 7; apparently the "Set Snare" activity gets you access to Wonder Woman's unbreakable magic lasso! :turkey: LOL! :rofl: Alright, is there a simple way we can make it not completely useless on large maps?
Caterane 10-05-06, 05:31 PM	Forgery+Sleight of Hand What about forgery/sleight being used to exceed the expendable cap? I agree with Niqil that playing with the expendables cap should be avoided but if we make it a 5 rank requirement it's reserved for rogues and skill monkeys, and those are normally handicapped compared to a wizard anyway because they cannot craft it for half price (which, as we know, effectively doubles the spellcasters cap). Rule: Cap can be exceeded by Forgery value in %. So if you have Forgery+10, and your cap would normally be 3000 you gain a new cap of 3300. Works automatically. Architecture/Engineering+Craft Firearms You can craft Renaissance Weapons. You have to pass Dc20 with a take 10 in both skills. Alternatively we can make it Craft Bowmaking which is underused anyway. Rapid reload and ranged enchantments can be applied normally. Nobility+Diplomacy You work for a noble or wealthy businessman (as advisor, ambassador, whatever) which results in a higher status and a faster rising in the hierarchy in town. You gain a bonus to your XP (and gold, relatively to the new XP count) in % equal to the sum of both skills. Effectively you only level up faster. Nobility+Earning Money Skill Due to your connections to wealthy and influencial people, you can sell your services at a higher price (nobles pay more). You gain a bonus to your Earn Money free activity in % equal to your knowledge nobility value. History+Decipher+Language Either with or without language, this is a fitting package for an activity, like sage or an advantage in a fight. @Zelck: Let's just let us try this trap thing in the new packages. That's the best chance we can get to test it before using traps as fight feature or in all monster fights as monster "ally". I bet that pre-fight kills will happen about once a year or so. And we already have a free round skill so no need for set snare. I also don't think that Scout is defensive. You attack, you scout first. The defense equivalent would be patrol. @McJarvis: Keep in mind that the skill application should also work in most campaigns. Just because you have this and that skill doesn't let you teleport ressources during your adventures into your bag.
McJarvis 10-05-06, 05:37 PM	Forgery What about forgery being used to exceed the expendable cap? I agree with Niqil that playing with the expendables cap should be avoided but if we make it a 5 rank requirement it's reserved for rogues and skill monkeys, and those are normally handicapped compared to a wizard anyway because they cannot craft it for half price (which, as we know, effectively doubles the spellcasters cap). Rule: Cap can be exceeded by Forgery value in %. So if you have Forgery+10, and your cap would normally be 3000 you gain a new cap of 3300. Works automatically. Understood on the "teleporting items from home" bit. In NiQil's defense here, I'll use my own character I'm building right now as an example. My Arcane Trickster Build will be Rogue 1/Wizard 5/Assassin1/Arcane Trickster X. If you allowed forgery to increase the expendibles cap, he could easily take max ranks in forgery(class skill since he took 1 level of rogue) & bulk up on scribed scrolls. Granted he might be a bit more behind the game than a straight caster, but I'm fairly certain he'll be ahead of most rogues after level 4.(2nd level spells is a bit of a hump for the build, I think) But if you think me cross-spending 2 skill points per level is a good enough investment, by all means. Perhaps a way to defend against this would be to combine Forgery+Decipher Script+Knowledge(Nobility/Royalty)?(actually, these are all rogue/wizard skills...so bad idea, but the gist is still here. Perhaps sleight of hand and bluff?(to hide/lie about things on you?)) Skill Package: Contraband. Requires: 5 ranks in forgery, ?, and ?.(preferably all rogue-only skills.) Benefit- Increases your expendible cap by a % equal to the average ranks you have in these three skills.(not modifier- to keep +skill items from being a problem) This would keep rogues using it only for the most part.
Zelck 10-05-06, 05:45 PM	For stuff like changing what Forgery does, let's implement a 1 week delay where we announce the changes 1 week before they actually come into effect. Renaissance Weapons: I'd rather not deal with that. I haven't even looked in that section of the DMG, and I doubt they're used in more than a small minority of games. Nobility + Diplomacy: Gaining more xp doesn't make as much sense... this would be moving up politically, not power-wise. Nobility + Earning Money: I'm OK with that. What about Decipher Script upping how much you can craft as a free activity/week? The idea is you pore over ancient books with notes and tricks on crafting weapons/armor/scrolls/items, and you can do it faster.
Caterane 10-05-06, 06:04 PM	@McJarvis: Good idea. Perhaps combine it with Sleight of Hand and make it the sum = % exceeding the cap? Also a rogue skill but the arcane trickster is an exception and not a good example. @Zelck: That red-haired dwarf in Order of the Stick used firearms too :D Please read the rules; the weapons are in line with the power of any other weapon. Does a bit more damage for feat and skill investment which is ok. And if you level up faster you use less expendables. Besides, many surely like to level up faster and we could use a few more guys in the higher leagues anyway.
MindWandererB 10-05-06, 06:07 PM	Cat, one of your comments was that it made no sense for character like Harvester and Ixenthor to learn forgery, and the old system supported that. This proposal does the same--there are few characters who don't push the expendable cap to the limit, and snagging cross-class ranks in Forgery is a great solution to everyone. For instance, I would certainly want to pick up cross-class ranks in Forgery for Kervan (Magic-domain cleric), which would be totally out of character. We need to come up with something that isn't quite that useful, or that is useful to only some characters (particularly rogues). One niche would be traps--make Forgery function the same way it does now, but for traps only. Another would be to pose as a local official, to place traps on the map in advance. Alternatively, this could be another way to choose a map (sending a fake letter to your opponent to lure them out).
Zelck 10-05-06, 06:12 PM	@Zelck: That red-haired dwarf in Order of the Stick used firearms too :D Please read the rules; the weapons are in line with the power of any other weapon. I definitely agree they're balanced, it's just another thing to look up and know. I don't really care much either way though. And if you level up faster you use less expendables. Besides, many surely like to level up faster and we could use a few more guys in the higher leagues anyway. I was just saying the combination of skills for it didn't make much sense ;). @MindWandererB: Let's keep traps to a minimum for now. What do you guys think about Decipher Script reducing the time to craft items?
McJarvis 10-05-06, 06:33 PM	@McJarvis: Good idea. Perhaps combine it with Sleight of Hand and make it the sum = % exceeding the cap? Also a rogue skill but the arcane trickster is an exception and not a good example. This proposal does the same--there are few characters who don't push the expendable cap to the limit, and snagging cross-class ranks in Forgery is a great solution to everyone. @Cat: The Arcane Trickster build I have only came to mind because I would be able to immediately take advantage of it now, before having levels in the class. I accept that it's not a prestige class that most will take, however... @Mindwander/Cat: Actually, that's what I was addressing with making it a dual-skill package sort of idea. Requiring 5 ranks(or ((ECL+3)/2) + 1 ranks) would make it so only characters with levels in rogue could do it. Making it multiple skills that only rogues have make it too expensive to do with only 1 level of rogue. @Cat again: The skills I mentioned specifically because they are only rogue or bard skills. I have no fear of people multiclassing rogues and bards, but I wouldn't want a wiley wizard to take 1 level of rogue and be able to cross-class skills like mad. 2 skill points per level isn't too big of a sacrifice- 4 or 6 definately is.
Zevox 10-05-06, 06:45 PM	Architecture/Engineering+Craft Firearms You can craft Renaissance Weapons. You have to pass Dc20 with a take 10 in both skills. Alternatively we can make it Craft Bowmaking which is underused anyway. Rapid reload and ranged enchantments can be applied normally. Eh, while I personally dislike the inclusion of guns and explosives thematically, I can't see any real reason not to include it balance wise. Bombs seem a bit powerful to me, but they are fairly costly (same as a second-level spell scroll). The only problem I see is that Know (A&E) is only a class skill for wizards, sorcerers, bards, psions, and the caster-type PrCs. Most casters have better things to do with thier skill points and money (why spend 75 gp crafting a bomb when they can spend the same on a scroll of scorching ray?), and have little use for the firearms anyway (why use something that you're not proficient with that takes a standard action to load when crossbows take only a move action and you are proficient with them?). Bards might want the bombs, but I can't see them doing much with the guns (takes two feats - one for proficiency, one for rapid reload - to be any good with them, and they're not exactly high on the number of feats they get). So in other words, I see no reason not to include it, but I wouldn't expect it to see much use. Nobility+Diplomacy You work for a noble or wealthy businessman (as advisor, ambassador, whatever) which results in a higher status and a faster rising in the hierarchy in town. You gain a bonus to your XP (and gold, relatively to the new XP count) in % equal to the sum of both skills. Effectively you only level up faster. Nobility+Earning Money Skill Due to your connections to wealthy and influencial people, you can sell your services at a higher price (nobles pay more). You gain a bonus to your Earn Money free activity in % equal to your knowledge nobility value. Nice ideas, though I'm not sure about giving diplomacy yet another use with a skill that gives it a synergy bonus to begin with. Still, wouldn't be an unbalancing use, so I'd be fine with it. Zevox
Caterane 10-05-06, 09:10 PM	Rules of Gladius Update! The following additions are effective from next wednesday on: Added the skill packages above to the rules. Changed the activation for certain skill packages to the new Attacker/Defender system Removed the use for Forgery to reduce ally ECL Changed "Guard" from "Immune to Burglary" to "+5 bonus to opposed check vs Burglary" Added "Move Cautious" which allows you to take 20 to search traps instead of only take 10 Everyone who has ranks in Forgery or such items can request a refund/skill change in the Character Changes thread! The Attacker/Defender System will begin on October 18. Trap Rules will be added soon as discussed.
Caterane 10-05-06, 09:38 PM	I have an idea on how we can add the pick map defense package. You write somewhere on your sheet "Favored Terrain" and either make it "Indoor" or "Outdoor". If the arena is rolled, nothing happens and the fight is ressolved normally. If your favored terrain is rolled, the same. But if the opposite terrain gets rolled, then it will be changed to your favorite one according to the following key: City <=> Sewer Forest <=> Cavern Plains <=> Temple That way the defender cannot pick the exact map but at least he gains an indoor or outdoor map. There's still only a 50% chance to be the defender, there's a chance that it's a multiplayer fight (where Attacker/Defender doesn't work), and even then it can be the Arena. Still, if you get it to work it's a great advantage. Question is which skills should be involved, including opposed skills.
Zevox 10-05-06, 09:49 PM	Sounds like Survival should definitely be one of them (vs opponent's suvival?). Maybe Knowledge (Geography) vs the same? Not sure about a third skill though... I would say either Gather Info or Knowledge (Local), but the skills should probably be ones one class actually has all available to it as class skills, and I don't think any class with the previous two gets either of those. Zevox
hogarth 10-05-06, 09:51 PM	Sounds like Survival should definitely be one of them (vs opponent's suvival?). Maybe Knowledge (Geography) vs the same? Not sure about a third skill though... I would say either Gather Info or Knowledge (Local), but the skills should probably be ones one class actually has all available to it as class skills, and I don't think any class with the previous two gets either of those. Zevox Adept, Aristocrat and Nomad get Survival + all knowledge skills as class skills. (Aristocrat gets all four of them as class skills!)
Zevox 10-05-06, 09:56 PM	Adept, Aristocrat and Nomad get Survival + all knowledge skills as class skills. (Aristocrat gets all four of them as class skills!) Aye, but we have none of the first two and only one of the last in that list in the arena. Not exactly classes that see much action to use such a skill package to thier benefit. Zevox
NiQil 10-05-06, 10:09 PM	I gotta say...this whole attacker/defender thing is making things much more complicated than it really needs to be. These really should be optional activites rather than something rolled every fight. I have yet to see one that I would ever use for any of my characters, including my new ones (which includes two rogues). They really just don't "do it" for me. Also, this just makes a pitlords job that much harder. Before he ever runs a fight, he has to now make a bunch of skill comparisons using skills that may or may not be on a given character's sheet at any given time. Seems like we are always coming up with more things for a pitlord to do instead of trying to lighten their load. I'm sure the response to this is going to be something akin to "but it's only a few checks/rolls, it won't be that big a deal" or something similar. The problem with that type of thinking is that when a few things gets added in several times, it starts to add up. Maybe my cynic is showing again...but this feels like change for changes sake. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Caterane 10-06-06, 02:13 PM	I gotta say...this whole attacker/defender thing is making things much more complicated than it really needs to be. These really should be optional activites rather than something rolled every fight. [Only those who have 5 ranks in all mentioned skills. It goes into the title for the pitlord to see] I have yet to see one that I would ever use for any of my characters, including my new ones (which includes two rogues). They really just don't "do it" for me. [That's up to you. No wizard is forced to cast spells either] Also, this just makes a pitlords job that much harder. Before he ever runs a fight, he has to now make a bunch of skill comparisons using skills that may or may not be on a given character's sheet at any given time. Seems like we are always coming up with more things for a pitlord to do instead of trying to lighten their load. ["Much harder" is SLIGHTLY exagerrated, see my text below] I'm sure the response to this is going to be something akin to "but it's only a few checks/rolls, it won't be that big a deal" [actually no rolls are involved] or something similar. The problem with that type of thinking is that when a few things gets added in several times, it starts to add up. Maybe my cynic is showing again...but this feels like change for changes sake. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. [So you think the total absence of rogues wasn't broken? Would you have not wondered if we had as many wizards and complained about adding Spellbooks? Probably yes.] On a rainy day over a certain house in Denver (the rest of town enjoyed sunshine) an email from a distant place pops into NiQil's inbox which happens to be the tactics for a fight he has to pitlord. He begins to read... "Hi Niqil, here are my tactics. Enjoy the sunshine. Prebuff Rnd (Scout): Shield Surprise Rnd (Ambush): Cast Invisibility Main Tactic: blablabla...kill....blablabla....harvest ...blabla" "Grrrr!" NiQil thought, and rightly so "Now I have to do shield and invisibility in Round 0 instead of Round 1 and 2. My day is ruined! I have to call my girlfriend and tell her I have no time this week and all because of HIM and his stupid rules that makes pitlording so MUCH HARDER than before." Far away to the east, over the great atlantic ocean, in a house in good old Germany, a chaotic evil outsider from the lowest planes imaginable rubbed his hands "Hehe, over are the times when I just sent 5 pages of tactics. Now I can send ...PREBUFF ROUNDS!!! MUAHAHAHAHA :evillaugh " :P
Caterane 10-06-06, 02:17 PM	The Quickstart Guide 1 is up in the Characters thread here. Thanks to MindwandererB who wrote all that. He gains 3° for that. Please read it. We could use your feedback. Is it too much? What could be simplified or better expressed? Do you think the 3FC and 1/3 rule should be in ECL 3?
Zelck 10-06-06, 02:18 PM	The biggest issue is the opponent seeing those things. Maybe we should require characters to put any automatic skill packages they qualify for into their skill section. EDIT: For the character sheet, we need to move the 3FC info to the top so it's easier to quote in for combat. I usually cut out stuff after non-combat abilities, and removing everything below it is much easier than having to find where the 3FC section starts. We may also want to remove all the IMO annoying font tags in it.
Caterane 10-06-06, 02:28 PM	@Zelck: added... Note: Since we want to make it as easy as possible for pitlords add any Package you can do to the title line, and make sure you have them listed on your sheet in a clear manner and include a link to this section of the rules (Rules: Skills & Feats) which a pitlord can quickly check. Failure to link it means the Skill Packages does not function. About the sheet: I won't use the default sheet either for the same reasons but Prisonlords is responsible for that. You have to talk to him about that.
hogarth 10-06-06, 02:29 PM	Cat, could you please, please be more clear as to what is a "topic under discussion" and what is already a "done deal" in the future? I notice that you have already added some (but not all) of the below activities (even though they were only suggested yesterday!) to the Rules of Gladius thread, again without announcing the specific changes that were (apparently) decided on. For a rules change, I think the process should go: discussion, announcement, edit rules not: discussion, edit rules [announcement optional] Forgery+Sleight of Hand What about forgery/sleight being used to exceed the expendable cap? I agree with Niqil that playing with the expendables cap should be avoided but if we make it a 5 rank requirement it's reserved for rogues and skill monkeys, and those are normally handicapped compared to a wizard anyway because they cannot craft it for half price (which, as we know, effectively doubles the spellcasters cap). Rule: Cap can be exceeded by Forgery value in %. So if you have Forgery+10, and your cap would normally be 3000 you gain a new cap of 3300. Works automatically. Architecture/Engineering+Craft Firearms You can craft Renaissance Weapons. You have to pass Dc20 with a take 10 in both skills. Alternatively we can make it Craft Bowmaking which is underused anyway. Rapid reload and ranged enchantments can be applied normally. Nobility+Diplomacy You work for a noble or wealthy businessman (as advisor, ambassador, whatever) which results in a higher status and a faster rising in the hierarchy in town. You gain a bonus to your XP (and gold, relatively to the new XP count) in % equal to the sum of both skills. Effectively you only level up faster. Nobility+Earning Money Skill Due to your connections to wealthy and influencial people, you can sell your services at a higher price (nobles pay more). You gain a bonus to your Earn Money free activity in % equal to your knowledge nobility value. History+Decipher+Language Either with or without language, this is a fitting package for an activity, like sage or an advantage in a fight.
Caterane 10-06-06, 02:31 PM	Scroll 10 posts up. I even used Purple! Should I use size=4 too? (not meant sarcastic)
hogarth 10-06-06, 02:36 PM	Scroll 10 posts up. I even used Purple! Should I use size=4 too? (not meant sarcastic) When you said "added the skill packages for Wednesday", I assumed that you meant the ones we had been discussing for a while (Ambush, Assassinate, etc.), not ones that had been under discussion for less than 4 hours! Why was there such a hurry to push those packages through? Personally it bothers me a bit that I could go to bed at night and wake up with a new set of rules in the morning.
Caterane 10-06-06, 02:51 PM	These were great suggestions to skills formerly been useless. It's not that you have to adept to opponents that suddenly gain bonus rewards after the fight is over. And that forgery has to go was clear; that has been discussed for quite some time and this was the best proposal I read so far.
MindWandererB 10-06-06, 03:01 PM	The Quickstart Guide 1 is up in the Characters thread here. Thanks to MindwandererB who wrote all that. He gains 3° for that. Please read it. We could use your feedback. Is it too much? What could be simplified or better expressed? Do you think the 3FC and 1/3 rule should be in ECL 3? Yeah... I know my language can be a bit much at times. I'm open to constructive criticism. And it also was quite a bit longer than I had thought.... There's one other step to making the quickstart guide work: a big tag in at least one place that points to it. I'd personally recommend a big, colored, bold link in both the Rules and Characters threads. It's useless if no one can find it. I've begun on Part II (which, after looking at part I, will probably combine the ECL 4 and 5 info).
Zelck 10-06-06, 03:23 PM	I recommend its own sticked thread.
MindWandererB 10-06-06, 04:03 PM	While doing Quickstart Quide II, I ran across a rule conflict. All purchased creatures may be customized at no credit cost albeit at a higher market price which reflects the special training you request.You can also buy stronger versions of these basic animals using the Elite Ability Array (see FAQ: Allies I) which also costs 2 credits (see Blackmarket).... You can also buy advanced versions of these exotic beasts but they are not available as an egg, and you may only advance them in racial HD (not in class levels). The price increase per HD is written in brackets. Additionally, you can apply the Elite Ability Array to those creatures which doubles their marketprice (and increases the CR by 1). Note that any advanced monster costs credits (see Blackmarket for details) and increases the CR.The former source says no credits, the latter says credits. I think the intent was that feats and skill points cost only gold, but elite array and HD cost credits. But right now, that's not what it says. I'm writing it that way into the Quickstart Guide, but these need to be fixed, too. Edit: Also: The NPC services section of the rules contains pretty much everything you can buy, including basic supplies and magic items, as well as wizard spells for their spellbooks. These things shouldn't be prohibited to low-ECL characters, but there's no distinction in that section. Could it be rephrased in such a way as to make it clear? Also, the "Animal Trainers" section is another conflict on customizing allies (suggesting that feats and skills can be changed for "exotic mounts" at no credit cost, even if obtained via Handle Animal or Diplomacy).
Caterane 10-06-06, 06:13 PM	You have to read the whole text of course: Customizing creatures: How can I do that? [It has a seperate header. Advancing is a different header which means Advancing is not Customizing.] The creature versions from the Monster Manual are the standard versions but surely not the only ones. You can customize these creatures by changing their printed feats and skills. [It clearly says customize = skills & feats] For feats, you just exchange one or more existing ones with new ones. Skills need more attention because you have to recalculate a creatures skill points and then assign them anew, taking into consideration class/cross-class skills, and common sense (no spellcraft animals, for example). You may only customize a creature when you acquire it; once you've made your decision, there will be no further customization! Bonus feats may never be customized, and Psionic Feats are forbidden for customization! All purchased creatures may be customized at no credit cost albeit at a higher market price which reflects the special training you request. All allies attained by either handle animal or diplomacy cost credits to customize: you have to pay 5° per changed feat, and a flat 1° if you want to relocate skill points. Post your request in the Blackmarket and link the Pitlords answer. See FAQ: Allies II for increased prices. How can this be made clearer? EDIT: Added Quickstart Guide II. MWB+2°. I have set links to the top posts of each of the stickies. If you have an idea on how to improve that, let me know. Or where else it should be linked. Note that we can have only 3 stickies and those slots are used up.
MindWandererB 10-06-06, 08:08 PM	Hm... I'm actually not quite sure where I got that impression. It seems pretty clear to me now. I'd personally like to see the mention of the Quickstart Guide in Post #1 of the Rules and Character theads to be more prominent. In the Rules, the link is buried in a body of text, and in the Characters thread, it's items 9 and 10 in an 11-item list. Neither is particularly easy to spot.
Zelck 10-06-06, 08:16 PM	The Quickstart Guide should definitely be a sticky. That way, it's easy to see, and new players can just click right on it the moment they pop into the forum. No having to dig through the rules to find it.
MindWandererB 10-06-06, 08:23 PM	I don't think it has to be a sticky all by itself (as opposed to the Rules, Characters, and Battles, which really need it). However, I do think that they need to be among the first things a casual browser will see, which means that either they should be at the top of one of the stickied threads, or very prominent links to them should be at the top of at least one of the stickied threads. Big, bold, colored, and otherwise impossible to miss.
Caterane 10-07-06, 05:33 AM	I made it bigger and more colorful. Better?
hogarth 10-07-06, 11:08 AM	So have people just given up on the idea of a contest for UnCon? Or did I miss the decision (entirely possible -- I skim a lot)? It's coming up pretty quickly now... My suggestions: 1) Obstacle course. Definitely not the favourite so far, though. 2) "Unearthed Bonanza!" The World Series of Gladiators is being held in Gladius, and it has attracted strange and bizarre fighters from the four corners of the world. Ever wanted to play a Jungle Goblin Favored Guild Planar Ranger 1/Whirling Frenzy Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Sneak Attack Fighter 1/Paladin of Freedom 2/Battle Sorcerer 1 but you couldn't afford the 80 credits? Now's your chance. Build a 7th-level gladiator; you can't use any credits, but for your entry you can use any race or class combination you want, credit-free! The entries will go into a poll; the top 4 favorites will enter a free-for-all fight and the winner will be declared the World Series Champion. As a bonus, all entrants get to keep their gladiator afterwards. 3) "Silk Purse Out Of A Sow's Ear" Poor Avern Black...he's always wanted to be one of the fabled heroes of Gladius, but he just didn't make the best choices along the way. Only you can help him! Entrants all receive Avern's pregenerated character sheet. The only thing they can change is his equipment, feats and skill points. After that, all competitors battle the same mystery monster. Smart tactics and prudent choices will be victorious, but the crowd likes a touch of panache -- the monster battles will all be posted and a poll will be held. The favourite fight will decide the winner! Any other thoughts?
MindWandererB 10-07-06, 07:58 PM	I made it bigger and more colorful. Better? :Blink: Yeah, that'll do it.
Zelck 10-07-06, 08:41 PM	Maybe instead of "Newbies?", put "New to CoCo?". Newbies has a different tone to it ;).
False_Keraptis 10-08-06, 07:02 PM	2) "Unearthed Bonanza!" The World Series of Gladiators is being held in Gladius, and it has attracted strange and bizarre fighters from the four corners of the world. Ever wanted to play a Jungle Goblin Favored Guild Planar Ranger 1/Whirling Frenzy Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Sneak Attack Fighter 1/Paladin of Freedom 2/Battle Sorcerer 1 but you couldn't afford the 80 credits? Now's your chance. Build a 7th-level gladiator; you can't use any credits, but for your entry you can use any race or class combination you want, credit-free! The entries will go into a poll; the top 4 favorites will enter a free-for-all fight and the winner will be declared the World Series Champion. As a bonus, all entrants get to keep their gladiator afterwards. I like this one. Mostly I'd just welcome the opportunity to make a high level character - keeping the character afterwards would be cool, but isn't that important to me. I think a lot of newcomers might enjoy making a character above ECL 3, even if just for this event.
Caterane 10-11-06, 10:32 AM	I added our new Monster Lists. We have four so far: EL 3, 4, 7, and 8. Anyone who's interested in earning credits can pick another list. We need EL 5, 6, 9 and 10 first. - Must be one monster per roll (1-100) - Must include psionic versions - Must match the EL table on DMG p49 - Must include both single and multiple monsters Effective immideately (doesn't need any adaption) but if a pitlord still rolls on the old tables that's fine too.
Caterane 10-11-06, 02:31 PM	You've noticed that the UA section about bloodlines is still under construction. Problem is that there are a lot of tables (see here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm)) that I have no time to type up. Whoever converts 10 tables may pick a bloodline for one of his characters. He may apply it retroactively to one of his characters provided the character doesn't increase in ECL because of that. There are altogether 40 tables that need to be converted. Oh and it should be done in a row; not by picking only the small tables.
hogarth 10-11-06, 02:34 PM	You've noticed that the UA section about bloodlines is still under construction. Problem is that there are a lot of tables (see here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm)) that I have no time to type up. Whoever converts 10 tables may pick a bloodline for one of his characters. He may apply it retroactively to one of his characters provided the character doesn't increase in ECL because of that. There are altogether 40 tables that need to be converted. What format would you like to see them in? I have a text file in tab-separated format, but I don't know what markup you want to use.
Caterane 10-11-06, 02:54 PM	Whatever would be easy to read. (code) tags would definately help but if you have a better idea you can post an example here.
MindWandererB 10-11-06, 03:24 PM	I added our new Monster Lists. We have four so far: EL 3, 4, 7, and 8. Anyone who's interested in earning credits can pick another list. We need EL 5, 6, 9 and 10 first. - Must be one monster per roll (1-100) - Must include psionic versions - Must match the EL table on DMG p49 - Must include both single and multiple monsters Effective immideately (doesn't need any adaption) but if a pitlord still rolls on the old tables that's fine too. I'd like to reserve EL 9 as my next project. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday, someday soon....
hogarth 10-11-06, 03:28 PM	Try one: Celestial A character with a celestial bloodline can trace her heritage to beings of the Upper Planes, much like an aasimar or celestial creature. Most angels, archons, guardinals, and eladrins have the ability to interbreed with humanoids, and examples of celestial creatures descending from the heavens to live with mortals often appear in myth and legend. Descendants of such relationships often have silver or golden hair, a proud bearing, or a piercing stare. Celestial Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Sense Motive checks 2nd - +2 on Sense Motive checks Alertness 3rd - - Wisdom +1 4th +2 on Sense Motive checks Alertness Protection from evil 1/day (Sp) 5th - - Celestial affinity +2* 6th - Wisdom +1 Smite evil 1/day (Su)@ 7th - - +2 on Concentration checks 8th Alertness Protection from evil 1/day (Sp) Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) 9th - - Charisma +1 10th - Celestial affinity +2* +2 on saves against poison (Ex) 11th - - Celestial affinity +4* 12th Wisdom +1 Smite evil 1/day (Su)@ Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) 13th - - +2 on Listen checks 14th - +2 on Concentration checks Improved Initiative 15th - - Constitution +1 16th Protection from evil 1/day (Sp) Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) 17th - - Celestial affinity +6* 18th - Charisma +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on Spot checks 20th Celestial affinity +2* +2 on saves against poison (Ex) Damage reduction 5/evil * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with celestials. @ You can smite an evil creature with a melee attack as a paladin of your character level once per day. Demon A character with a demon bloodline has one or more ancestors of demonic origin. The most common source of such a bloodline is a succubus, but any demon capable of taking humanoid form might be responsible for the character's unusual traits. Characters with a demon bloodline may bear some minor characteristic reminiscent of such an ancestor: sinister glowing eyes, a faint smell of brimstone, or a love of brutality. Demon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Move Silently checks 2nd - +2 on Move Silently checks Power Attack 3rd - - Strength +1 4th +2 on Move Silently checks Power Attack Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) 5th - - Demon affinity +2* 6th - Strength +1 Smite good 1/day (Su)@ 7th - - +2 on Hide checks 8th Power Attack Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) 9th - - Constitution +1 10th - Demon affinity +2* +2 on saves against poison 11th - - Demon affinity +4* 12th Strength +1 Smite good 1/day (Su)@ Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) 13th - - +2 on Intimidate checks 14th - +2 on Hide checks Cleave 15th - - Charisma +1 16th Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) 17th - - Demon affinity +6* 18th - Constitution +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on Spot checks 20th Demon affinity +2* +2 on saves against poison (Ex) Damage reduction 5/good * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with demons. @ You can smite a good creature with a melee attack as a blackguard of your character level once per day. Devil For a character with a devil bloodline, an erinyes is often the source. However, other devils with the ability to use a polymorph effect, such as gelugons or pit fiends, have been known to consort with mortals. A character with this bloodline may also possess tiny horns or unusually sharp teeth. Devil Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Bluff checks 2nd - +2 on Bluff checks Dodge 3rd - - Charisma +1 4th +2 on Bluff checks Dodge Darkness 1/day (Sp) 5th - - Devil affinity +2* 6th - Charisma +1 Smite good 1/day (Su)@ 7th - - +2 on Diplomacy checks 8th Dodge Darkness 1/day (Sp) Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) 9th - - Constitution +1 10th - Devil affinity +2* +2 on saves against poison (Ex) 11th - - Devil affinity +4* 12th Charisma +1 Smite good 1/day (Su)@ Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) 13th - - +2 on Search checks 14th - +2 on Diplomacy checks Alertness 15th - - Intelligence +1 16th Darkness 1/day (Sp) Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) 17th - - Devil affinity +6* 18th - Constitution +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on Listen checks 20th Devil affinity +2* +2 on saves against poison (Ex) Damage reduction 5/good * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with devils. @ You can smite a good creature with a melee attack as a blackguard of your character level once per day. Doppelganger The ultimate humanoid shapechanger, a doppelganger can be anyone, anywhere, at any time. It's easy to imagine even a single doppelganger being responsible for a plethora of offspring tainted with shapechanging powers. Doppelganger Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor 4th +2 on Disguise checks 8th Alter self 1/day (Sp) 12th Charisma +1 16th Detect thoughts 1/day (Sp) 20th Doppelganger affinity +2* * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with doppelgangers. Dragon, Black The sinister black dragon occasionally makes a close "alliance" with a like-minded humanoid, and that can lead to a black dragon bloodline. A character with this bloodline shares his ancestor's cunning and malevolence, and may have a sunken, almost skeletal appearance to his face. Black Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Swim checks 4th +2 on Swim checks Alertness 6th - Strength +1 8th Alertness Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) 10th - Black dragon affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Hide checks 16th Acid resistance 5 (Ex) Resistance to acid 10 (Ex) 18th - Constitution +1 20th Black dragon affinity +2* Water breathing (Ex)@ * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with black dragons. @ You can breathe underwater indefinitely and can freely use special abilities while submerged. Dragon, Blue In times long past, blue dragons often interacted with the kings and queens of great desert empires. The bloodlines created by such intermingling were treated as a mark of royalty, though such empires have long since vanished. An individual bearing a blue dragon bloodline tends to be territorial and may smell faintly of ozone. Blue Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Bluff checks 4th +2 on Bluff checks Alertness 6th - Strength +1 8th Alertness Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) 10th - Blue dragon affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Sense Motive checks 16th Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) Resistance to electricity 10 (Ex) 18th - Constitution +1 20th Blue dragon affinity +2* Create/destroy water 1/day (Sp) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with blue dragons. Dragon, Brass Bards tell a popular tale of a lost desert traveler encountering a friendly woman who nurses him back to health before putting him on the path home. in the tale, this helpful individual turns out to be a powerful brass dragon who merely wants someone to talk to, and who, many months later, gives birth to a half-dragon child. The descendants of this chance encounter are often talkative and friendly. Brass Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Gather Information checks 4th +2 on Gather Information checks Alertness 6th - Strength +1 8th Alertness Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) 10th - Brass dragon affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Bluff checks 16th Fire resistance 5 (Ex) Resistance to fire 10 (Ex) 18th - Constitution +1 20th Brass dragon affinity +2* Speak with animals 1/day (Sp) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with brass dragons. Dragon, Bronze With its innate ability to take on humanoid form, coupled with a natural inquisitiveness, it is common for the bronze dragon to give rise to lines of creatures carrying its bloodline. These descendants tend to share the bronze dragon's curiosity as well as its love for the water. Bronze Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Swim checks 4th +2 on Swim checks Alertness 6th - Strength +1 8th Alertness Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) 10th - Bronze dragon affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Sense Motive checks 16th Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) Resistance to electricity 10 (Ex) 18th - Constitution +1 20th Bronze dragon affinity +2* Water breathing (Ex)@ * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with bronze dragons. @ You can breathe underwater indefinitely and can freely use special abilities while submerged. Dragon, Copper When the playful copper dragon meets a like-minded creature, a long-term friendship is often struck. The result of such a relationship can give rise to a long line of dragon-blooded individuals. Such characters often share the copper dragon's incorrigible nature, but may also be a bit miserly. Copper Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Perform checks 4th +2 on Perform checks Alertness 6th - Strength +1 8th Alertness Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) 10th - Copper dragon affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Bluff checks 16th Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) Resistance to acid 10 (Ex) 18th - Constitution +1 20th Copper dragon affinity +2* Spider climb 1/day (Sp) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with copper dragons. Dragon, Gold Gold dragons occasionally take more than a passing interest in mortals. Thanks to their ability to polymorph, some leave a lasting reminder of their presence in the form of a half-dragon child. Even many generations later, this draconic blood can manifest in the form of bloodline traits. Descendants of a gold dragon tend to get along well with other good-aligned creatures, displaying uncommon grace and courtesy. Gold Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Sense Motive checks 2nd - +2 on Sense Motive checks Alertness 3rd - - Strength +1 4th +2 on Sense Motive checks Alertness Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) 5th - - Gold dragon affinity +2* 6th - Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 7th - - +2 on Heal checks 8th Alertness Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) Resistance to fire 10 (Ex) 9th - - Constitution +1 10th - Gold dragon affinity +2* Water breathing (Ex)@ 11th - - Gold dragon affinity +4* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor +1 to natural armor 13th - - +2 on Swim checks 14th - +2 on Heal checks Power Attack 15th - - Intelligence +1 16th Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) Resistance to fire 10 (Ex) Breath weapon (Ex)# 17th - - Gold dragon affinity +6* 18th - Constitution +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on jump checks 20th Gold dragon affinity +2* Water breathing (Ex)@ Immunity to fire (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with gold dragons. @ You can breathe underwater indefinitely and can freely use special abilities while submerged. # 30-ft. cone of fire; 6d8 damage; Reflex half (DC 10 + one-half HD + Con modifier). Dragon, Green In certain rare instances, green dragons have been known to take control of (rather than simply devour) small enclaves of forest-dwelling humanoids. Some of those humanoids later give birth to half-dragon offspring, creating bloodlines that last centuries. Descendants of a green dragon are often voracious and belligerent, picking fights with little or no provocation. Green Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Move Silently checks 4th +2 on Move Silently checks Alertness 6th - Strength +1 8th Alertness Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) 10th - Green dragon affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Bluff checks 16th Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) Resistance to acid 10 (Ex) 18th - Constitution +1 20th Green dragon affinity +2* Water breathing (Ex)@ * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with green dragons. @ You can breathe underwater indefinitely and can freely use special abilities while submerged. Dragon, Red Though most evil dragons don't enjoy friendly relationships with humanoids, red dragons do occasionally spawn bloodlines among humanoids. Such descendants exhibit extraordinary powers beyond those of their people. A character with a red dragon bloodline is usually covetous and vain, and may smell faintly of smoke. Red Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Bluff checks 2nd - +2 on Bluff checks Alertness 3rd - - Strength +1 4th +2 on Bluff checks Alertness Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) 5th - - Red dragon affinity +2* 6th - Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 7th - - +2 on Intimidate checks 8th Alertness Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) Resistance to fire 10 (Ex) 9th - - Constitution +1 10th - Red dragon affinity +2* Locate object 1/day (Sp) 11th - - Red dragon affinity +4* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor +1 to natural armor 13th - - +2 on Appraise checks 14th - +2 on Intimidate checks Power Attack 15th - - Charisma +1 16th Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) Resistance to fire 10 (Ex) Breath weapon (Ex)@ 17th - - Red dragon affinity +6* 18th - Constitution +1 1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on jump checks 20th Red dragon affinity +2* Locate object 1/day (Sp) Immunity to fire (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy. Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with red dragons. @ 30-ft. cone of fire; 6d8 damage; Reflex half (DC 10 + one-half HD + Con modifier). Dragon, Silver Silver dragons are perhaps most likely of all dragons to have taken humanoid companions, and thus this is the most common dragon bloodline. Characters of the silver dragon bloodline tend to be regal and statuesque. Silver Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Sense Motive checks 2nd - +2 on Sense Motive checks Alertness 3rd - - Strength +1 4th +2 on Sense Motive checks Alertness Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) 5th - - Silver dragon affinity +2* 6th - Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 7th - - +2 on Perform checks 8th Alertness Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) Resistance to cold 10 (Ex) 9th - - Constitution +1 10th - Silver dragon affinity +2* Alter self 1/day (Sp) 11th - - Silver dragon affinity +4* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor +1 to natural armor 13th - - +2 on Bluff checks 14th - +2 on Perform checks Power Attack 15th - - Charisma +1 16th Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) Resistance to cold 10 (Ex) Breath weapon (Ex)@ 17th - - Silver dragon affinity +6* 18th - Constitution +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on jump checks 20th Silver dragon affinity +2* Alter self 1/day (Sp) Immunity to cold (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with silver dragons. @ 30-ft. cone of cold; 6d8 damage; Reflex half (DC 10 + one-half HD + Con modifier). Dragon, White Some arctic tribes have managed to bargain with nearby white dragons, trading food and occasional sacrifices for protection from their enemies. These alliances can result in dragon-blooded descendants, who tend to mimic the single-minded ferocity of their forebears. White Dragon Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Hide checks 4th +2 on Hide checks Alertness 6th - Strength +1 8th Alertness Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) 10th - White dragon affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Swim checks 16th Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) Resistance to cold 10 (Ex) 18th - Constitution +1 20th White dragon affinity +2* Icewalking 1/day (Ex)@ * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with white dragons. @ As spider climb, but the surface must be icy.
hogarth 10-11-06, 03:30 PM	Try two: Elemental, Air Similar to but less specific than a djinni bloodline (see below), the air elemental bloodline derives its power from a connection to the Elemental Plane of Air. Characters with air elemental bloodlines tend to shift between emotions with surprising quickness, and may have hair or skin tinged with light blue. Air Elemental Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Balance checks 4th +2 on Balance checks Improved Initiative 6th - Dexterity +1 8th Improved Initiative Gust of wind 1/day (Sp) 10th - Air elemental affinity +2* 12th Dexterity +1 Weapon Finesse 14th - +2 on Spot checks 16th Gust of wind 1/day (Sp) Air mastery (Ex)@ 18th - Constitution +1 20th Air elemental affinity +2* Flyby Attack * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with air elementals. @ As the air elemental special ability. Elemental, Earth Creatures that bear a bloodline of elemental earth feel a sense of gravity and stability that ties them to the stones of the world. They have a palpable sense of inertia about them, which sometimes manifests as a slowness to take action. Earth Elemental Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Climb checks 4th +2 on Climb checks Power Attack 6th - Strength +1 8th Power Attack Meld into stone 1/day (Sp) 10th - Earth elemental affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Listen checks 16th Meld into stone 1/day (Sp) Earth mastery (Ex)@ 18th - Constitution +1 20th Earth elemental affinity +2* Improved Sunder * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with earth elementals. @ As the earth elemental special ability. Elemental, Fire Those who bear elemental fire within their veins are often high-strung and quick-tempered. Their eyes often seem to glow like embers, and their skin may take on a reddish hue. Fire Elemental Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Tumble checks 4th +2 on Tumble checks Dodge 6th - Dexterity +1 8th Dodge Pyrotechnics 1/day (Sp) 10th - Fire elemental affinity +2* 12th Dexterity +1 Mobility 14th - +2 on Listen checks 16th Pyrotechnics 1/day (Sp) Resistance to fire 10 (Ex) 18th - Constitution +1 20th Fire elemental affinity +2* Spring Attack * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with fire elementals. Elemental, Water The bloodline of elemental water is most common among the water-breathing races, but it also manifests among sailors and fishermen, and even the occasional character with no link whatsoever to oceans, seas, or large lakes. Such characters are often independent minded, and generally don't live in any one place for very long. Water Elemental Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Swim checks 4th +2 on Swim checks Power Attack 6th - Strength +1 8th Power Attack Fog cloud 1/day (Sp) 10th - Water elemental affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Spot checks 16th Fog cloud 1/day (Sp) Swim 30 ft.@ 18th - Constitution +1 20th Water elemental affinity +2* Improved Bull Rush * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with water elementals. @ Or +30 ft. to existing swim speed. Fey Every culture tells stories of fey creatures taking mortal lovers, so it's no surprise that individuals display fey bloodlines from time to time. Regardless of whether it descended from a dryad, nymph, satyr, or other kind of fey, a creature with a fey bloodline often has a personality that is both aloof and carefree. Fey Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Hide checks 2nd - +2 on Hide checks Iron Will 3rd - - Charisma +1 4th +2 on Hide checks Iron Will Charm person 1/day (Sp) 5th - - Fey affinity +2* 6th - Charisma +1 Low-light vision 7th - - +2 on Move Silently checks 8th Iron Will Charm person 1/day (Sp) Alertness 9th - - Dexterity +1 10th - Fey affinity +2* Speak with animals 1/day (Sp) 11th - - Fey affinity +4* 12th Charisma +1 Low-light vision Invisibility 1/day (Sp) 13th - - +2 on Perform checks 14th - +2 on Move Silently checks Damage reduction 1/cold iron 15th - - Wisdom +1 16th Charm person 1/day (Sp) Alertness Deep slumber 1/day (Sp) 17th - - Fey affinity +6* 18th - Dexterity +1 Speak with plants 1/day (Sp) 19th - - +2 on Bluff checks 20th Fey affinity +2* Speak with animals 1/day (Sp) Damage reduction 5/cold iron * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with fey. Genie, Djinni Though few sages put much stock in myths that humanoids and genies share a common ancestor, there is no denying that the races are very similar in form. Characters with a djinni bloodline are often haughty but display great guile. Djinni Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Concentration checks 2nd - +2 on Concentration checks Improved Initiative 3rd - - Dexterity +1 4th +2 on Concentration checks Improved Initiative Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) 5th - - Djinni affinity +2* 6th - Dexterity +1 +1 to natural armor 7th - - +2 on Knowledge (the planes) checks 8th Improved Initiative Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) Dodge 9th - - Wisdom +1 10th - Djinni affinity +2* Invisibility 1/day (Sp) 11th - - Djinni affinity +4* 12th Dexterity +1 +1 to natural armor Resistance to acid 10 (Ex) 13th - - +2 on Appraise checks 14th - +2 on Knowledge (the planes) checks Create food and water 1/day (Sp) 15th - - Strength +1 16th Resistance to acid 5 (Ex) Dodge Gaseous form 1/week (Sp) 17th - - Djinni affinity +6* 18th - Wisdom +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on Sense Motive checks 20th Djinni affinity +2* Invisibility 1/day (Sp) Immunity to acid (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with djinn. Genie, Efreeti Characters with the bloodline of the efreet are most likely descended from slaves of that terrible and powerful race. They typically have reddish skin and a cruel disposition, and may display tiny horns or bronze-colored eyes. Efreeti Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Bluff checks 2nd - +2 on Bluff checks Improved Initiative 3rd - - Strength +1 4th +2 on Bluff checks Improved Initiative Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) 5th - - Efreeti affinity +2* 6th - Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 7th - - +2 on Knowledge (the planes) checks 8th Improved Initiative Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) Dodge 9th - - Charisma +1 10th - Efreeti affinity +2* Produce flame 1/day (Sp) 11th - - Efreeti affinity +4* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor Resistance to fire 10 (Ex) 13th - - +2 on Concentration checks 14th - +2 on Knowledge (the planes) checks Scorching ray 1/day (Sp) 15th - - Dexterity +1 16th Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) Dodge Wall of fire 1/week (Sp) 17th - - Efreeti affinity +6* 18th - Charisma +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on Intimidate checks 20th Efreeti affinity +2* Produce flame 1/day (Sp) Immunity to fire (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with efreet. Genie, Janni As natural wanderers of the Material Plane, the only thing surprising about janni bloodlines may be that there aren't more of them. A creature who bears the janni bloodline tends to be a couple inches taller than normal for his race, standing with a proud and regal posture. He may also share the janni's nomadic behavior. Janni Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor 4th +2 on Appraise checks 8th Improved Initiative 12th Wisdom +1 16th Invisibility 1/day (Sp) 20th Janni affinity +2* * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with jann. Giant In ages past, giants mingled more freely with smaller humanoids. Today, the evidence of such relationships is rare at best. Characters with bloodlines of the lesser evil giants (hill, frost, and fire) may be the result of voluntary or involuntary breeding with the greatfolk. Bloodlines of stone, cloud, or storm giants, on the other hand, are more likely the results of long-ago alliances between those races and the ancient nobility of the world. In any event, characters bearing giant bloodlines tend to be massive for their race, and often share characteristics (skin and hair color, attitudes, and such) with their ancestor. An intermediate bloodline can only be taken for cloud giants, fire giants, frost giants, stone giants, and storm giants. A major bloodline can only be taken for storm giants. Fire Giant Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Climb checks 4th +2 on Climb checks Power Attack 6th - Strength +1 8th Power Attack +1 to natural armor 10th - Fire giant affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 Resistance to fire 5 (Ex) 14th - +2 on jump checks 16th +1 to natural armor Cleave 18th - Constitution +1 20th Fire giant affinity +2* Resistance to fire 10 (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with fire giants. Cloud Giant Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Climb checks 4th +2 on Climb checks Power Attack 6th - Strength +1 8th Power Attack +1 to natural armor 10th - Cloud giant affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 Obscuring mist 1/day (Sp) 14th - +2 on jump checks 16th +1 to natural armor Improved Bull Rush 18th - Constitution +1 20th Cloud giant affinity +2* Scent (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with cloud giants. Frost Giant Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Climb checks 4th +2 on Climb checks Power Attack 6th - Strength +1 8th Power Attack +1 to natural armor 10th - Frost giant affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) 14th - +2 on Jump checks 16th +1 to natural armor Improved Sunder 18th - Constitution +1 20th Frost giant affinity +2* Resistance to cold 10 (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with frost giants. Hill Giant Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor 4th +2 on Climb checks 8th Power Attack 12th Strength +1 16th +1 to natural armor 20th Hill giant affinity +2* * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with hill giants. Stone Giant Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Climb checks 4th +2 on Climb checks Point Blank Shot 6th - Strength +1 8th Point Blank Shot +1 to natural armor 10th - Stone giant affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 Stone shape 1/week (Sp) 14th - +2 on Jump checks 16th +1 to natural armor Combat Reflexes 18th - Constitution +1 20th Stone giant affinity +2* +1 to natural armor * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with stone giants. Storm Giant Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Climb checks 2nd - +2 on Climb checks Power Attack 3rd - - Strength +1 4th +2 on Climb checks Power Attack +1 to natural armor 5th - - Storm giant affinity +2* 6th - Strength +1 Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) 7th - - +2 on jump checks 8th Power Attack +1 to natural armor Cleave 9th - - Constitution +1 10th - Storm giant affinity +2* Water breathing (Ex)@ 11th - - Storm giant affinity +4* 12th Strength +1 Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) Resistance to electricity 10 (Ex) 13th - - +2 on Swim checks 14th - +2 on jump checks Call lightning 1/day (Sp) 15th - - Wisdom +1 16th +1 to natural armor Cleave Freedom of movement 1/day (Sp) 17th - - Storm giant affinity +6* 18th - Constitution +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on Concentration checks 20th Storm giant affinity +2* Water breathing (Ex)@ Immunity to electricity (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with storm giants. @ You can breathe underwater indefinitely and can freely use special abilities while submerged.
hogarth 10-11-06, 03:31 PM	Try three: Hag Many hags have the ability to change their appearance, making it possible for them to interact with creatures of other races. Though horrible to contemplate, some use this ability to lure in mates, in the hopes that the offspring can help them further their evil plots. The descendants of a hag tend to be strong but ugly, and often share their ancestor's love of schemes. Hag Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor 4th +2 on Hide checks 8th Alertness 12th Strength +1 16th +1 to natural armor 20th Hag affinity +2* * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with hags. Lycanthrope When he isn't murdering innocent townsfolk, the typical lycanthropic character may enjoy an almost entirely normal social life--even having a family. While the offspring of an afflicted lycanthrope might not share the curse itself, the bloodline might still pass its characteristics down the generations, allowing later descendants to display some of the lycanthrope's attributes. Regardless of the original animal stock, the carriers of lycanthropic bloodlines tend to share similar characteristics, including a feral stare and an overabundance of body hair. Lycanthrope Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor 4th +2 on Search checks 8th Power Attack or Dodge* 12th Constitution +1 16th Scent (Ex) 20th Lycanthrope affinity +2@ * If the base animal's Strength is higher than its Dexterity, it gains Power Attack. Otherwise, it gains Dodge. @ You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with lycanthropes. Minotaur Horrid tales describe the fate of innocents carried away from their homes by marauding minotaurs--and the rare individual displaying a minotaur bloodline proves the truth of such stories. These characters have a savage look, with thick hair and sometimes even tiny stubs of horns. Minotaur Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor 4th +2 on Search checks 8th Alertness 12th Strength +1 16th +1 to natural armor 20th Minotaur affinity +2* * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with minotaurs. Ogre A character with ogre blood is most likely the result of raids on humanoid settlements, but may also derive from the more intelligent and magically gifted race of ogre mages (in fact, all intermediate ogre bloodlines are actually ogre mage bloodlines). These characters may appear clumsy and brutish, but they can possess a high degree of cunning. Ogre Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Climb checks 4th +2 on Climb checks Power Attack 6th - Strength +1 8th Power Attack +1 to natural armor 10th - Ogre affinity +2* 12th Strength +1 Darkness 1/day (Sp) 14th - +2 on Concentration checks 16th +1 to natural armor Invisibility 1/day (Sp) 18th - Charisma +1 20th Ogre affinity +2* Fly 1/day (Sp) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with ogres. Titan Whether as allies, tyrants, or objects of reverence, titans have on occasion interacted actively with lesser beings. In rare cases, these interactions have given rise to scions of great power--power that hides within rare mortals to this very day. Creatures with a titans bloodline tend to have wild emotional swings, and are generally large and powerful. Titan Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on jump checks 2nd - +2 on Jump checks Power Attack 3rd - - Strength +1 4th +2 on Jump checks Power Attack Levitate 1/day (Sp) 5th - - Titan affinity +2* 6th - Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 7th - - +2 on Concentration checks 8th Power Attack Levitate 1/day (Sp) Improved Sunder 9th - - Constitution +1 10th - Titan affinity +2* Spell resistance 2 + HD 11th - - Titan affinity +4* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor Use oversized weapon (Ex)@ 13th - - +2 on Knowledge (any one) checks 14th - +2 on Concentration checks Daylight or deeper darkness 1/day (Sp)# 15th - - Intelligence +1 16th Levitate 1/day (Sp) Improved Sunder Remove curse or bestow curse 1/day (Sp)# 17th - - Titan affinity +6* 18th - Constitution +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on Sense Motive checks 20th Titan affinity +2* Spell resistance 2 + HD Damage reduction 5/lawful * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with titans. @ As the titan special ability. # If you are good, you gain daylight at 14th level and remove curse at 16th; if evil, deeper darkness and bestow curse; if neutral, 50% chance of either. Troll Though the origin of such a bloodline is almost too hideous to contemplate, there are nonetheless a few creatures who display a certain trollish fortitude. Such characters tend to bear many scars from old wounds, and are often ferocious in attitude. Troll Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Spot checks 4th +2 on Spot checks Great Fortitude 6th - Constitution +1 8th Great Fortitude Double heal rate (Ex)@ 10th - Troll affinity +2* 12th Constitution +1 +1 to natural armor 14th - +2 on Listen checks 16th Double heal rate (Ex)@ Power Attack 18th - Strength +1 20th Troll affinity +2* Scent (Ex) * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with trolls. @ You heal naturally at double normal rates. Vampire The vampire's powers of persuasion have led more than one weak-willed humanoid into its deadly clutch of intimacy. Though it seems impossible that any child could result from such a union, tales of humanoids possessing some of the vampire's physical and mental prowess abound. These pale, haunted creatures are inevitably cloaked in mystery and deception, for even good aligned descendants of vampires fear retribution from those mistaking them for the undead. Vampire Bloodline Traits Character Level Minor Intermediate Major 1st - - +2 on Climb checks 2nd - +2 on Climb checks Stealthy 3rd - - Strength +1 4th +2 on Climb checks Stealthy Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) 5th - - Vampire affinity +2* 6th - Strength +1 +1 to natural armor 7th - - +2 on Search checks 8th Stealthy Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) 9th - - Charisma +1 10th - Vampire affinity +2* Lightning Reflexes 11th - - Vampire affinity +4* 12th Strength +1 +1 to natural armor Alertness 13th - - +2 on Sense Motive checks 14th - +2 on Search checks Improved Initiative 15th - - Dexterity +1 16th Resistance to cold 5 (Ex) Resistance to electricity 5 (Ex) Suggestion 1/day (Sp) 17th - - Vampire affinity +6* 18th - Charisma +1 +1 to natural armor 19th - - +2 on Bluff checks 20th Vampire affinity +2* Lightning Reflexes Damage reduction 5/silver * You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with vampires.
Zelck 10-11-06, 03:36 PM	I added our new Monster Lists. We have four so far: EL 3, 4, 7, and 8. Anyone who's interested in earning credits can pick another list. We need EL 5, 6, 9 and 10 first. - Must be one monster per roll (1-100) - Must include psionic versions - Must match the EL table on DMG p49 - Must include both single and multiple monsters Effective immideately (doesn't need any adaption) but if a pitlord still rolls on the old tables that's fine too. Why not, I'll reserve the EL5 one.
Gonbow 10-11-06, 03:47 PM	Well I was going to do Stone Giant and down... but there arn't ten left to do anymore, by my counting. Oh well. Here is my version of the stone giant one, in any case. Stone Giant Bloodline Traits Minor Intermediate 2nd - +2 on Climb Checks 4th +2 on Climb Checks Point Blank Shot 6th - Strength +1 8th Point Blank Shot +1 to natural armor 10th - Stone giant affinity1 12th Strength +1 Stone Shape 1/week (Sp) 14th - +2 on Jump Checks 16th +1 to natural armor Combat Reflexes 18th - Constitution +1 20th Stone giant affinity +21 +1 to natural armor 1 You gain the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate and Perform checks made to interact with stone giants.
Zelck 10-11-06, 04:58 PM	Here's a list for ECL5: ECL 5: 01: Achaierai [CR5] 02: Air Elemental, Large [CR5] 03: Arrowhawk, Adult [CR5] 04: Barghest, Greater [CR5] 05: Basilisk [CR5] 06: Black or Green Dragon, Young [CR5] 07: Bronze, Copper, Red, or Silver Dragon, Very Young [CR5] 08: Cloaker [CR5] 09: Constrictor Snake, Giant [CR5] 10: Devil, Bearded (Barbazu) [CR5] 11: Dire Lion [CR5] 12: Earth Elemental, Large [CR5] 13: Fire Elemental, Large [CR5] 14: Genie, Djinni [CR5] 15: Gibbering Mouther [CR5] 16: Gold Dragon, Wyrmling [CR5] 17: Hag, Green [CR5] 18: Hydra, Six-Headed [CR5] 19: Lycanthrope, Werebear [CR5] 20: Lycanthrope, Weretiger [CR5] 21: Manticore [CR5] 22: Monstrous Spider, Huge [CR5] 23: Mummy [CR5] 24: Nightmare [CR5] 25: Ooze, Ochre Jelly [CR5] 26: Phase Spider [CR5] 27: Pixie (with Irresistable Dance) [CR5] 28: Rast [CR5] 29: Ravid [CR5] 30: Shadow Mastiff [CR5] 31: Skeleton, Ettin [CR5] 32: Sphinx, Hieracosphinx [CR5] 33: Spider Eater [CR5] 34: Troll [CR5] 35: Water Elemental, Large [CR5] 36: Winter Wolf [CR5] 37: Wraith [CR5] 38: Unbodied [CR5] 39: 1d3 Ankheg [CR3] 40: 1d3 Arrowhawk, Juvenile [CR3] 41: 1d3 Black, Blue, Brass, Bronze, or Green Dragon, Wyrmling [CR3] 42: 1d3 Centaur [CR3] 43: 1d3 Cockatrice [CR3] 44: 1d3 Derro [CR3] 45: 1d3 Dinosaur, Deinonychus [CR3] 46: 1d3 Dire Ape [CR3] 47: 1d3 Dire Wolf [CR3] 48: 1d3 Eagle, Giant [CR3] 49: 1d3 Ettercap [CR3] 50: 1d3 Formian Warrior [CR3] 51: 1d3 Ghoul, Ghast [CR3] 52: 1d3 Giant Wasp [CR3] 53: 1d3 Hell Hound [CR3] 54: 1d3 Howler [CR3] 55: 1d3 Lion [CR3] 56: 1d3 Lycanthrope, Werewolf [CR3] 57: 1d3 Magmin [CR3] 58: 1d3 Mephits, Any [CR3] 59: 1d3 Monstrous Scorpion, Large [CR3] 60: 1d3 Ogre [CR3] 61: 1d3 Owl, Giant [CR3] 62: 1d3 Pegasus [CR3] 63: 1d3 Rust Monster [CR3] 64: 1d3 Salamander, Flamebrother [CR3] 65: 1d3 Shadow [CR3] 66: 1d3 Skeleton, Troll [CR3] 67: 1d3 Swarm, Locust [CR3] 68: 1d3 White Dragon, Very Young [CR3] 69: 1d3 Wight [CR3] 70: 1d3 Xorn, Minor [CR3] 71: 1d3 Yeth Hound [CR3] 72: 1d3 Zombie, Ogre [CR3] 73: 1d3 Crysmal [CR3] 74: 1d3 Temporal Filcher [CR3] 75: 2d2 Ape [CR2] 76: 2d2 Lantern Archon [CR2] 77: 2d2 Azer [CR2] 78: 2d2 Blink Dog [CR2] 79: 2d2 Bugbear [CR2] 80: 2d2 Demon, Dretch [CR2] 81: 2d2 Dire Badger [CR2] 82: 2d2 Dire Bat [CR2] 83: 2d2 Giant Ant, Soldier [CR2] 84: 2d2 Giant Bombardier Beetle [CR2] 85: 2d2 Lycanthrope, Wererat [CR2] 86: 2d2 Monstrous Centipede, Huge [CR2] 87: 2d2 Monstrous Spider, Large [CR2] 88: 2d2 Satyr [CR2] 89: 2d2 Shocker Lizard [CR2] 90: 2d2 Skeleton, Owlbear [CR2] 91: 2d2 Skum [CR2] 92: 2d2 Swarm, Bat [CR2] 93: 2d2 Swarm, Rat [CR2] 94: 2d2 Vargouille [CR2] 95: 2d2 White Dragon, Wyrmling [CR2] 96: 2d2 Worg [CR2] 97: 2d2 Zombie, Bugbear [CR2] 98: Half-Celestial or Half-Fiendish Satyr (with pipes) [CR5] 99: Phrenic Vampire Spawn [CR5] 00: Half-Dragon Ogre [CR5] 666: Half-Red Dragon, Half-White Dragon Spider Swarm [CR5] I broke a precedent in not including any of those class level monsters or NPCs. That hopefully makes the PL's life a lot easier. If you want me to, I could put them in, but if I were a PL, I'd rather just get a monster out of the book rather than trying to make an NPC.
Caterane 10-11-06, 09:13 PM	@Zelck: But what we definately want is diversity. If we leave out class NPCs then we'll probably just have the same monsters in every league just in different numbers. There are NPC templates for any level and class (incl equipment) in the DMG which can be used easily. The bloodline tables could be made better if the horizontal bar would be gone. Only tables should be in (code) and text outside.
Zelck 10-11-06, 09:30 PM	@Zelck: But what we definately want is diversity. If we leave out class NPCs then we'll probably just have the same monsters in every league just in different numbers. There are NPC templates for any level and class (incl equipment) in the DMG which can be used easily. The bloodline tables could be made better if the horizontal bar would be gone. Only tables should be in (code) and text outside. Ok. I'll do it a bit later then.
MindWandererB 10-11-06, 09:33 PM	@Zelck: Cat did specifically request NPCs with class levels the first time around. He may ask for a change for that reason. It's a little light on the templates for me, but that's just preference. Edit: cat beat me to it. @Cat: I caught my own mistake in the EL 8 list. Girallons lack the requisite Int of 4 to become Half-Celestial, so #83 is illegal. A half-celestial Shambling Mound [CR 8] can take its place. 01: 1 Androsphinx [CR 9] 02: 1 Avoral Guardinal [CR 9] 03: 1 Bone Devil [CR 9] 04: 1 Delver [CR 9] 05: 1 Elemental, Greater (1d4 for type) [CR 9] 06: 1 Frost Giant [CR 9] 07: 1 Elder Stone Giant [CR 9] 08: 1 Half-fiend, 7th-level human cleric (MM default) [CR 9] 09: 1 Hydra, ten-headed [CR 9] 10: 1 Hydra, eight-headed cryo- or pyro- [CR 9] 11: 1 Colossal Monstrous Centipede [CR 9] 12: 1 Spirit Naga [CR 9] 13: 1 Nessian Warhound (hell hound) [CR 9] 14: 1 Night Hag [CR 9] 15: 1 Roc [CR 9] 16: 1 Green Slaad [CR 9] 17: 1 Triceratops (dinosaur) [CR 9] 18: 1 Vrock (demon) [CR 9] 19: 1 Yrthak [CR 9] 20: 1 Zelekhut (inevitable) [CR 9] 21: 1 Astral Construct, 8th-level (psionic) [CR 9] 22: 1 Caller in Darkness (psionic) [CR 9] 23: 1d4+2 Greater Barhgests [CR 5] 24: 1d4+2 Basilisks [CR 5] 25: 1d2+2 Belkers [CR 6] 26: 1d3 Bulettes [CR 7] 27: 1d3 Chuul [CR 7] 28: 1d4+2 Cloakers [CR 5] 29: 2d2+1 Bearded Devils [CR 5] 30: 2d2 Chain Devils [CR 6] 31: 1d3 Hellcats [CR 7] 32: 1d3 Dire Bears [CR 7] 33: 1d4+4 Dire Boars [CR 4] 34: 1 Dragon: Young Adult Black; Juvenile Bronze or Copper; Young Gold (1d4) [CR 9] 35: 1d4+1 Dragons: Young Blue or Brass; Juvenile White (1d3) [CR 6] 36: 1d3 Dragonne [CR 7] 37: 1d3 Driders [CR 7] 38: 2d2 Ettins [CR 6] 39: 1 Formian Taskmaster and dominated cohort (roll on EL 7 table; reroll if immune to dominate or if more than four creatures) [CR 7] 40: 3 Annis Hags [CR 6] 41: 1d2+2 Lamias [CR 6] 42: 1d4+2 Manticores [CR 5] 43: 1d3 Water Nagas [CR 7] 44: 1d3 Ogres, 4th-level Barbarians [CR 7] 45: 1 Ogre, 4th-level Barbarian and 1d4+3 Ogres [CR 7 and 3] 46: 1d6+2 Owlbears [CR 4] 47: 1d4+2 Rasts [CR 5] 48: 1d3 Cloud Giant Skeletons [CR 7] 49: 2d2 Advanced Megaraptor Skeletons [CR 6] 50: 2d2+1 Ettin Skeletons [CR 5] 51: 1d3 Red Slaadi [CR 7] 52: 1d2+2 Will-o'-Wisps [CR 6] 53: 2d2+1 Winter Wolves [CR 5] 54: 1d4+1 Xills [CR 6] 55: 2d2+1 Average Xorn [CR 6] 56: 1d3 Yuan-Ti Abominations [CR 7] 57: 2d2 Gray Render Zombies [CR 6] 58: 2d2+1 Umber Hulk Zombies [CR 5] 59: 1d3 Gray Gluttons (psionic) [CR 7] 60: 2d2 Phthisics (psionic) [CR 6] 61: 1d4+2 Unbodied (psionic) [CR 5] 62: 1 Celestial Bulette [CR 9] 63: 1d2+2 Celestial Werebears [CR 6] 64: 1 Celestial Young Silver Dragon [CR 9] 65: 1d3 Celestial Girallons [CR 7] 66: 1 Fiendish Umber Hulk [CR 9] 67: 2d2+1 Fiendish Minotaurs [CR 5] 68: 1 Fiendish Young Red Dragon [CR 9] 69: 2d2 Fiendish Trolls [CR 6] 70: 2d2 Fiendish Weretigers [CR 6] 71: 1 Half-Celestial Remorhaz [CR 9] 72: 1d2+2 Half-Celestial Otyughs [CR 6] 73: 1 Half-Celestial Dragonne [CR 9] 74: 2d2 Half-Celestial Gibbering Mouthers [CR 6] 75: 1 Half-Fiend Medusa [CR 9] 76: 2d2 Half-Fiend Displacer Beasts [CR 6] 77: 1 Half-Fiend Invisible Stalker [CR 9] 78: 1 Half-Fiend Drider [CR 9] 79: 1d3 Half-Fiend Yuan-Ti Halfbloods [CR 7] 80: 1 Half-Dragon Elasmosaurus (1d10 to determine type) [CR 9] 81: 2d2+1 Half-Dragon Ogres (1d10 to determine type) [CR 5] 82: 1 Half-Dragon Black Pudding (1d10 to determine type) [CR 9] 83: 3 Half-Dragon Sea Hags (1d10 to determine type for each) [CR 6] 84: Roll on EL 7 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 to determine type) [varies] 85: 1 Phrenic Bulette (psionic) [CR 9] 86: 1d3 Phrenic Hieracosphinxes (psionic) [CR 7] 87: 2d2+1 Phrenic Gargoyles [CR 5] 88: 1 Phrenic Ogre Mage (psionic) [CR 9] 89: 2d2 Phrenic Dire Boars [CR 6] 90: 1 Level 9 gnome druid with Dire Ape companion [CR 9] 91: 1 Level 9 elan egoist [CR 9] 92: 1 Level 9 maenad bard [CR 9] 93: 1 Level 9 drow adept [CR 9] 94: 2d4 human ranger 5/horizon walker 1 (choose map's terrain) [CR 6] 95: 2d4 goblin rogue 5/assassin 1 [CR 6] 96: 2d4+1 Level 5 tiefling wizards [CR 5] 97: 2d4+1 Level 5 locathah barbarians [CR 5] 98: 1d3 Level 6 Harpy Bards [CR 7] 99: 1 Level 3 Ettin Psychic Warrior [CR 9] 00: 1 Level 7 Half-Orc cleric and 2d2 Level 4 Orc Fighters [CR 7 and 4] You'll note I used a lot more templates than usual. That's because the CR 9 list is quite a bit more meager than the ones just below it. I still try to stick to the "organization" entries whenever possible, so that left me with a lot of holes. I tried to have some fun with it, I hope no one objects.
hogarth 10-11-06, 10:04 PM	The bloodline tables could be made better if the horizontal bar would be gone. Only tables should be in (code) and text outside. The amount of space allocated to Code blocks can somtimes be very narrow -- 54-90 characters (at least on my computer). That's not much room for four columns (Level, Minor, Intermediate, Major). If someone else wants to take a shot at it (either based on my try or working from scratch), feel free. I put the code blocks around the tables, for a start.
Caterane 10-12-06, 04:22 AM	Re- Monster Lists: You can also mix some monsters that mighty ally instead of rolling multiples of the same monster. That makes our lists more diverse. Also note that you can always suggest single entries to replace existent ones. @Zelck: Just add some more interesting encoutners in the lower regions of your list. All these monsters appear on lower lists already. @MWB: Awesome! I just love your lists! +2° @hogarth: That's fine. Just put anything but the table outside the codes. And please post them in one piece when you're done else I have to browse through the council too much.
hogarth 10-12-06, 06:58 AM	@hogarth: That's fine. Just put anything but the table outside the codes. And please post them in one piece when you're done else I have to browse through the council too much. Only the tables should be in the CODE blocks now: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10329860 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10329874 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10329884 I couldn't post them all in one post because of the 50,000 character limit.
Highfire 10-12-06, 09:01 AM	I have a slight suggestion, that most likely has been brought up already. I noticed the second half of the ECLs are all frozen, and there are some pretty good characters there. The problem like it says in the Rules of Gladius is that if they weren't frozen it would all be rematches. So what about a exp boost to get things moving? It's a simple solution to the problem. We would have to boost the gold as well to keep up with the exp so it does not get underbalanced. But I think it could work. It could even be explained story wise. Every so many millenia the Nimbus that surrounds gladius seems to shudder with new power and a new omplex spellweave grows inside of it, unstable and only temperary it is a sign of great things and great progressions. Or something like that, lol. I've been too busy with CoCo and my camapigns on this site and offline to sit down and absorb the long history of Gladius. Speaking of which, the history seems to be....err scattered, maybe I am looking in the wrong place, is there a link to the set history? Thanks in advance. ~Justin
Pittbull 10-12-06, 09:37 AM	@Justin: You want to have some information about the history of Gladius? Just sit down and read this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7048367).:)
Zelck 10-12-06, 10:29 AM	@Zelck: Just add some more interesting encoutners in the lower regions of your list. All these monsters appear on lower lists already. Will do :). I'll try to get them done by tomorrow.
Caterane 10-12-06, 10:34 AM	Only the tables should be in the CODE blocks now: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10329860 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10329874 http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10329884 I couldn't post them all in one post because of the 50,000 character limit. Awesome! That're 35 tables!! If I've counted correctly, there are only 5 left. You have by now earned three bloodlines to existing characters (provided they don't gain a level) or new characters. If you post the remaining 5 there's another bloodline waiting for you.
hogarth 10-12-06, 10:44 AM	Awesome! That're 35 tables!! If I've counted correctly, there are only 5 left. You have by now earned three bloodlines to existing characters (provided they don't gain a level) or new characters. If you post the remaining 5 there's another bloodline waiting for you. As far as I know, that's all of the bloodlines. At least that's all of the bloodlines in the text file I had.
Guildlords 10-12-06, 07:45 PM	We have had a bit of an interesting situation come up. Erithmu is having real-life concerns that are interfering with his ability to be the EYE guildmaster. Unfortunately, he has no backup, and there isn't anyone else in the guild that is willing and able to take over. EYE has almost always been the least popular guild, or close to it. So one of the solutions we were considering is a takeover of the EYE resources by a heretofore unknown group. This new group would fill the same niche as the EYE (i.e. Politics and Leisure as its primary and secondary traits), and would have the same rooms, structures, and money (possibly with a small subsidy to help get them started--we're still discussing this) but would be otherwise an entirely new guild. We're just now in the process of opening up the discussion to see if this is tempting to anyone. If there is interest in creating (and manning, and guildlording) a replacement guild, there will likely be a contest to determine what the new guild will be. Everyone, please provide any opinions you have on the matter. We would like this to be as fun as possible for all, so any enthusiasm (or lack thereof) would be helpful to hear about. If you might be interested in being guildmaster or backup guildmaster of a replacement guild, or even just of having one or more character join such a guild, please speak up!
McJarvis 10-12-06, 07:47 PM	We have had a bit of an interesting situation come up. Erithmu is having real-life concerns that are interfering with his ability to be the EYE guildmaster. Unfortunately, he has no backup, and there isn't anyone else in the guild that is willing and able to take over. EYE has almost always been the least popular guild, or close to it. So one of the solutions we were considering is a takeover of the EYE resources by a heretofore unknown group. This new group would fill the same niche as the EYE (i.e. Politics and Leisure as its primary and secondary traits), and would have the same rooms, structures, and money (possibly with a small subsidy to help get them started--we're still discussing this) but would be otherwise an entirely new guild. We're just now in the process of opening up the discussion to see if this is tempting to anyone. If there is interest in creating (and manning, and guildlording) a replacement guild, there will likely be a contest to determine what the new guild will be. Everyone, please provide any opinions you have on the matter. We would like this to be as fun as possible for all, so any enthusiasm (or lack thereof) would be helpful to hear about. If you might be interested in being guildmaster or backup guildmaster of a replacement guild, or even just of having one or more character join such a guild, please speak up! I'm assuming the new guild would maintain the current membership of EYE? I just so happen to be interested in aquiring a guild since I can't start a new one... :-) I even have a neato theme idea and everything.
Guildlords 10-12-06, 07:58 PM	I'm assuming the new guild would maintain the current membership of EYE? I just so happen to be interested in aquiring a guild since I can't start a new one... :-) I even have a neato theme idea and everything. We haven't discussed this yet, but most likely it would be like when the guilds were originally formed, i.e. anyone who wanted to join (perhaps up to the first 5 people to speak up) would be allowed immediate entry, without miniquest. Since the current members may or may not be interested in the new guild, they may choose to stay or leave based on their personality compatibility.
McJarvis 10-12-06, 08:00 PM	We haven't discussed this yet, but most likely it would be like when the guilds were originally formed, i.e. anyone who wanted to join (perhaps up to the first 5 people to speak up) would be allowed immediate entry, without miniquest. Since the current members may or may not be interested in the new guild, they may choose to stay or leave based on their personality compatibility. I'm fairly certain only NedtheDestroyer knows of my plans to create this group(since I just officially put it in my sig 5 secs ago to make it more authentic), but I've been planning it for at least two or three weeks. I desire to, at some point, create a guild in Gladius titled "The Losers", which will comprise of membership of characters with class levels in "bad" classes. Examples of such would be any bards, soul knives, sorcerers, duelists, etc. Goals of "The Losers" has yet to really form in my head, so it could readily take over the niche of EYE. Unless you think this would be an unsuitable replacement.
Guildlords 10-12-06, 08:05 PM	I'm fairly certain only NedtheDestroyer knows of my plans to create this group(since I just officially put it in my sig 5 secs ago to make it more authentic), but I've been planning it for at least two or three weeks. I desire to, at some point, create a guild in Gladius titled "The Losers", which will comprise of membership of characters with class levels in "bad" classes. Examples of such would be any bards, soul knives, sorcerers, duelists, etc. Goals of "The Losers" has yet to really form in my head, so it could readily take over the niche of EYE. Unless you think this would be an unsuitable replacement. Aside from the riskiness of such a guild, the trick would be to have it fit the POL/LEI trait niche. It seems pretty subjective, too--and remember, there are no membership requirements anymore (aside from guildmaster veto). However, if this goes to a vote, and you can make a pitch for it that puts it in the niche, it can certainly be put into the running.
McJarvis 10-12-06, 08:12 PM	Aside from the riskiness of such a guild, the trick would be to have it fit the POL/LEI trait niche. It seems pretty subjective, too--and remember, there are no membership requirements anymore (aside from guildmaster veto). However, if this goes to a vote, and you can make a pitch for it that puts it in the niche, it can certainly be put into the running. Hum. Well, regardless I am interested in the guildstuffs :) I'll brainstorm for a few days...
SauroGrenom 10-12-06, 08:26 PM	I think we probably need a new guild. EYE has been limping along for a while now. The Theme should be chosen by the guildmaster and first members. The only thing that will get such a guild going is to have enthusiastic members and guildmaster. It can be anything realy. The guild traits are Leisure/Politics and that probably cannot change. Any large group of powerfull people are naturally a political force. The Leisure is also easy to satisfy. Realy we just need to find out who would like to be in a new guild. Here are a few brainstorming ideas... Monastic (Monks and lawfull religious people) Chaotic (Party goers and chaotic characters rogues, barbarians) Brawlers (grapple characters) Knights (mounted characters) Archers (obviously rangers and archer builds) Sneaks (Rogues and hide builds) Performers (bards) Smiths (based on professions an economic organization)
McJarvis 10-12-06, 08:31 PM	It looks like the election functions of winning the whole guild thing are still under construction. How would a guild with a primary motive of politics even start to make moves towards victory? Nevermind, I think I just figured out what the true meaning of christmas is, here.
Zevox 10-12-06, 09:01 PM	Eh, Sauro, don't most of those overlap with existing Guilds anyway? Knights, Archers, and Brawlers would all be under WAR's purview by and large, sneaks are part of the EHTC's theme (alongside the evil), and the CEF is kind of monastic already (I could see how one might argue its not enough so, but there is a little overlap there). But yeah, a new Guild would likely be a good idea. Ever since Book5 slowed his prescence around here posts in the EYE's thread have slowed to a crawl, and thier membership has never been anywhere near high. I'd try coming up with a concept myself, but since I'm already a Guildmaster and I don't want to leave the EHTC high and dry, I guess I'll refrain from it. Though given the lack of anyone interested in taking up the assisstant Guildmaster position for EYE or WAR I must wonder just how many we'll get who are interested in such... @ McJarvis - Eh, no offense, but given that encouraging RP is one of the primary functions of the Guilds, shouldn't the theme be a little more in-character? I mean, "loser" classes are a very metagamish concept - the characters don't know that thier class is weak compared to others, or that they even have classes, and so on (compared to say PSI, where members know they are gifted with psionic powers; or the CEF, where members know they fight for the greater good and are frequently gifted with divine powers). Zevox
McJarvis 10-12-06, 09:04 PM	(compared to say PSI, where members know they are gifted with psionic powers; or the CEF, where members know they fight for the greater good and are frequently gifted with divine powers). ...and characters with sucky class levels, because they were picked on in gym class. :-) But all the same, I can see how something more cohesive will be required to replace EYE(Just got done reading a good amount of the guild rules). Working on a West-coast Vegas-type Mafia concept...maybe...(hookers, alcohol, drugs, gambling & the legalization of the aforementioned activities.) edit- It sounds kind of similar to what I saw the EHTC as when I think it out loud, but it fits so well to the Politica/Leisure category....
MindWandererB 10-12-06, 09:42 PM	Since there's obviously interest in this, let me tell you what my plan was. This is highly, highly subject to change. 1) There will be a "submissions" thread open for a week or so, rather like the writing contest. Anyone who wants to, even a current guildmaster, can post a blurb with their proposal, subject to certain guidelines (for instance, they must explain the rationale behind the POL/LEI tie--which doesn't have to be terribly dramatic--after all, EYE and LEI were a loose match in the first place). 2) There will be a vote, but not a popularity vote: players will check off any of the proposed guilds that they'd actually join, and indicate whether they'd be interested in being guildmaster. If no proposal has at least two people willing to run it (as primary and backup), then we go back to the drawing board for solutions to the problem. If there is more than one, then the one with the most votes wins. There will probably be a credit award to the winning proposal, as well.
McJarvis 10-12-06, 09:50 PM	Since there's ....blah blah blah, [[McJarvis has a chance at being a guildmaster maybe]], blah blah blah.....as well. totally awesome.
SauroGrenom 10-13-06, 11:25 AM	Eh, Sauro, don't most of those overlap with existing Guilds anyway? Knights, Archers, and Brawlers would all be under WAR's purview by and large, sneaks are part of the EHTC's theme (alongside the evil), and the CEF is kind of monastic already (I could see how one might argue its not enough so, but there is a little overlap there).Well there aren't many character builds that don't fit into any of the other guilds. Clerics, have a place, nature-o-philes have a place, sneak -o-philes have a guild. Warrior, arcane and psionic themed characters have places in neutral guilds as well. Realy the only thing that's missing is evil clerics since CEF is tilted towards good the evil clerics are left out. What about all the clerics of Denth the Summoner? What guild do they get? Where do the Black Guards hang out? If there is a good divine guild, there should be an evil one as well. They can get all the evil undead as well. It's a bit hard to fit evil characters into a guild theme that is also political and leisure... but hey those blackguards must have fun sometimes, and the clerics must have followers. Religion is a political force in america right now...
hogarth 10-13-06, 11:39 AM	It's a bit hard to fit evil characters into a guild theme that is also political and leisure... but hey those blackguards must have fun sometimes, and the clerics must have followers. Religion is a political force in america right now... How about a guild of artists? Art is about politics and leisure, and it can be pretty evil sometimes. :D
Zelck 10-13-06, 11:42 AM	That's actually a pretty good idea. "I paint for the glory of Pelor!" "I can create exquisite images of pain."
Zevox 10-13-06, 12:03 PM	Realy the only thing that's missing is evil clerics since CEF is tilted towards good the evil clerics are left out. What about all the clerics of Denth the Summoner? What guild do they get? Where do the Black Guards hang out? If there is a good divine guild, there should be an evil one as well. They can get all the evil undead as well. It's a bit hard to fit evil characters into a guild theme that is also political and leisure... but hey those blackguards must have fun sometimes, and the clerics must have followers. Religion is a political force in america right now... Well, the EHTC is going to have a Blackguard once the upper leagues thaw and Asran levels up, and we'd be happy to be served by some more ;) . We've even got a resident Archdevil-in-disguise and another Archevil's son :devil: . But I see your point - thats something I noticed with my own evil Druid, Destra, is that since TLT is based on principles of nature that she abhores, the only Guild even remotely appealing to her is WAR. Not exactly a best fit. I suppose Telin's summoner-clerics are in much the same situation. The problems as I see them with such a theme is that it would either need to be a very secretive Guild - which just turns it into a more religious, less buisnesslike EHTC - or it would become an instant enemy and target to the CEF and any other Guild that decides they can't stand evil folks, which (trust me) is not a fun position to be in. Plus how you come up with a theme that would unify the various different sorts of evil Clerics and Blackguards you'll run into given that D&D has a variety of evil Deities/beliefs, not all of which are friendly with each other, is tough. Zevox
McJarvis 10-13-06, 12:34 PM	Didn't go into specifics the first time through, but I think this will work fine. Howabout a guild that is dedicated to 1) fighting for the political rights of people to do what they want & enjoy what they want, and 2) Enjoying themselves how they want & with what they want. It would probably be geared to be more neutral...maybe evil? Casino's, escort services, drugs of varying degrees(from cafeine-type stuff to ...the darker drugs, which are never mentioned in public), animal fights, and basically anything service-oriented(so this organisation does not encroach on the EHTC's right to commerce/industry). I haven't come up with a name yet, but I think every guild needs something they are actively fighting for. Problem with EYE was that their goals were...unclear. This guild would be fighting for freedom. :D
Caterane 10-13-06, 12:51 PM	What about the Bonesnatcher's Guild? That was one of the first reoccuring things in the coco. Necromancers, dark clerics, rogues... However, since we already have two alignment based guilds with CEF and EHT we should rather look for a guild that's not based on it else it might tip the favor to one side. What about making EYE into a thieves guild? That's a clear theme. Or a citizens group that's composed of native Gladiosians who want to make sure their city does not plunge into corruption or the hands of another guild? Or if we need a favorite theme: what about a guild of monarchists. Nobles and loyalists who want to bring back a king to the City State of Gladius? Pol/Lei, naturally. And a natural enemy of the republican Council of Gladius. Ah I like the last one the best!
McJarvis 10-13-06, 12:54 PM	Or if we need a favorite theme: what about a guild of monarchists. Nobles and loyalists who want to bring back a king to the City State of Gladius? Pol/Lei, naturally. And a natural enemy of the republican Council of Gladius. Ah I like the last one the best! If that were the case, all the members would have to RP that they are a part of the same family tree, wouldn't they? Of course, we could just say that when a forest-gnome joins the humans he's a distant fifteenth cousin by marraige that we don't talk about anymore....
Caterane 10-13-06, 12:56 PM	You think a monarchy has only nobles as supporters?
McJarvis 10-13-06, 12:58 PM	You think a monarchy has only nobles as supporters? I just imagined everyone is "in the family" in one way or another. ;) edit- I guess I just wasn't thinking. I just imagined it as "one family subjugates everyone else". It's cool though. Why do they want a monarchy back? There must be a _reason_. Perceived corruption in current council?
TheMagister 10-13-06, 01:02 PM	Why would it be "unbalancing" to have two evil guilds? Fantasy-wise, isn't good out-numbered more often than not? And isn't CEF big enough (almost) to make two of any other type of guild? I think that if we need another evil guild for those chaotic/neutral/unbusinesslike-except-for-hedonistic-pleasure-as-a-business bad guys, who are we to stifle that growth? TM
Zevox 10-13-06, 01:11 PM	What about the Bonesnatcher's Guild? That was one of the first reoccuring things in the coco. Necromancers, dark clerics, rogues... However, since we already have two alignment based guilds with CEF and EHT we should rather look for a guild that's not based on it else it might tip the favor to one side. Naw. You do that and the EHTC just might lose The Undertaker ;) . What about making EYE into a thieves guild? That's a clear theme. Eh, isn't the EHTC already supposed to attract thieves? Controlling the underworld and illegal buisnesses of Gladius and all that? Or if we need a favorite theme: what about a guild of monarchists. Nobles and loyalists who want to bring back a king to the City State of Gladius? Pol/Lei, naturally. And a natural enemy of the republican Council of Gladius. Ah I like the last one the best! Actually, I think I like that one quite a lot, too. If that got made I'd probably make a character for it - well, once one of my current ones freezes, anyway. I make another character and I'll be pushing my credit flow beyond its limits unless I start activating some only once every 3rd week :( . Zevox
Gonbow 10-13-06, 01:26 PM	I just imagined everyone is "in the family" in one way or another. ;) edit- I guess I just wasn't thinking. I just imagined it as "one family subjugates everyone else". It's cool though. Why do they want a monarchy back? There must be a _reason_. Perceived corruption in current council? Reasons? Okay. 1. Denied birthright. "My lord Jarvis shall have his birthright recognized by you councilmen of Gladius, for he is the one true king!" 2. Restore tradition. "Youngsters now adays do not uphold the noble traditions of our past. The arena is all well and good, but where has our jousting, chivalry and knights of yore gone? The people need the firm hand of a royal family to guide them into the path of right!" 3. Gain advantage. "If Jarvis were to actually gain his throne, who do you think he would be beholden too, my friend Horis? Those that helped him gain it of course... And if he becomes a nuisance, well, the laws of succession are so much easier to manipulate than the votes of doddering fools." 4. Cult of pesonality "Truly, he is a king already. Where he walks, we bow. When he speaks, even the most wretched scum of our fair city is arrested and must listen. His will is done and his fate is clear. It merely remains to us, those that recognize his greatness, to say that he is King in name as well as deed." And those are just generalized ideas ^_^
McJarvis 10-13-06, 01:30 PM	And those are just generalized ideas ^_^ I'll blame my unfamiliarity with these ideas on my being an American Socialist. :) While I do so-love my Casino! idea, I get the feeling that the nobility/royalty thing will have more popular support as well as more broad role-playability.
Abyssal Stalker 10-13-06, 02:30 PM	Naw. You do that and the EHTC just might lose The Undertaker ;) . Nah, we have a deal. He gets corpses to play with and the company can practice their business. No necromancer guild can get hi mback to burying coffins with the corpse replaced with a couple of dead dogs. That's just too risky. :emp:
MindWandererB 10-13-06, 02:47 PM	Didn't go into specifics the first time through, but I think this will work fine. Howabout a guild that is dedicated to 1) fighting for the political rights of people to do what they want & enjoy what they want, and 2) Enjoying themselves how they want & with what they want. It would probably be geared to be more neutral...maybe evil? Casino's, escort services, drugs of varying degrees(from cafeine-type stuff to ...the darker drugs, which are never mentioned in public), animal fights, and basically anything service-oriented(so this organisation does not encroach on the EHTC's right to commerce/industry). I haven't come up with a name yet, but I think every guild needs something they are actively fighting for. Problem with EYE was that their goals were...unclear. This guild would be fighting for freedom. :DAhh, you beat me to it. I was just contemplating a concept like this--sort of hedonistic anarchists. I was thinking they'd be more chaotic neutral, which I think would be great--ATM, we have three lawful guilds, four neutral ones, and no chaotic ones; by replacing EYE with a chaotic neutral guild, we'd have one LG, one LE, and one CN, a good balance. My preliminary name was the Luckhandler's Association (LHA), to downplay their political agenda to the general population and keep them out of trouble, but perhaps you can do better. Another tack might be a guild that's more about pure anarchy. Less fun-loving, more mayhem. Destra might be right at home here. Monarchists... I personally don't see it being that popular, but that's what the poll will be for. I do think it's important to try to avoid poaching from other guilds. Technically, evil clerics, blackguards, etc. are under the purview of EHTC. I mean, look at their title-page picture! I'd rather steal some rogue-types or chaos-lovers from them, if any such thing has to happen. Annix, for instance, might be happier in another guild (being the only non-evil member), and perhaps Annalina as well. But if at all possible, I'd rather the new guild not overlap with any one existing guild in particular. Again, that's why I think being CN-ish might be appropriate, since no existing guild seems to have attracted many chaotic members.
McJarvis 10-13-06, 02:57 PM	Monarchists... I personally don't see it being that popular, but that's what the poll will be for. You know, I hadn't thought of it, but the Monarchy thing does tie in with the "lawful" theme that seems to be around all the other guilds...something chaotic sounds like fun >=] (granted it was my idea, but disregard that for the time being...)
Gonbow 10-13-06, 03:47 PM	You know, I hadn't thought of it, but the Monarchy thing does tie in with the "lawful" theme that seems to be around all the other guilds...something chaotic sounds like fun >=] (granted it was my idea, but disregard that for the time being...) Well, the derth of chaotic guilds is explained rather easily... a guild is an organized group of people, generally arranged in a hierarchal manner! Doesn't sound very chaotic to me. MTG had the same problem with getting certain 'chaotic' combinations to get 'guilds' (U/R, R/G, R/B) and did a slight cop out by establishing the reasons for why they were guilds in the past, then 'devolved' them into their current chaotic, but still-legally-guilds form. Whereas here in CoCo, we have to start both legal and chaotic, which is a tall order to fill. That said, monarchists are quite capable of being chaotic. If anything, they are very chaotic in that they are actively and visibly going against the grain of the 'Republic' which is the established lawful order and attempting to overthrow it with a remarkably more unstable one. (Royals and nobles spend alot of their time messing with each-other and creating vast amounts of chaos over petty incidents. For example, a glance between a maid in waiting and a scion can cause all kinds of problems, as per Shakespeare's plays. Pretty chaotic, neh? The exceptions are there of course, but every caste has it's exceptions.) Of course, if they guild ever gets what it wants, it will suddenly morph into 'lawful', but lawful and chaotic are pretty abstract concepts anyways.
Zelck 10-13-06, 05:29 PM	OK, I hope this list is a bit better this time :). 01: Achaierai [CR5] 02: Air, Earth, Fire, or Water Elemental, Large [CR5] 03: Arrowhawk, Adult [CR5] 04: Barghest, Greater [CR5] 05: Basilisk [CR5] 06: Black or Green Dragon, Young [CR5] 07: Bronze, Copper, Red, or Silver Dragon, Very Young [CR5] 08: Cloaker [CR5] 09: Aasimar Sorceror 4 [CR5] 10: Devil, Bearded (Barbazu) [CR5] 11: Dire Lion [CR5] 12: Half-Celestial Satyr (with pipes) [CR5] 13: Half-Dragon Ogre [CR5] 14: Genie, Djinni [CR5] 15: Gibbering Mouther [CR5] 16: Gold Dragon, Wyrmling [CR5] 17: Hag, Green [CR5] 18: Hydra, Six-Headed [CR5] 19: Lycanthrope, Werebear [CR5] 20: Celestial Half-Silver Dragon Blink Dog [CR5] 21: Manticore [CR5] 22: Monstrous Spider, Huge [CR5] 23: Mummy [CR5] 24: Nightmare [CR5] 25: Ooze, Ochre Jelly [CR5] 26: Phase Spider [CR5] 27: Pixie (with Irresistable Dance) [CR5] 28: Xeph Soulknife 5 [CR5] 29: Half-Dragon Orc Barbarian 1/Fighter2[CR5] 30: Shadow Mastiff [CR5] 31: Skeleton, Ettin [CR5] 32: Sphinx, Hieracosphinx [CR5] 33: Spider Eater [CR5] 34: Troll [CR5] 35: Phrenic Vampire Spawn [CR5] 36: Winter Wolf [CR5] 37: Half-Giant Monk1/Psychic Warrior 3 [CR5] 38: Unbodied [CR5] 39: 1d3 Ankheg [CR3] 40: 1d3 Arrowhawk, Juvenile [CR3] 41: 1d3 Black, Blue, Brass, Bronze, or Green Dragon, Wyrmling [CR3] 42: 1d3 Centaur [CR3] 43: Elf Fighter 4 and Heavy Warhorse [CR4 & CR2] 44: 1d3 Derro [CR3] 45: 1d3 Dinosaur, Deinonychus [CR3] 46: Fiendish Rhinocerous [CR5] 47: 1d3 Dire Wolf [CR3] 48: 1d3 Eagle, Giant [CR3] 49: 2 Ettercaps and 1 Spider Swarm [CR3 & CR1] 50: 1d3 Formian Warrior [CR3] 51: 1d3 Ghast [CR3] 52: 1d3 Giant Wasp [CR3] 53: Half-Fiendish Minotaur [CR5] 54: 1d3 Howler [CR3] 55: Duergar Monk 4 [CR5] 56: 1d3 Lycanthrope, Werewolf [CR3] 57: 1d3 Magmin [CR3] 58: 1d3 Mephits, Any [CR3] 59: 1d3 Monstrous Scorpion, Large [CR3] 60: 1d3 Ogre [CR3] 61: 1d3 Gnoll Ranger 1 and 1d3 Hyenas [CR2 and CR1] 62: 1d3 Pegasus [CR3] 63: 1d3 Rust Monster [CR3] 64: 1d3 Celestial Leopards and 1d3 Wild Elf Rogues [CR2 and CR1] 65: 1d3 Shadow [CR3] 66: 1d3 Skeleton, Troll [CR3] 67: 1d3 Swarm, Locust [CR3] 68: 1d3 White Dragon, Very Young [CR3] 69: 1d3 Wight [CR3] 70: 1d3 Xorn, Minor [CR3] 71: 1d3 Yeth Hound [CR3] 72: 1d3 Zombie, Ogre [CR3] 73: 1d3 Crysmal [CR3] 74: 1d3 Temporal Filcher [CR3] 75: 2d2 Ape [CR2] 76: 1 Minotaur and 1d3 Orc Fighter 1 [CR4 and CR1] 77: 2d2 Azer [CR2] 78: 1d3 Half-Fiend Bugbear [CR3] 79: 1 Aranea Sorceror 1 [CR5] 80: 2d2 Demon, Dretch [CR2] 81: 2d2 Dire Badger [CR2] 82: 2d2 Dire Bat [CR2] 83: 2d2 Giant Ant, Soldier [CR2] 84: Drow Warrior 2, Drow Wizard 1, and Drow Cleric 1[CR2] 85: 2d2 Lycanthrope, Wererat [CR2] 86: 2 Worgs and 2 Goblin Warrior 3 [CR2 and CR1] 87: 2d2 Monstrous Spider, Large [CR2] 88: 2d2 Satyr [CR2] 89: 2d2 Shocker Lizard [CR2] 90: 3 Kobold Sorceror 1, 1 Ogre [CR1 and CR3] 91: 2d2 Skum [CR2] 92: 2d2 Swarm, Bat [CR2] 93: Halfling Druid 5 with Cheetah animal companion [CR5] 94: 2d2 Vargouille [CR2] 95: 2d2 White Dragon, Wyrmling [CR2] 96: 1d3 Fiendish Worg [CR3] 97: 2d2 Zombie, Bugbear [CR2] 98: 2 Goblin Cleric 2 and 2 Goblin Warrior 3 [CR2 and CR1] 99: Dromite Wilder 4 [CR5] 00: Blue Shaper 4 [CR5] 666: Celestial Half-Red Dragon Half-White Dragon Spider Swarm [CR5]
TheMagister 10-13-06, 05:39 PM	Celestial Half-Red Dragon Half-White Dragon Spider Swarm [CR5] That is a LOT of "Afterglow" cigarettes, man. Also, it's the perfect "If you don't have lightning bolt or Energy Substitution (electricity) prepared, YOU LOSE" monster.
MindWandererB 10-13-06, 05:46 PM	Just one recommendation: #93, the halfling druid: you should probably upgrade the animal companion to the highest-level category the druid can get. Keeping it low-level forces the pitlord to advance the pet by hand, which is a pain. A cheetah, dire badger, or dire weasel might be better. And while the CHRDHWDSS is funny, it's confusing to leave it on the list, since it can't be rolled (mercifully!). Cat will just take it out, anyway.
Zelck 10-13-06, 05:50 PM	Just one recommendation: #93, the halfling druid: you should probably upgrade the animal companion to the highest-level category the druid can get. Keeping it low-level forces the pitlord to advance the pet by hand, which is a pain. A cheetah, dire badger, or dire weasel might be better. Done. Now it's a cheetah. And while the CHRDHWDSS is funny, it's confusing to leave it on the list, since it can't be rolled (mercifully!). Cat will just take it out, anyway. Awww... well, I'll leave it up there for now ;).
Caterane 10-13-06, 07:59 PM	I think the partying theme is reserved for WAR. An anarchists guild would hardly attract much followers or become a guild at all; more an underground movement which is not that different from EYE. A group of monarchists is a very attractive theme IMO and can attract all classes and all alignemnts. It fit PERFECTLY to POL/LEI.
MindWandererB 10-13-06, 08:08 PM	All right, this discussion has degenerated into an argument. Since there's obviously a lot of interest, and a lot of ideas, I'm going to take this to the next level and create a submissions thread. It'll be up in a bit.
Zelck 10-16-06, 03:34 AM	By the way, was the ECL5 list I posted OK? Are there any ways I can make it better?
Caterane 10-16-06, 03:42 AM	Yes it was ok and I've added it to the list. I leave the monster lists permanently open for improvement. Anyone who thinks he can switch a monster with a more interesting one can propose it. +2° btw
MindWandererB 10-16-06, 04:03 AM	Yes it was ok and I've added it to the list. I leave the monster lists permanently open for improvement. Anyone who thinks he can switch a monster with a more interesting one can propose it. +2° btw Speaking of which, after seeing Zelck's lists, I think the existing lists should be changed in one way: all instances of 1d3 monsters should be turned into 2d2-1. That makes unfair fights (especially ECL vs. 1d3 ECL-2, where EL=ECL is less likely than an EL=ECL-2 or EL=ECL+1) less likely. So 1d3+1 would become 2d2, and 1d3+2 would be 2d2+1.
Maraxus 10-16-06, 08:07 AM	After heaving them fealt once again, I have to complain about monster fights. They are not fair - in an unnecessary way. Let me sort my arguments from the weak to the strong points: - At anything but the earliest level, Monsters of CR X are stronger then characters of that challenge raiting. They are meant to be a nice challenge for a (good organised) group of 4. And because the rule #*2 -> CR+2 does not really work for good organised groups the old rule that it is also a 50:50 fight for 1 character does not really apply. HOWEVER, CoCo characters are Min/Maxed to the top and usually designed with solo combat in mind. So basicly they could do it. And because there is no better way to handle it (to that point), simply pair the characters against monsters of their CR. This point is only to make one thing clear: Fighting a monster of your CR is allready a very hard job! -However in the CoCo, the monsters have unfair advantages on top of their power: Separate thread fights are not common (obviously - they are more "nonexistant") so the player has to sent a tactic. The monster does not have to, because the monster is the pitlord (hey, how does that sound? ;) ). It can react in on it's best abilities (mental stats) to any situation. The player can't do that, the numper of possible events in a fight is infinitly big. The player can't even come close to that now, which is the first big point: Knowledge skills. I totally support the idea, that any skill should have a use, but the way, this is ruled now is bad! Sure, it's bad, if a character knows that super-exotic monster XY will likely use super-secret ability AB and acts to prevent this, even if his character has never heard of the monster ... which is a bad rule in itself. Not only do you need to be a really high level Sage to realise the diffrence between a dwarf and an elf, or to identify which race you are yourself, it also means, that 50% off all humans don't even know, what a human is. And please don't say "Simply spend some points in knowledge skills if you don't like it. Look at the DCs. Consider that most knowledge skills are cross-class to most classes and that you need a whole lot of them to realise the diffrent types. Even is you max out knowledge, you have a hart time spotting the diffrence between a gelantinous cube, a Dragon and a Zombie-Giant (save wizards as the only exception). This leads to the really bad fact, that you (and your tactic) can not only not react on very rare situations, like in Gladiator vs. Gladiator fights, it also means you robably won't react proper to common situations. The example above said, that a character should not be able to try to prevent a secret attack before it is comming, but the player should know it anyway, so he can - at least - write tactics for what happens, if he is hit by the attack. And I had no problems with a character knowing an opponent even without the apropriate skills. The rolls to identify are only one possible thing. He could also have experience with that kind of opponent allready, it could be a racial or class enemy, or much more simple: his coach told him anything he needs to know before the fight. This would also negate another unfair point: Why the hell does the monster know exactly what enemy is waiting for it without any ranks in knowledge? It knows Type, levels, even equipment and can make the best tactics for it. It can even buy his whole equipment around this target!!! - Which directly leads to the next point. Monsters have no equipment! NPCs have!! If you give a monster equipment and make it an NPC, it's CR is equal to it's ECL, which is usually around twice as high (okay, in that case it would not be the overpowered kind of CR I described initially but still: Freaking twice as high!!!) Monsters that are supposed to come with equipment (look at the angels) have this in thier monster description. And monsters with class levels should still get their wealth for those levels, of course, but not "Every monster get's free stuff like an NPC of it's CR." Oh, a last point I almost forgot: Monster don't have to be miserly with thier expendables, nor are they effected by the 1/3 rule or the 3FC rule. Because of all those reasons, fights at allready "insane" difficulty (that kind of "insane difficulty" I like) becomes simply to much. Thanks for your time. Maraxus PS: reading this once again, I realise, that this is no great post from the methodical point. If I should value the impact of "Tactics and knowledge" - "Monsters with wealth" and "Monsters without 1/3 and 3FC Limitations", I would say it's all 3 about equally important, if I used much more words for the first part, it's only because I think it's more difficult to understand explain. :rooleyes:
lonewolf 10-16-06, 08:13 AM	Thanks for writing this all up Maraxus. I totally agree with you. greets lonewolf
Abyssal Stalker 10-16-06, 08:39 AM	Could someone tell me how on earth this is supposed to be balanced: I can create a minotaur character. He has 6 monstrous humanoid HD and a +2 LA. This puts him to the ECL8 league. I run a miniquest for a level 4 character. I can put him against a minotaur because it is CR4. So this guy is ruling supreme in the ECL4 league. I know that there are things like 36pt buy and the amount of equipment messing things up, but I don't think they are enough to explain a cap of 4 levels. (Cross-posted from the tavern. Maraxus, did yo read my mind, eh?)
Maraxus 10-16-06, 09:00 AM	Could someone tell me how on earth this is supposed to be balanced: I can create a minotaur character. He has 6 monstrous humanoid HD and a +2 LA. This puts him to the ECL8 league. I run a miniquest for a level 4 character. I can put him against a minotaur because it is CR4. So this guy is ruling supreme in the ECL4 league. I know that there are things like 36pt buy and the amount of equipment messing things up, but I don't think they are enough to explain a cap of 4 levels. (Cross-posted from the tavern. Maraxus, did yo read my mind, eh?) Basicly from the game design (that is more designed for 30 point buy, iirc, 36 should have it easy ;) ) this is, because money makes half the power. So "Minotaurus" is worth 4 CR and "ECL 8 money" makes another 4 CR for the ECL 8 character. Okay, I've got to correct my post above, An CR 4 Minotaurus with ECL 4 money would only be CR 6. Apart from that, there are powers, that are more or less useful in the hands of players as compared to in the hands of monsters, that only last one encounter (Specificly mind control/spawning powers and "always active mystic stuff" is worth more, 1/day stuff is worth less), that is why ECL without class level is not allways exactly CR*2 (or not even close to that in the specific case of the vampire ;) ).
hogarth 10-16-06, 09:20 AM	After heaving them fealt once again, I have to complain about monster fights. They are not fair - in an unnecessary way. Let me sort my arguments from the weak to the strong points: [good points deleted] Because of all those reasons, fights at allready "insane" difficulty (that kind of "insane difficulty" I like) becomes simply to[o] much. I like the idea of monster fights, but I think the monster lists need to be fine-tuned a bit. I think there's too much variability of power levels within the tables since some creatures are much tougher for their CR than others. For instance a barghest (powerful spell-like abilities, double standard treasure) is very difficult for an ECL4 character, but most would make mincemeat out of an otyugh (weak damage, slow, disease is useless in Gladius). I would suggest that someone should go through the monster tables more carefully and prune out the worst examples (e.g. barghest, young white dragon for ECL 4). On the other hand, though, I wouldn't like to see monster fights become an "auto-win" situation. I think someone went through the arena monster fights (not miniquests) and found that there was about a 50% ratio of wins/losses -- about what one should expect, in my opinion.
Maraxus 10-16-06, 09:41 AM	Is a Baghest really that tough? Well, anyway, about dragons this was admitted by WotC, that they have lower CR then their Difficulty should produce. The two points for this were: 1. They are in the title of the game, they shall be feared. - I can't really agree with this point. Strong opponents are fearsome, but the monsters are as strong as the dm wants them to be. Low CR at high power just means that they are less revarding then they should be (in normal campains, no relation to CoCo) 2. Dragons are famous enough, that the players will be able to properly prepare for them. - I really did not make that up myself and I don't support that, too. I guess more then enough reasons why it is this way are obvious. So yes, I think keeping the list clear of "player killers" is okay. Zelck posted an ECL 5 list above? Are other CoCo lists allready done, too? I'd like to take a look at them. About the auto-win sitation: Yes, this is a bad point at the lower levels (3 to about 5.5), where wizards allready have some levitation readied and the monsters can hardly fly or fire yet.
SauroGrenom 10-16-06, 10:32 AM	:surrender Yes some monsters have ECL, and that ECL is way way over the ECL of the characters that fight them in a monster fight. I'm reminded of the Half Fiend Cleric. I think it's on the CR9 list with 7 class levels and the half fiend template... An ECL11 foe with a full compliment of spells and NPC equipment. I'm also reminded of the Frost Giant. That's a CR9 foe with ECL18 and a humanoid shape so it can use all equipment. If you start looking at advancing other monsters with racial HD, you see it gets out of had quickly as well. You can advance a Griffon with 14HD and the elite array to produce an ECL24 cohort that's only CR10. Now give it NCP ECL10 equipment (boots of speed, ring of protection, that amulet that casts mage hand, a few potions, mithral full plate armor) and you've got a foe that will certianly defeat any ECL10 character with its 250hp and astronomical AC and 5 additional feats (1 is epic). You can make an Unbodied with 12 levels of barbarian or fighter and that's still a CR10 (non associated class levels) opponent although it's ECL20. If I could play that character even with 25 point buy and NPC equipment, I'd mop up everyone in ECL10 (now imagine if they couldn't see my character sheet either :evillaugh then I don't submit tactics because the pitlord just imrovises what's best for me at all times :mymy: ). So I agree with you. Monster fights and even quests with encounters at CR=ECL are a bit too hard. This is especially so when up against advanced foes or monsters with intelligence or spell casting ability. The missmatch become more exagerated as CR increases. Seriously what ECL13 character fighting in the 3FC with an expendibles cap and 1/3 rule can hope to defeat an ogre with 20 wizard levels that has no such limitations? Technicially that's a CR13 creature. The ogre even could have a few craft item feats and get tons of wondrous items and scrolls packed into it's wealth limit. The ogre could even have the leadership feat and be followed by another monster of simular potency (and not effect the CR of the encounter). The Half-Red Dragon Treant is ECL15, but only CR 10 with DR10/slashing, immunity to fire and all plant immunities. I could probably build a dozen such monsters that have an ECL and a CR and the ECL is vastly more powerfull than their CR suggests. What we have is the fact that CR is intended to be a measure of a challange for a party. Also we have the fact that CoCo characters are a bit overpowered, and that they are optimized to fight single opponents (few or no area spells on our wizards). We also know that CR calculations show a good matchup for a single party member is ECL-4=CR. Also we know that all our characters are super optimized and overpowered, so they can handle a CR above their typical ECL. We've so far just made the simple assumption that the optimization of our CoCo charaters counters the need for the rest of the party. Perhaps we are giving our players too much credit. Perhaps the average CoCo ECL10 rely cannot handle an 11 headed hydra or Guardian Naga or Fire Giant or Bebilith or Adult White Dragon. In any case if we were to weaken the encounters, then the rewards for those encounters would drop. Thos rewards are drawn streight from the tables in the Core Books. If you want to campaign for monster fights and quests at CR-4 or even CR-2, then you have a case, but you'll need to compromise on rewards for those encounters. I'm not going to advocate for one side or the other realy. I can understand the frustration against encounters with CR way above your "Party ECL", but I can also understand that players like high rewards (and the rewards are appropreat as they are now).
TheMagister 10-16-06, 10:42 AM	I have an idea: Why not let Pitlords hand out monster fights in this fashion - Pairings day: Joe (Niqil) vs. Harvey (MindwandererB): Vathelokai [Temple] xxxxxxx (????) vs. Unknown Monster: TheMagister [Plains] Pitlords rolls the monster on the appropriate table. Then, Pitlords sends the "xxxxxx (?????)" player a PM telling them that they've drawn a monster fight, and that (based on their knowledge skills) they either a) know what it is, or b) get a rough description, or c) have no freaking idea. Player X writes tactics and sends them back to pitlords. Then the pitlord gets a PM telling him what monster he will be controlling, and (based on the monster's knowledge skills) either a) the pitlord knows who he's facing, or b) the pitlord gets a rough description of the character's abilities, or c) the pitlord has no clue. The pitlord writes tactics and sends them back to Pitlords. When Pitlords gets both sets of tactics, he makes a post in the battles thread with both sets of tactics posted at the same time, and makes a post in the FotW thread as a notice that tactics for pitlord and player have now been posted and that the pitlord can proceed with posting character sheets and fights in a seperate post. Everyone's blind except those who have no bearing on the contest. The pitlord will have the guidelines set forth in his tactics that he has to adhere to, and if he deviates it'll look fishy. Variation on this could be: Pitlords/Caterane is too busy for this extra work. He picks someone to be Monsterlords and that account rolls monsters and gets all the PMs for monsterfights. I dunno...I think that sounds pretty good... TM
lonewolf 10-16-06, 10:51 AM	I think there are 2 points that are the main problems: - Equipment: Seriously, how many Dragons in your RL campaigns have the whole treasure in magic items that they wear? I dont accept the reasoning that it is part of their CR, because if it was, every monster in the MM would be outfitted with such magic items already, but they are not. Adding that equipment to the monsters increases the CR at least by a point or two. An exception to this are of course monsters with Class levels. - Unability to react to monster abilities: In a table-D&D situation, if you encounter a monster you may have no idea what its capable of, but that changes after the first few rounds which gives you the chance to adopt your tactics mid-combat. That is not possible in the CoCo, and unfortunately I dont have an easy solution for this problem, except if both player and pitlord agree to seperate fight threads.
SauroGrenom 10-16-06, 12:05 PM	TM, The main problem with your idea is that it's more work for Pitlords. To run one fight he has to send two PM's and he must make a post in the battles thread for each battle... That doesn't sound like much, but on top of everything else Cat does, it's extra work for little gain. The secondary problem with the idea is that it only addresses the smallest of the imbalances in a solo fight at your CR. Most monsters don't have long lists of various combat abilities and class features. Tactics are simple and streightforward for a hydra or even a dragon. Intelligent and spell casting monsters are not the norm. Tactics of a monster are not the biggest problem. The problem is rapid increase in diversity of monsters and the relative invulnerability of monsters as level increases. At ECL 3 everyone in the party could take out the CR3 Ogre with some luck and planning. However what is a barbarian going to do against the CR10 9 headed cyro hydra? Unless the barbarian can fly and has a most increadible bow, there's nothing he can do against this opponent with fast healing 19. I suppose you could optimize a barbarian to have the best chances in that battle, but even so he'd be helpless against the Unbodied with 12 fighter levels in the sewer or against the Adult White Dragon. If you want to deal with the overpowering monsters problem, then the tactics issue is icing on the cake. The real problem is that at low levels a fighter can get bye almost all foes without a cleric or mage to back them up. This is because strange supernatural or spell casting abilities are rare at low levels. But at high levels there are just so many monsters with spellcasting or supernatural abilities or flight, the melee and ranged characters cannot have the diversity necessary to deal with it all. Also the CoCo limits of the 3FC and 1/3 rule and expendables cap are not placed on monsters. Infact I would contend that melee characters do not even have the melee strength to deal with melee monsters (like a hydra) with CR=character's ECL unless they are fighting in a favorable environment. But even so, isn't that what CoCo is all about? Making your solo character so tough they can go it alone against anything is the whole point. Right?
Zelck 10-16-06, 12:19 PM	Well, one simple fix is to make all class levels add +1 CR per class level, instead of that 1/2 for some class levels. The Hydra is probably not a fair thing to compare fighters against because they're specifically designed to punish fighters. It's probably the equivalent of throwing a golem at a caster. As for the 3FC issues, we could just enforce a 1/3 rule on their spells and x/day abilities. Also, we could make expendables cost triple gold for monsters. There is one other issue I'm worried about. A lot of monsters have no chance against, say, a hider like Noko. Of the remaining monsters, most of them should be able to negate the hiding+sniping and win easily. In other words, a monster fight for such characters is basically an auto-loss.
TheMagister 10-16-06, 12:35 PM	TM, The main problem with your idea is that it's more work for Pitlords. To run one fight he has to send two PM's and he must make a post in the battles thread for each battle... That doesn't sound like much, but on top of everything else Cat does, it's extra work for little gain. Variation on this could be: Pitlords/Caterane is too busy for this extra work. He picks someone to be Monsterlords and that account rolls monsters and gets all the PMs for monsterfights. The secondary problem with the idea is that it only addresses the smallest of the imbalances in a solo fight at your CR. Most monsters don't have long lists of various combat abilities and class features. Tactics are simple and streightforward for a hydra or even a dragon. Intelligent and spell casting monsters are not the norm. Tactics of a monster are not the biggest problem. I think that lack of diverse tactical choices are the monsters' biggest weaknesses. As far as the monsters being too tough...I don't think that there is a formula that exists that can take into account all the different variables that judge how effective a monster is in a given situation against a given character when it is equiped with variable equipment by variable pitlords. It's just too complex. Now, we might choose to eliminate from the lists any monsters that can be advanced by Class Level, leaving only HD advancement for the higher echelons. TM
hogarth 10-16-06, 02:34 PM	You can make an Unbodied with 12 levels of barbarian or fighter and that's still a CR10 (non associated class levels) opponent although it's ECL20. By the way, this calculation is incorrect. Unassociated class levels only count for 1/2 up to the monster's original hit dice, then 1 thereafter. So the actual CR is: 5 + 4/2 + 8 = 15. If you had picked an NPC class like Warrior, then you'd be closer: 5 + 12/2 = 11.
MindWandererB 10-16-06, 03:30 PM	There are a few things that all this arguing fails to consider. 1) The treasure for a monster is generally much less than the wealth of an NPC of their ECL. Okay, dragons. But that comparison isn't otherwise fair. 2) Straight monsters use the standard ability array (11,11,11,10,10,10). That make a huge difference. 3) Pitlords are supposed to equip the monster before checking out the PC's sheet, and write tactics before the fight begins. That's the rule already; if people aren't following it, it's not the fault of the rules. 4) Most importantly: If you count up all the monster fights, you will see that the monster wins only around half the time. (We've checked this regularly; the only PCs that lose to monsters disproportionately more often are the ones who have great win ratios vs. PCs, and especially those who are designed exclusively to fight PCs and have no anti-monster contingencies.) This suggests that monster fights are fair as-is. However, I do have one suggestion, and one option if people feel it's necessary. 1) The powerrating calculation is off. Monsters all have powerratings of 1000. That's just completely misleading. Monster fights should either not affect the PC's powerratings at all (because they say nothing about the PC's PvP capabilities), or they should increase/decrease the rating by a flat 100 (as if they had the same rating as the PC). 2) Someone else can write tactics for the monster. The pitlord can create an equipment list, then PM it to someone else, preferably a pitlord who's also running a monster fight that week. That way, the tactics are set in stone before the fight starts.
hogarth 10-16-06, 04:02 PM	4) Most importantly: If you count up all the monster fights, you will see that the monster wins only around half the time. (We've checked this regularly; the only PCs that lose to monsters disproportionately more often are the ones who have great win ratios vs. PCs, and especially those who are designed exclusively to fight PCs and have no anti-monster contingencies.) This suggests that monster fights are fair as-is. I'm worried that the actual breakdown is more like: 20% - weak monster => very easy to win for the average fighter (e.g 2 human commoner zombies/1 drow fighter 2/1 wolf skeleton for ECL3) 60% - about right => 50% chance of winning 20% - strong monster => very difficult to win unless you have specialised tactics (e.g. 2 bat swarms/1 very young white dragon for ECL3) In that case, you still end up with a 50/50 ratio but 40% of the time it's about as much fun as flipping a coin. Heads=win, tails=lose. At any rate, my recommendation would be to strip out a few of the monsters at the higher and lower end of the power scale and maybe "recommend" separate fight threads for monster fights. YMMV.
SauroGrenom 10-16-06, 05:11 PM	I'm not in the camp that thinks monster fights should be changed. It's alot of work for little gain. We are having very few monster fights now anyway. I think we'd be better using our time to discuss something Cat and I have been tossing back and forth for a while now. It's allies again. The main point is that allies still are and always will be just too good to ignore. If you don't have an ally through the leadership feat or skill package, then you are ignoring a huge dimension of diversity and power for your character. The costs to gain skill allies and leadership allies are rather limited. One feat, or a half dozen skill points and you are set! Suddenly your low modility heavily armored cleric of magic and darkness (ahem Harvester) has a great fly speed and a bunch of extra natural attacks and the ability to use a standard action while double moving. The rewards penalties are minimal, in actuality they may be advantages. You level slower, and you get more free actions to make money with. So an idea was mentioned a few months back when we were reworking the diplomacy allies. I'd like to revive the discussion on this idea. Make allies cost gold only. No xp penalty for having allies. Just a gold penalty. This means you can have your leadership cohort, but it will cost you 25% of your gold rewards in all future battles to do it. You basicially sacrifice 1 feat and 1/4 of your future wealth for a truely potent ally. I have a competing idea we can use. This one is something I just came up with, so it's not as polished and trimed yet. Basicially it is to rank players on the Roster by the "Party Level" they represent instead of the ECL. The top of the character sheet lists the ECL of the character, all his allies and the CR or ECL of all his allies. We use the normal rules for calculating the EL that everyone represents. We can even allow all sorts of other aspects of combat influince the EL of a character. We can use the normal Core Rules to determine the EL of our character and apply some ad-hoc modifiers. For example Thor is a 8th level Barbarian. If he were a party made of normal 25 point buy characters, he would have a "Party Level" of 4. But Thor is a 36 point buy CoCo character (well above the normal), so we give him an ad-hoc +1 party level. So Thor is listed in the EL5 section of the roster and he is paried against others who are also EL5. The nice thing about this system is that we can take into account many various factors that effect the difficulty of a foe and factor them into the EL you have on the roster. So if you have a cohort at ECL-2, that increases your EL by 1. If you use lots of prebuffs, then you are a higher EL. If you are mounted with a signifigant mount you are EL+1. If you have the skill package that allows you to surprise your foes, it is +1 EL. If you have the skill package that allows prebuff rounds for short durration prebuffs, +1 EL. If you have diplomacy allies, EL+1. If you have the skill package that allows you to start wherever you want on the map, EL+1. Whatever we come up with is fine. The flexibility is fantastic since we can always introduce new kinds of skill packages or fight conditions and just have them modify the EL of the encounter. We have two places we can tweek things to keep things fare and introduce new combat options. Seriously, that 3rd level rogue with the ability to catch foes in a surprise round (+1 EL) and within sneak attack distance (+1 EL) is a tough encounter. He deserves to be an EL5 encounter (or perhaps just EL4, but we can decide on how much advantage +1 EL is worth). Also that 3rd level Psion with short durration prebuff force screen and defensive precognition is a tougher encounter than the Psion without those prebuffs. That advantage should increase the EL a bit. And that cleric with custom flying diplomacy ally mount is a harder encounter than his ECL would indicate. All of these effects can be simply put where they belong, into determining the EL of the character. This idea is perfectly fare, flexable and puts combat modifying effects where they belong (modifying the EL of the encounter). So what do you think?
McJarvis 10-16-06, 05:21 PM	So what do you think? I only briefly skimmed over all you just wrote- but wouldn't this add a level of complexity to CoCo that we've been trying to avoid? I personally wouldn't mind, but... well, I guess allies are pretty complex to begin with.
False_Keraptis 10-16-06, 05:22 PM	It seems to me that one part of the monster difficulty issue is the no-autowin rule. If trivially easy monsters are weeded out, obviously the monsters' average difficulty will go way up. Note also that the player gets no such benefit: if you have literally no chance against a monster, that's just tough beans. I'm not saying I think this should be changed - I've never done a monster fight and I have no opinion on this subject yet.
McJarvis 10-16-06, 05:26 PM	It seems to me that one part of the monster difficulty issue is the no-autowin rule. If trivially easy monsters are weeded out, obviously the monsters' average difficulty will go way up. Note also that the player gets no such benefit: if you have literally no chance against a monster, that's just tough beans. I'm not saying I think this should be changed - I've never done a monster fight and I have no opinion on this subject yet. Also note that if a PC has no chance against another PC in an arena fight it is not a disqualified match-up. (haven't there been some ethereal high-level fights in this category?)
False_Keraptis 10-16-06, 05:28 PM	Make allies cost gold only. No xp penalty for having allies. Just a gold penalty. [...] I have a competing idea we can use. This one is something I just came up with, so it's not as polished and trimed yet. Basicially it is to rank players on the Roster by the "Party Level" they represent instead of the ECL. Ooh - I like both of these ideas. I like them a lot. Of course, we just added in a whole mess of new stuff; I think it's best to wait a few months before making any other major changes, even if I like those changes.
SauroGrenom 10-16-06, 05:29 PM	I only briefly skimmed over all you just wrote- but wouldn't this add a level of complexity to CoCo that we've been trying to avoid? I personally wouldn't mind, but... well, I guess allies are pretty complex to begin with. We've already got all these new skill packages that add skill checks. We also have all these allies from various sources. We also have tons of house rules about what you can and cannot do to make your character more powerfull. So far we have tried to put a box around how far any of these rules can go to keep them from being overpowered at their ECL. I'm thinking outside of the box here. Allow players to do various things that give them options to make a character powerfull in various ways. Instead of trying to force it into the same ECL and nerf some ideas cuz they are too good. Just judge the correct amount that these thing modify the power of a character, and that will boost the EL of the character. Sure you want to be a bard with a leadership cohort and 2 ECL 4 diplomacy allies and a purchased custom griffon... OK, that just boosts your EL. Instead of fighting other players who are ECL6 like you, you end up fighting other characters who are the same EL as you. The player just totals up the EL of their sheet at the top. Cat uses it to list the character in their EL on the Roster. What's complicated about that?
False_Keraptis 10-16-06, 05:32 PM	Also note that if a PC has no chance against another PC in an arena fight it is not a disqualified match-up. (haven't there been some ethereal high-level fights in this category?) Mr. Jarvis, have you already forgotten Mort's meeting with my poor, poor Fnorri the other week? :surrender
McJarvis 10-16-06, 05:33 PM	Mr. Jarvis, have you already forgotten Mort's meeting with my poor, poor Fnorri the other week? :surrender I don't like to bring up the strengths of my own characters in the council...call it me being paranoid ;) But yes, I was thinking of Mort....his primary strategy is to make fights against most opponents impossible...so he fears Monster fights. (since the ones he will likely win are auto-disqualified, and monster fights are cherry-picked to be difficult for him...ie monsters with blindsense/blindsight/scent/etc/etc). I'm a bit scared to put him on any mini-quests as well since he is so polarized. But I'm working on being adaptable. The listen-dc thingies for weapons are introducing new challenges as well.
McJarvis 10-16-06, 05:35 PM	The player just totals up the EL of their sheet at the top. Cat uses it to list the character in their EL on the Roster. What's complicated about that? Nothing when you say it that way. It just looked like a lot more when you used that huge post to say it before :-)
hogarth 10-16-06, 06:32 PM	We can use the normal Core Rules to determine the EL of our character and apply some ad-hoc modifiers. For example Thor is a 8th level Barbarian. If he were a party made of normal 25 point buy characters, he would have a "Party Level" of 4. But Thor is a 36 point buy CoCo character (well above the normal), so we give him an ad-hoc +1 party level. So Thor is listed in the EL5 section of the roster and he is paried against others who are also EL5. [..] So what do you think? I recommended a similar thing here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10202881&postcount=155). The answer was "too complicated".
lonewolf 10-16-06, 06:50 PM	I recommended a similar thing here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10202881&postcount=155). The answer was "too complicated". And I agree with that assessment. Also we invented the skill packages to give skill-users some chances against spellcasters and warriors. Punishing them for using those should not be considered at the moment IMHO.
SauroGrenom 10-16-06, 06:54 PM	I recommended a similar thing here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10202881&postcount=155). The answer was "too complicated". The difference between what you suggest and what I suggest is that you suggest that only characters will allies are treated differently than everyone else. I suggest we switch from a roster based on ECL to a roster based on EL. That means everyone is in the same boat. It's complicated to say that a subset of characters have different rules about ECL than everyone else. It's simple to say everyone uses the same system to determine EL. Also since we are trying to introduce things like prebuff rounds and surprise already, we can easily apply them to modify EL. That's far less complicated than rolling opposed checks before a combat. In a sense it's a simplification.
MindWandererB 10-16-06, 07:01 PM	Technical: PCs have the option of not bringing their allies to any given fight. So the EL will fluctuate, especially if the ally dies. The alternative would be that you must take your allies (or certain allies) with you to every match, but then I would argue that they should not stay dead during a cycle, or else the ECLs get badly messed up. There's also an issue if you pack very low-CR allies (like Alagar's warhorse or Aerryl's bat swarm), because they don't add appreciably to EL. I am all in accord with nerfing Diplomacy allies further, although I will also say that the situation has gotten a lot better in recent months, and the cost should perhaps not be as much as 25% of your earnings. There is no way in D&D rules that using this skill to gain allies is supported, and use of them should incur a "real" cost of some sort (although I don't believe it is an advantage, unless you both use money-making free activities and use no, or virtually no, expendables). Same goes for Handle Animal allies. Purchased allies I think are reasonable (compare the griffon to the Bronze griffon, and I think it's reasonable). Leadership, however, I disagree with nerfing. Granted, an ECL-2 ally is a big aid. But 1) it costs you a feat, which is a "real cost," and which most characters only get 4 of by the time they hit the frozen leagues, 2) you need a +2 Cha modifier to get an ECL 8 cohort when you're ECL 10 (and a +3 at ECL 15, if/when we get there), which means that unless you're a paladin, bard, or sorcerer, those are stat points that are coming from somewhere else, and 3) it is completely supported in the core rules--no houseruling required. The fact that you have to spend your own resources to equip them seems reasonable enough. The only "cost" in TT games that isn't represented in the CoCo is the fear of death, but that has ripple effects through the whole game. ...However... one advantage to the EL rather than ECL tables is that you don't necessarily need to go by the same rules. You could have two PCs as a permanent team, for instance. No need for feats, skills, or anything. There is some appeal to that... although it might be too confusing. ---- @hogarth: I agree, there are a lot of monster fights that are unfair one way or the other. Unfortunately, many of those are too hard for some characters and too easy for others (e.g. a pixie vs. an ECL 4 barbarian or an ECL 4 See Invis-packing wizard, or a swarm vs. someone with or without area attacks, or a hydra vs. a rogue or a wizards with Deep Slumber... hmm, funny how wizards have the advantage in all those cases). It's very difficult to balance for all PCs--there are very, very few that are way too easy or too hard for everyone.
Zelck 10-16-06, 07:03 PM	The issue with the gold penalty is that people who currently have allies aren't retroactively rebalanced (for good reason). So, someone wanting allies who starts after the rule is implemented would be a lot worse off than those who started before. The only thing I can think of to counteract this would be to wildly increase the gold penalty for the first few fights for those with allies currently, but that's not a great solution either. By the way, I don't think Ambush or prebuff rounds are enough to warrant an EL change. I'm sure a lot fewer people would get them if it did.
MindWandererB 10-16-06, 07:12 PM	By the way, I don't think Ambush or prebuff rounds are enough to warrant an EL change. I'm sure a lot fewer people would get them if it did.Not on most maps. The Temple, maybe, and theoretically in the Plains, but I think that in other areas, these abilities are largely useless. Certainly not worth a boost to EL... if I had a character eligible for these abilities, but using them (actually, trying to use them) bumped me up a league, I would avoid using them on purpose.
Gonbow 10-16-06, 07:16 PM	As a note, none of the attack and defense packages require rolls. All work on a 'take x' basis last I checked, which Ambush and Outmaneuver being 'take 0' each, where if your modifier is higher, you get it off, if it isn't, you dont. The trap one is a 'take 10' for disarming as well... etc, etc. Just a minor correction ^_^ EL instead of ECL? Brilliant!
Caterane 10-16-06, 07:20 PM	@Sauro: I'm also curious on how you want to organize that on the roster without me having to re-league every PC depending on wether he decides to enter with allies or without.
MindWandererB 10-16-06, 07:21 PM	Oh, one more thought: Say I'm considering taking the Leadership feat. That costs me a valuable feat slot, something I find I can never have enough of. It, combined with some judicious increases to my Cha score, nets me an ally of my ECL-2. But this ally bumps me up to a higher league. So at the cost of a feat, I get to engage in fights that would have been fair, if I had an ally of my ECL-2, and had my feat back. Net loss = 1 feat, Net gain = 0. Not cool.
SauroGrenom 10-16-06, 07:26 PM	I don't know about you, but I'd not like to be against the harvester when he has prebuff rounds to cast short durration buffs. Every battle he has Blacklight and haste? Or how about rope trick or meld with stone, so he can buff for 10 rounds before you have a chance to even see where he went. That strikes me as being very powerfull, and totally worth a +1 EL. Surprise, that often hurts. Against ranged attackers or spell casters, or foes with fantastic movement that could mean starting your first action down a few HP already. Luken can shoot you across the entire plains map with an arrow using divine might, deep crystal, oath bow, and psionic shot. That's basicially instant death or half way their for many characters. Regardless it's all a tangent to the main idea. The central idea is EL instead of ECL. As Gonbow points out. We can banter and argue about what is worth +1 EL and what's worth +0 EL as a later part of the discussion. Your point that EL can change durring the 3FC is well taken. Also that very low CR monsters add little to the EL is important as well. I'll have to think about this one, but I don't think it will be an insurmountable issue.
Zelck 10-16-06, 07:35 PM	I'm more in favor of the gp penalty, and we can just give existing characters a debt of some amount of gold to make things more fair. Maybe like 1/10 of their current gold value if it's a max ACL ally?
SauroGrenom 10-16-06, 07:47 PM	Oh, one more thought: Say I'm considering taking the Leadership feat. That costs me a valuable feat slot, something I find I can never have enough of. It, combined with some judicious increases to my Cha score, nets me an ally of my ECL-2. But this ally bumps me up to a higher league. So at the cost of a feat, I get to engage in fights that would have been fair, if I had an ally of my ECL-2, and had my feat back. Net loss = 1 feat, Net gain = 0. Not cool. Not exactly. There is a big difference, in my opinon, between a fellow party member and a Cohort. The Cohort is yours to keep, direct, equip, everything. The Cohort is your pet to serve as support for you. A fellow party member at ECL-2 is an independant force. He runs his own character with his own character's interests in mind. He doesn't necesarily have the equipment you want him to have, and he won't allways take the feat you want him to take, and he won't always act in combat in precisely the way you want him to act. You pay a feat and you get an ECL-2 lap dog character who does everything you say. That's very different from an ECL-2 fellow party member. That's more effective in combat than an ECL-2 party member. More importantly that's what the rules dictate is how EL is calculated.
MindWandererB 10-16-06, 07:49 PM	I don't think anyone will argue that, in theory, it should be EL--or rather, ECL + modifiers to EL (since EL is based on CR, not ECL). So far, the issues we've identified are: 1) What is worth an EL? Allies paid for with resources that could have gone to other things (and again, compare a griffon to a Bronze Griffon)? A strategic advantage? An ally that typically adds less than 1 EL? 2) What happens if you don't being the same allies every time? 3) If the entire encounter must be defeated (as is the rule for EL battles, but not ECL ones), then what about when the PC goes down but the ally doesn't? Technically, the fight should continue. And what if the ally is unbeatable (like a bat swarm in many cases)? I may add more later. ------ Re: a prebuffing Harvey: 95% of the time, he can get those buffs off without a surprise round. And if he, or anyone else, wants to Rope Trick, you need some pretty extreme measures to stop it, even in the Temple. Maybe a dragon PC, or a pegasus mount, in the Temple--but even then, unless you cripple or OHKO them, they can still go up the rope, use a CLW wand, finish their buffs, and then come down and fight. Similarly a surprise round: an alpha strike under the right circumstances makes it quite worthwhile, but those circumstances are hard to achieve. Only the Plains lets you start with LOS, and only on the diagonal, and only if the opposing player doesn't see it coming and hide in a corner. Even given all those things, Luken would have to shoot at -10 (for 630', five full range increments). It could be bad, but not very often. If the match were actually being DMed, the DM should assign a large EL increase to that condition, but none at all on other maps, or in the wrong positions, or if the opposing PC's skills are high enough to prevent the surprise round. --------- Re: Leadership allies vs. PCs: Sorry, I disagree. Another PC may not have the equipment or feat you want, but they will be doing their best to optimize in any event--and if they know that they're teamed with you forever, they'll take your strengths and weaknesses into consideration. As you will with theirs. And you'll both act in combat based on what you agree it takes to win--which is even better than a Leadership ally, because you have someone else to confer with and prevent you from making stupid mistakes. Oh, and the PC would have the same point-buy as you (36 in this case), but the Leadership ally has only 25-point-buy. And two PCs would make more money, but the Leadership ally is only a drain on resources. Do the rules say that Leadership allies increase EL? I don't think they say anything. But they do say that class allies don't. And if allies based on a class feature don't, then allies based on a feat shouldn't, either--either way, a part of the character's build is going to that ally. If you can have allies that increase your EL like this, then I think everyone should have a cohort, no feat required. That's more true to how the EL calculations are made.
SauroGrenom 10-16-06, 07:54 PM	@Sauro: I'm also curious on how you want to organize that on the roster without me having to re-league every PC depending on wether he decides to enter with allies or without. The simplest way to prevent this from being a problem is to just end the carry over death of allies durring a 3FC (a rule I never particularly liked anyway). Allies and non expendible equipment are different from scrolls and potions. You expect your sword to be there, you expect your mount to be their. CoCo is not and cannot be in every way equivalent to a campaign. We've got lots of good balancing rules into CoCo, but perhaps this one needs to go in favor of a better one. A modification to EL is IMO a more potent penalty than the risk of loosing the ally in the 3FC (and thus the use of a few skill points or one feat). The idea of imposing some kind of a penalty was the whole justification for introducing the loss of allies in the first place. This is just a more potent replacement penalty. Also it feals like a more appropreat penalty, given that what allies do for monsters is increase EL, it's the same for characters who gain allies through feats. Also loosing characters are restored to health why not the allies?
McJarvis 10-16-06, 09:13 PM	The EL thing might allow you guys to stop nerfing the thrallherd and let it have a -1 ECL ally too ;)
Zevox 10-16-06, 11:19 PM	I must say, as when hogarth suggested the same (and honestly, I'm not seeing any difference between what he suggested and whats being suggested here except the terminology used: EL instead of ECL), I'm totally opposed to the idea of changing a Gladiator's EL based on allies. We do, after all, always allow a Gladiator to choose whether or not to bring thier allies. It would be rather ridiculous to have a Gladiator fluctuating between a higher league and lower one simply based on whether or not they decide to bring thier Leadership Cohort to a particular match, and checking to see if they are or aren't makes for a huge workload increase for Cat. And I definitely don't think that the option to choose whether or not to bring an ally should be taken away - and I'm not talking about the after prebuffing thing, I mean simply not prebuffing them to begin with (eg: this week I'm having Istima leave his extra horse, Rinar, behind, to sit in wait as a backup in case Ingole falls in battle. Partly because hes not proving as useful as I'd thought, partly because he gets in the way of energy bolt/ray, partly because I feel a bit guilty using a custom horse ally like that, but the point is that I know I'd be rather annoyed if I didn't have that option). As for the consistantly used point about Harvey, his biggest ally is a class-based one anyway - Clerics and Wizards get the ability to use Animate Dead to net themselves an undead ally or two, and thats not in my mind unbalanced, considering that most such allies lose the majority of thier advantages (not to mention some hp due to the con loss) when they're made undead, and theres limitations to what the spell can create to begin with. Cat stumbled upon one that could be made into a skeleton and not lose one of its bigger advantages - flight. That just makes that particular one potent, not the spell or undead allies as a whole (not to mention that if Harvey had the Travel Domain, he wouldn't need his Nightmare for flying anyway). His diplomacy allies, while having thier tactical uses (see: flying shield vs dives in his fight with Asran), certainly aren't going to be much threat to anyone at his ECL, so its not that skill use thats the complaint with him. Not to mention that, like MWB said, I think you're very much so downplaying the cost of a feat for Leadership. Unless you're taking lots of levels with bonus feats (human Fighter 2/Psychic Warrior 2/Psion 1 or some such), you get very few. Take a look at my Annalina Vale - she'll be taking Leadership at level 6, which will be 1/3 of the selectable feats she'll have by that point. Her planned progression includes no further bonus feat levels (unless you count Endurance from a 3rd Ranger level, which really shes only taking to prevent multiclassing penalties when she gets her 4th Bard level), meaning she only gets another 4 feats afterwards, three of which come after the current frozen leagues thaw only. That is a big cost to her to get the ally she will from where I'm sitting. The suggestion of making allies reduce gold but not xp, on the other hand, I'm all for, just as I was when it was originally suggested. I think its a good way to make allies have a tangible cost to thier benefits (in addition to already having to equip them yourself, which is quite the cost in some cases - ever think that part of the reason most Leadership Cohorts are casters, particularly Clerics and Druids, is because equipping a good warrior cohort is too damn expensive? I noticed that while trying to stat one for Sir Alboreth before I decided to retire him. But thats tangential). If we're going to try to even further nerf allies, I'd be the first to call for that one as an excellent idea. And on a tangential note, I also agree that the new prebuff round/surprise round activities do not warrant an EL increase. Guys like The Harvester can already use Meld With Stone, Rope Trick, etc to get thier 10 rounds of buffing with little/no fear of intereference by foes; theres no reason that such a little thing as an extra round or two for that should warrant facing a higher level foe. And of course with random maps you have a low chance of pulling one where you can get hit in round one (impossible on the City, Sewer, and Forest at least, possibly others depending on the character), especially if you pick your starting point intelligently. Zevox
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 01:10 AM	MWB's post identifies 3 major issues so far with respect to the EL idea. 1st is what qualifies a worth a +1 EL? Various kinds of allies, various modifications to the battle field, various special starting conditions all influince the battle to one degree or another. We can debate at a later point what are all the factors and how important all of them are. I'll take this up at a later time, as I think this is the most difficult issue to deal with. 2nd is the concern about changing ECL. I do think it's unreasonable for characters to fluctuate in EL through a 3FC. However the main cause of this is the death of allies in a 3FC. If there were no death of allies, then characters would change EL only when they level or gain/loose allies. Cat already does very well at keeping track of leveling. Character gain allies only between points in the 3FC. It's not unreasonable to ask players to list their EL next to their ECL on the character sheet. Since it would only change once every 3 encounters at best, it's not difficult to monitor those changes. 3rd is the idea of defeating the encounter that has multiple elements. This is an extrapolation of the EL idea that I hadn't considered. It is kind of interesting to suggest it, but I don't think the idea gets us much by using it. I'd like to stop and make a seperate point right here. So far even those who dissagree with various things I've posted are all making points about implimentation and what is or is not worth +1 EL. This suggests there is an underlying agreement that EL is a more true measure than ECL of how tough encounters with our characters are. So far I read a general agreement from all parties that using EL would be preferable to using ECL if it's not too complicated or burdensome to do so. Now if you will permit me I'd like to put a couple of the ideas banging around in my head into a more complete and formal suggestion. 1: Everyone lists EL of their character on the sheet at the top near the ECL. This EL includes all allies, or other various factors that give you a direct tactical benefit in a battle. We will build a table that includes these factors and weights them by potency of effecting EL. 2: Artificial CoCo constructs of ally reward penalties/ ally limits/ ally death in 3FC/ prebuffing allies/ ... are all removed from the rules. You can have as many allies as you wish, and they are all applied to your character sheet and effect the character's EL. If you wish to leave some out of the battle, then do so in your t actics, but it has no effect on the EL of your character. No longer is it worthwhile to have allies on the sheet just to have diversity. If you have allies, you can go ahead and use them because they effect the EL if they are used or not (and they are restored in the next encounter if they die). 3: To calculate EL of a character we need to setup a basic equation. We can borrow from the EL calculations of the core rules and we can make a few ad-hoc bonuses we can apply as needed. The basic idea is that anything that is situational or ally related (excepting class allies) provides some kind of bonus. I think that I'll emply fractional bonuses for some things, and those are obviously rounded down as we always do in DnD. EL= Base EL + Various Mods -> rounded down to the next integer. Base EL=ECL-4 CoCo Ad-hoc bonus for being 36 point buy and optimized=+2 Each Long Durration (hour/level) Prebuff Spell Active = +.1/Spell Level Each Medium Durration (10min/level) Prebuff Spell Active = +.2/Spell Level Each Short Durration (1min/level) Prebuff Spell Active = +.4/Spell Level (or alternativley +.4 for each round of prebuff) I realised on review that this idea in these lines is confusing. Typical prebuffs listed on the sheet of very long durration shouldn't factor into the EL. We can make room for some skill package that gives 1 or 2 rounds of prebuffs that can be used for short durration spells or potions. Those effects carry a slight combat advantage. This small EL increase is intended to reflect that. This is just one idea of how we can balance new skill packages by weighting the EL effect in addition to considering how the skill package effects the battle. All our previous efforts have been requiring that none of the effects of a skill package be too strong on a battle. With a way to raise or lower EL independant of ECL, we can let players use more powerfull skill packages and still maintain balance. Leadership Cohort = +.8 (decrease by .1 for each ECL below ECL-2) Having a Mount = +.2 (Class ally mounts are gained with no increased LA.) Having a Customized Mount = +.3 Having a Flying Mount = +.4 Starting within LOS of a foe by use of a skill package = +1 (This is an option I'd like to see as being possible for rogues to gain and use w/o the EL increase. A special exemption for rogues and this ability.) Having a Surprise Round = +.4 (with no limits on who you can target with what) Purchased or Diplomacy or HA Ally = +CR/(ECL-4) We can easily tweak this or that on the list and increase or decrease the effect they have on EL. But I'm trying to take the comments of Zevox and MWB into consideration on these 1st draft ideas. I'm firm in my belief that cohorts are worth more than just a feat. And I'm firm in my belief that prebuff rounds and surprise rounds are worth more than just a few skill points. By giving a special exemption to various character types for various kinds of EL bonuses, we can optimize the system to allow each class to work in the way it is intended at a relatively low EL. 4: Encounters are handled in the same way as we are familiar with. Pairings are rolled as normal. Fights are run as normal. Monster fights are simply renamed EL instead of ECL and are paried against the EL of the characters. That's it.
Zelck 10-17-06, 01:33 AM	And at what ECL will a gladiator be frozen? Can they unfreeze by delisting allies? For the record, I'm not a big fan of this idea. Seems really complicated. The gold penalty sounds much better.
Caterane 10-17-06, 05:30 AM	That's another brilliant idea from you Sauro. However, it would be 1) a major change which many would be opposed to (including the heart attack hogarth gets :P), and 2) it's still flawed in many ways: - Applying EL modifiers to prebuffs would mean you have to prebuff with the same spells all over again else you move up and down the leagues. This is impossible for me (or anyone else) to handle unless you pay me full-time. Besides, prebuffs are part of the characters strengths and IMO we already have a good prebuff system. - The new skill packages should not increase EL either because they are what rogues do. If we now suddenly enact a penalty on the way rogues fight we'd also have to do that for other classes which is nonsense of course. - There's no way we can assess EL mods based on maps for each character! - The EL table does not show all possible combinations. - Allowing unlimited amounts of allies might be compatible with an EL system but it's nothing we can ask a pitlord to run. There'll sure be mass-ally builds. We'd have to wait for Dracazar's Pitlordinator to allow players to run such fights themselves. But I also see the benefits. Leadership is by far the most powerful feat! Compare having Powerattack to having an ECL 8 wizard cohort! Since you take a penalty to both XP and GP you lose nothing (hence the proposal to deduct gold only). More importantly, it would open new options, including the 'Support' add-on. You could enter with many allies and boost them with your abilities rather than be the main combatant; that's a new kind of build and would make the bard much more attractive. We could allow for fixed teams, PCs who ally throughout their carreer (you can un-ally with credits; I don't want to add much more work for me) and if Drac makes his vision true, we could even see whole parties. Since they require more time to run, it can easily be expanded to two weeks time for fights with more than 4 players. That would take CoCo a huge step towards a living world instead of simple PvP fights. Cyrus (c00lz3) [Power: 900 (900); 0 won, 1 lost] Yilmaz (Dracazar) [Power: 920 (920); 0 won, 1 lost] [Q:1] The Fantastic Four Adventuring Company [EL7]: Rolf (Dr.Funk) [Power: 1108 (1108); 1 won, 0 lost] Dudael Angelus (DSugui) [Power: 909 (909); 0 won, 1 lost] Carandol Mornenion (Etiquette_Gnome) [Power: 714 (714); 0 won, 3 lost] Fnorri the Miser (False_Keraptis) [Power: 836 (836); 1 won, 3 lost] Jade of Kirlois (Gonbow) [Power: 900 (900); 0 won, 1 lost] Kyst Depthice (Highfire) [Power: 910 (910); 0 won, 1 lost] Solan the Righteous (Iced) [Power: 1068 (1068); 2 won, 1 lost] [Q:1] But as said, the problems are that the community does not want another major change after the recent ones, and it'd be a lot of work to implement for which I don't have time atm. We should still flesh it out and I link it then to the first post so that we can be able to retrieve this idea at a later point.
c00lz3 10-17-06, 05:31 AM	On monsters and allies or Random thoughts and a question. Recently I had my first monster fight and I agree that the balance is scary. I read about the recent monster fight and I sure do feel lucky on my first one. Monster fights are balanced on teams of players so having allies does feel needed in this case. With this in mind I belive that monster fights should be at ECL. I am sure you guys will do a great job of balancing all this! Exactly how much can you customize Leadership/thrallheard allies? In the rules of Gladius this seems to be a gray area to me.
Maraxus 10-17-06, 07:38 AM	About monster fights one last time: Isure did not want the monsters to go down in level. Thinks I wanted to suggest would be ideas like: - Scrap that equipment for Monsters! - Scrap that "Unknown monster" thing (maybe make another use for knowledge skills) -Apply 1/3 limitations to monsters and/or expendable caps like the mercs have. About allies / EL leagues: I'm not opposed to using that for allies. Putting up EL changes for skill packages sounds problematic however. But than seeing the numbers above (and the fact that it allways get's rounded down), this could work, too. But first should be to think about the allies. Yes, they are a great advantage, the reduced income is not bad, as long as you are not greedy to go up as fast as possible. Reducing only the gold, reducing the gold stronger and/or setting a penalty to free activities, too could work and is definitly easier then reorganising the whole colloesum.
Zevox 10-17-06, 08:26 AM	Starting within LOS of a foe by use of a skill package = +1 (This is an option I'd like to see as being possible for rogues to gain and use w/o the EL increase. A special exemption for rogues and this ability.) Um, Sauro, none of our current skill packages can cause this unless you get high modifiers for outmanuever, your opponent has low modifiers in it, you roll a very small map, and happening to be the defender in any given week (and happen to guess correctly what box your opponent will be in). Which is not anywhere near guaranteed. How on earth do you intend on assigning such a modifier when its so very conditional? Having a Surprise Round = +.4 (with no limits on who you can target with what) Only on the Plains map or with some strange luck as to where you and your opponent elect to start in your boxes will you ever be able to actually target someone during a surprise round. Or perhaps on a small map with a mount and lucky start box placement. I think you're greatly overreacting to the benefits of these skill packages. Anyway, my opinion hasn't changed, just pointing more things I don't like about this idea. Zevox
hogarth 10-17-06, 08:31 AM	That's another brilliant idea from you Sauro. However, it would be 1) a major change which many would be opposed to (including the heart attack hogarth gets :P) Maybe just a small heart attack... :D Poor Reginald Molehusband...he already lost his Forgery privileges, and now his (future) Diplomacy allies might be the next to get the axe. :weep: So much for his dream of having a small army of white dragons.
Caterane 10-17-06, 09:57 AM	It just occured to me that we could do this team thing even without any major changes. It would be very simple to implement and won't affect characters who don't want to have anything to do with that. Infact, you don't even need to read these rules. Here's the idea: We allow the option to 'team up'. This means two (or more) characters form a team and stay together. They are listed on the roster under their team name (with links to their sheets). The powerrating wuold be that of the team, not the individual PC so all PCs in a team always have the same XP and Powerratings. Gold can be different of course due to Free Activities but that's no problem. Technically they are listed in a higher league and it will just be an interleague fight; nothing new. I'd say we begin with 2-character teams, and broaden it later. Obviously you have to have the same amount of XP else someone in the team might level up sooner. That works fine for new characters. Merging Characters: Two characters of equal XP can always team up. To merge existing characters into a team, we'd have to match their XP. The players request to be teamed in the Changes thread. There are three ways on how to handle different XP: (1) The character with the higher XP loses XP until he matches his to-be teammate. He loses an equal amount of gold depending on the multiplier of his ECL (Example: ECL 9 character who loses 1000 XP would lose 1666 GP). You could be instantly teamed and it's easy to handle. (2) The lower PC fights on in the arena until he surpasses the XP count of the higher to-be team mate, but in his last fight, he forfits all excess XP so that both PCs have the same amount. Here we have a delay and it requires communication with the pitlord. I'm also not sure what to do if someone's in the middle of the 3FC. (3) We allow for teams with different XP but that might become complicated to calculate. Unmerge Characters: Teams can be split up again but that costs 10° for each character. I want to prevent seeing this too often because that's a lot of work and should be an exception. I think this is a great way to make support characters more attractive which is atm completely missing in CoCo. It's no extra rule and nothing new to learn. You're just assigned an inter-league fight with a preset team. Thoughts? PS: Should we allow teams that include more than one character from one player? Like Niqil's four horsemen? It'd definately be an advantage to run all PCs and it would create more the feeling of several cohorts than a team. I'd say we only allow one character per player into a team.
Zelck 10-17-06, 10:04 AM	Let's cap the # at 2 for now, so 2 teams can meet each other without running into space issues. As for merging people with different XP, 1 and 2 both look promising although I think 2 is much better for that. We could have the option to do either, of course. Would activating a team count as one activation or two?
Caterane 10-17-06, 10:24 AM	One per character, normally. It's basically just an interleague fight with a fixed combination of characters on one side. I agree that teams of 2 would be enough for now. Later we can allow teams of three at ECL+3, and teams of 4 at ECL+4. If the fight involves 5 or more characters, the pitlord has 2 weeks time and gains, as usual, 1° per 2 characters he has to run.
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 12:17 PM	Well if you only allow two different people to have characters in the team, it introduces a minor logistical problem (as opposed to having 2 characters by the same player). There are just more people involved, so it's more likely to have problems with the players doing things like not submitting tactics on time. That's probably a minor concern. A more complicated one is to decide how much like a real party are the members. So if we have a wizard ECL6 and a cleric ECL6, can the wizard cast prebuffs on the cleric? Can the wizard use his craft scrolls feat to make arcane scrolls for the magic domain cleric? Can the cleric use his craft wondrous items feat to make items for the mage? Also this kind of system magnifies the significance of allies. If the wizard takes leadership and the cleric has a diplomacy ally or leadership ally... Now the encounter includes a more powerfull ally presence than if there were just a wizard at ECL8 with a ECL6 cohort. With a team of ECL6 characters there can be a total of ECL8 worth of allies... And that's the same as if the encounter was just 2 ECL6 character? I think not.
hogarth 10-17-06, 12:23 PM	Also this kind of system magnifies the significance of allies. If the wizard takes leadership and the cleric has a diplomacy ally or leadership ally... Now the encounter includes a more powerfull ally presence than if there were just a wizard at ECL8 with a ECL6 cohort. With a team of ECL6 characters there can be a total of ECL8 worth of allies... And that's the same as if the encounter was just 2 ECL6 character? I think not. To be fair, the same thing could happen with an interleague battle under the current rules. But it does seem a bit cheesy to be able to create a team that has very good synergy and force single characters to fight it. By the way, Cat, I know you like discussing new rules but don't you have a list of traps to approve so that the _old_ rules you introduced can actually be used? :D
McJarvis 10-17-06, 12:24 PM	PS: Should we allow teams that include more than one character from one player? Like Niqil's four horsemen? It'd definately be an advantage to run all PCs and it would create more the feeling of several cohorts than a team. I'd say we only allow one character per player into a team. I like this...otherwise there's no real reason(other than credits) to work with someone else- being able to perfectly co-ordinate with yourself non-fail is too tempting to pass up.
Caterane 10-17-06, 12:35 PM	@Mac: Yes you might do better in tactic coordination but worse in synergy of different abilities. A barbarian with a wizard ally who dispels all buffs and buffs the ally is surely more powerful than a barbarian with +2 levels. If they work well together. @Sauro: Definately no. Big no. That encourages alternate accounts with fake characters who donate all their rewards and equipment to the main character then un-ally with some creds to have an overloaded PC. No. We clearly have to keep the division between characters. Perhaps prebuffs are a different matter. About your concern with allies in teams: either we enact a gold only penalty to rewards or we use your EL system. Either way, there's a penalty involved for using allies. Besides, ECL 6+6 can have two ECL 4 cohorts or four CR 2 creatures which should be less of a problem for ECL 8 + ECL 6 cohort. @hogarth: Yes, you're right of course. I already said that I have little time to type that up but team rules are simple to do. I'll get to the traps asap.
McJarvis 10-17-06, 12:45 PM	Would this supplant inter-league fights? It seems to me that two ECL3 characters that were made for each other are not an equal match for two ECL 3 characters that just happened to get paired together.
Caterane 10-17-06, 01:50 PM	A good question. Technically this would be a team fight rather than an Inter-League fight. I'd say no because IL fights are about a number of weaker characters fighting a single higher character. I agree that fixed teams are better than loose teams. What about allowing prebuffs on the ally?
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 01:56 PM	@Sauro: Definately no. Big no. That encourages alternate accounts with fake characters who donate all their rewards and equipment to the main character then un-ally with some creds to have an overloaded PC. No. We clearly have to keep the division between characters. Perhaps prebuffs are a different matter. I'm not even suggesting donating gold, rather donating use of a feat. If wizard crafts scrolls for magic domain cleric using the clerics gold to pay for the scroll... no problem with fake accounts. The main issue is that magic domain cleric gets arcane scrolls for 1/2 price even though he doesn't have the feat. It seams reasonable that since the two characters are linked as a team that they should craft as a team and that they should use skill packages as a team (one member with spot the other with listen) and that they should do everything as a team. This is like giving your buddy some money to build speakers for your sterio since his hobby is building speakers. You dont' get speakers for free, you pay the same as he would. He just helps out and gives you his talants. About your concern with allies in teams: either we enact a gold only penalty to rewards or we use your EL system. Either way, there's a penalty involved for using allies. Besides, ECL 6+6 can have two ECL 4 cohorts or four CR 2 creatures which should be less of a problem for ECL 8 + ECL 6 cohort.The thing I like about the EL idea is that it gives us flexibility to make rules and handle allies in various ways. Also it could eliminate some CoCo house rules completely. The whole CA system can be eliminated...Tracking allies over the 3FC eliminated... All over the last many months as we've made new rules for skills and to try and make rogues or support characters viable, we have always kept fixed the idea of fighting battles at EL=ECL. This applies in monster fights, quests, arena battles and every fight we run. That limits us severely. All good DM's know that they have many ways to adjust how tough an encounter is. If the party barbarian was slain by a unluck crit, the DM can adjust the planned encounters in his adventure by giving surprise or preparation rounds to the party. The DM can add or subtract allies/followers from the big fight and adjust the battle so it matches the party if they did a side adventure and leveled or if they lost a member. There are even lots of ways for GM's to do that within the scope of the rules. Players can use some of them as well (Animate Dead comes to mind as a classic mechanism DM's use to increase fight EL's as needed.) With all our more recent rules changes we've been trying to allow payers to adjust how tough of an encounter their characters are without causing an increase of a whole EL. To some extent success in CoCo is all about getting your EL as high as you can. As rules makers we are always trying to prevent any combat advantage from being "overpowered". In other words, if your character's EL increases too much, then you're using options that are called overpowered. Then someone says it's unfare to do that because it's ovepowered. We all know that the Leadership feat gets you a lot more than Dodge. We all know that diplomacy allies are too good. We all know that mounted combat is very powerfull. We all know that prebuffs are helpfull in most combats. We all know that a surprise round is sometimes enough to swing a realy tough encounter to a more managable one (or make a managable encounter harder). We all know that terrain will sometimes make or break a strategy. DM's use these and other mechanisms to challange players. The DM is free to do so by simply adjusting the EL up or down a point or more. He just delivers more rewards for success at a higher EL. We however are obsessed with fareness. Our rules are our DM. And so far the DM has simply refused to ever adjust EL up or down. But we still allow various things that we know effect EL to be a part of our battles. Every time we allow allies or mounted combat or introduce prebuff rounds, we are actually adjusting the difficulty of the encounter. But we are not adjusting the EL. This is the center of the problem with allies and a number of other aspects of CoCo that are sometimes called unbalanced. This is why support characters fail, this is why rogues fail, this is why mounted spell casters with allies are the strongest builds. What I suggest is a paradigm shift. I don't think we have every though of making a distinction between EL and ECL. We have always simply used the old rule EL=ECL. This is a rule that dates back to the very beginning of CoCo. It dates back before allies, before monster fights, before quests, before surprise, before prebuff rounds and before varried terrain. In all this time with all these changes, we have never reconsidered this old rule. With allies we already see that EL is not always equal to ECL. And with every new skill package that modifies the conditions of the battle field in your favor, the EL shanges slightly as well. Perhaps the EL increase for surprise is not enough to jump a whole EL. But when combined with prebuffs, and the ability to start in a favorable position on the field... yea I'd say that's worth a +1EL. We can impliment this EL flexability in lots of savy ways. I can understand that getting in close and utilizing surprise is an inherent strength of Rogues and a part of what that character class is intended to do. I can understand that starting with LOS on an enemy is much more valuable to an archer or spellcaster than to a melee fighter. But we can easily take those things into consideration when we calculate EL. As an additional benifit, we can relax some of our other funny CoCo rules intended to preserve fareness in contrived ways. The limit on allies comes to mind. There are others that will probably be unnecessary as well. The switch to EL is a win/win situation. It gives us more flexibility to add factors into battles. It gives us more flexibility to weight the potency of those factores. And it can eliminate the need for some strange CoCo rules like ally penalties and ally limits.
Caterane 10-17-06, 02:19 PM	Sauro, I am sure everyone sees the benefits but what I don't see is how to implement it. Here some questions for you: - Prebuffs: Am I now forced to prebuff with the same spells every fight? If no, it means the GameMaster (ie me) has to move characters up and down the leagues before every battle, after having checked prebuffs of 100 characters. Impossible to do. If yes, then this would be totally strange that you MUST no matter what use this spell as prebuff or not at all. And what if you gain a level and may apply a new prebuff? New assessment of EL? More work? - Surprise, etc: All these situations you mention that modify EL face the same problems I mentioned with prebuffs. You'd be forced to surprise or the Game Master must check every character's prebuffs after the deadline and before rolling pairings which sounds like a night shift to/for me. And here we have another problem: what if you lose the opposed checks and don't gain surprise? What if your skill package fails because the defender is better? Modify the EL back after pairings? - Base the EL modifier on the individual character? You mean I have to check every character when I put him on the roster and assign a EL mod based on the build? Like "Uh, you're a rogue1/fighter2" so you might be good at shooting so you gain +0.342 EL and you have weapon focus lance which is another +0.123 EL"? There can be no fixed table for the sheer number of possible builds. And it's a work I am not willing to do. - Finally, who says what situation or ability warrants which EL modifier? There's no table or hint to that. No wizard is considered +0.15 EL (or whatever) just because he prebuffed with mage armor! I'm failing to see how you want to make this work. All these rules are there for a reason and work well enough. If we use your EL system to include allies and teams, then we've done a huge step forward. Allies: Here you proposed a good idea in that we say you are paired in a higher league no matter if you use your allies or not.
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 06:30 PM	Cat, Neither I nor anyone is suggesting that it is your job to make sure everyone in CoCo has the correct ECL and EL listed at the top of their character sheet. Players are the people responsible for doing that (much like players are responsible for the 3FC). All you need to do is shift the character only when they increase in levels or gain or loose allies (quests or purchased allies and perhaps using the character changes thread to draw these changers to your attention). Let me make a more complete suggestion, and we'll see how that sounds alright. First there will be two aspects of the EL calculations. We need to decide what are the things that effect EL, then we dedice how potent they are. We may also need to make small revisions on how our skill packages work. I'll start with the easy ones... BTW all fractional EL are rounded down. Base EL: For all CoCo characters have a Base EL = ECL-2 (This means ECL3 characters are EL1 encounters.) If we feel it's necessary this base EL could be slightly different for different classes. Those character classes we consider to be disadvantaged in CoCo can recieve a slightly different base EL. For example characters with at least 1/2 of their levels in the Bard class may have Base EL = ECL-3. Allies: Any listed on the sheet modify EL. All allies with ECL modify the EL. Ally EL Mod = +1 (decrease this by .1 for each ECL the ally is lower than your own -> Max level cohorts give a +.8 EL modifier) All allies with a CR modify the EL. Ally EL Mod = (Total CR)/(ECL-4) Customized Allies and Mounts: If your character rides a mount. Mount EL Mod = +.2 If the mount is able to fly increase the EL mod. Flying Mount EL Mod = +.2 If an ally with CR is customized (feats, advanced HD, elite array). Custom Ally EL Mod = +.2 (for each ally) Allies gained by Leadership have ECL and are exempt from the custom ally mod. Pre-Initiative Combat Modifiers: This group is everything that can modify combat before initiative is rolled. This is also where our new skill packages come in. Clearly any EL modifiers we put into place cannot dissappear or reappear depending on which ally you are paired with. So I'm going to suggest we modify the skill packages a bit. Instead of opposed skills, skill packages always go off (makes them more valuable). Only the surprise skill package can be resisted (by also having your own surprise). It is very possible for both characters to get prebuff rounds or some other combat advantage. Description: Kekatran saw the dust rising into the air above the next bend in the road. Lord Ezrath's men were comming to battle, but little did they know that the villiagers of FjordTown were ready and lay in wait 2 miles north at the bridge. Battle was begun! Skills: Hide > (ECL+5) Move Silently > (ECL+5) Sense Motive > (ECL+5) EL Mod: +.3EL Effect: The character gains a surprise round before initiative is rolled. If both participants use this skill package, they both loose the surprise round. Special: If the has 1/3 of his class levels in a class with all three skills as class skills, then ignore the EL mod of this skill package. Description: Edoras bent to examine the boot print before him. Yes, it is certianly his quarry, and the warrior was headed for the ruins ahead. There is a place along the path that loops back with heavy cover, there Edoras will catch him and bring battle. Skills: Survival > (ECL+5) Knowlege Local, Dungeonering, Geography or Nature > (ECL+5) EL Mod: +.2EL Effect: Your character is assumed to know the starting area of his opponent. Also you can choose whether your opponent is starting in the area clockwise, counter-clockwise or across the arena from your own. This second effect may be negated by a Stealthy Manouver. Special: Characters who have at least 1/3 of their class levels in a class with survival as a class skill ignore the EL mod for this skill package. Description: While his companions slept, Tomas kept carefull watch. Suddenly the night sounds went silent, too silent... Was it a night predator or were the persuing orcs near? Best to quick drink a potion, just in case. Skills: Listen Skill > (ECL+5) Spot Skill > (ECL+5) EL Mod: +.4 EL/Prebuff Round Effect: Gain one Prebuff Round for every 10 skill points in the above skills. Description: Dareth moved swiftly and silently climbing walls and racing along the roof top to get into position. His padded footfalls were silent and his movement unnoticed as he traveled to his chosen vantage point above the road to the temple. There! The cleric's back is turned! Dareth put an arrow to his bowstring. Skills: Gather Info > (ECL+5) Move Silently > (ECL+5) Balance > (ECL+5) Climb > (ECL+5) Jump > (ECL+5) EL Mod: +.8 EL Effect: Choose your opponent's starting area and your own starting square anywhere not in his starting area. Characters who have at least half their character levels in classes with 4 of the 5 skills as class skills (bards, rogues and monks), are able to use this skill package with with 1/2 the EL mod. I'm working on the trap one. Also the prebuff round I'm talking about is immediately before combat. Not prebuffs listed on the sheet that last for hours. Those are handled normally. I just pay an extra .4el for the chance to use a potion or scroll or cast a spell just before combat or even before surprise rounds. The idea is that I make my character, and I choose the skill packages or allies I want to have. Then they are listed at the top of my sheet. They always go off. So it will look something like this: Kracknol [ECL10][EL 9] Lawful Neutral, Male Duergar Psionic (Ranger4, Psychic Warrior4, Slayer 1, ECL 10) 46740/55000XP (EL8 + 4/6 (Ally) +.4 (flying mount) +.4(1 Prebuff Round)+.0 (Hunt) +.3 (Ambush) = 9.8) Kracknol doesn't actually have enough skills to actually qualify for these skill packages, but I put them in here to illustrate the idea. Cat sees EL9 and puts me in the EL9 section of the Roster and rolls a normal fight. None of the elements change unless I'm leveling or loosing/gaining allies. Cat tracks leveling already, so we can just register ally changes in the character changes thread as a notice to him (I don't think that happens very often anyway). When the fight is being run, my pitlord then notices my ambush and prebuff round and hunt ability. So he gives me a surprise round and a chance to use one spell or expendible before combat. So I write tactics with that in mind.
Zelck 10-17-06, 06:40 PM	IMO, this is very complicated. It's likely people will miscalculate their ECL. We just put in the skill packages; now's not the time to change them again. We also should not add a EL change to free activities, because most of the time they wouldn't be worth it. Also, what happens if someone changes which free activity they do each week? It would be very messy. If we do decide to implement this, we should not differentiate the classes. That would really mess things up and may create epic characters.
Zevox 10-17-06, 06:40 PM	We all know that the Leadership feat gets you a lot more than Dodge. It also has a higher prerequisite than dodge. We all know that diplomacy allies are too good. I don't know - with the more recent changes to them they're a hell of a lot harder to get ahold of. We all know that mounted combat is very powerfull. It can be. It can also be a liability if your mount is killed and you're unable to fight well without it. Or if you fight in the Forest and don't do well without the mount's speed. We all know that prebuffs are helpfull in most combats. And that they carry a cost (using the spell/power, and thus some of your spell levels/power points for the fight, in advance) and a risk (that the spell/power must be able to last until combat begins). We all know that a surprise round is sometimes enough to swing a realy tough encounter to a more managable one (or make a managable encounter harder). In normal games, yes. Here? A caster with Fireball or other long range spells that gets one on the plains will get an edge, certainly (though our one method of getting one outside of Guild fights is not easily acquired by casters by any means since it involves cross-class skills for them, most of which are strength based). Maybe a surprise round on the plains by a good archer with either access to True Strike or a low AC foe will make a difference - maybe. Elsewhere all you can get out of it is a free round to cast/manifest or a round to do a single move action out of your box - not anywhere near as potent as it would be in most normal games. We all know that terrain will sometimes make or break a strategy. True. What part of this suggestion pertains to that? I must have missed it. Perhaps the EL increase for surprise is not enough to jump a whole EL. But when combined with prebuffs, and the ability to start in a favorable position on the field... yea I'd say that's worth a +1EL. The only way to get a surprise round and outmanuever (aka the way to start in a favorable position) is to be involved in a Guild fight that gives you a surprise round and be the defender. There is no possible way to get that normally, since ambush is an attacker package and outmanuever is a defender one. I can understand that getting in close and utilizing surprise is an inherent strength of Rogues and a part of what that character class is intended to do. Its also currently nigh impossible. There is no way for a Rogue to be in sneak attack range in a surprise round with our current rules unless he has a huge outmanuever total, is the defender, has a favorable map, and guesses where his foe will start correctly (1 in 3 chance presuming he selects his start position relative to his own start box). I can understand that starting with LOS on an enemy is much more valuable to an archer or spellcaster than to a melee fighter. Which already happens on the plains always, and is unlikely at best on most maps and impossible on others. Particularly for spellcasters, who have a hard time getting those skill packages. Zevox
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 06:47 PM	IMO, this is very complicated. It's likely people will miscalculate their ECL. We just put in the skill packages; now's not the time to change them again. We also should not add a EL change to free activities, because most of the time they wouldn't be worth it. Also, what happens if someone changes which free activity they do each week? It would be very messy. If we do decide to implement this, we should not differentiate the classes. That would really mess things up and may create epic characters. It's not a free activity any more. It's more like a synergy bonus. You get to have the effect just because you qualify for it. making these things into free activities hurts rogue characters. Free activities are for small crafting and making little bits of money. If you deny that to rogues and force them to pay the free activity to use class features, it's costing them more to use their class than it costs anyone else to use their class. I don't like that the skill packages required using a free activity, and I think that hurts the rogues. If you liberate skill packages from requiring a free activity, then you are helping rogues.
Caterane 10-17-06, 06:59 PM	What I don't like is that the EL numbers are completely made up, and that you are forced to use a Skill Package throughout your entire carreer. You basically decide at character creation what you want to use. If you picked ambush, you ambush every fight you will be in. There's also no chance to fail a skill package thus no reason to invest beyond the minimum requirement. Since it's now possible to gain a surprise round and outmaneuver it's almost a death sentence for some.
Zelck 10-17-06, 07:04 PM	It's not a free activity any more. It's more like a synergy bonus. You get to have the effect just because you qualify for it. making these things into free activities hurts rogue characters. Free activities are for small crafting and making little bits of money. If you deny that to rogues and force them to pay the free activity to use class features, it's costing them more to use their class than it costs anyone else to use their class. Ideally, the free activities would be good enough to outweigh that loss. But like I said earlier, we just put in these skill packages, and now's definitely not the time to change them. By the way, your solution isn't very good either. So, instead of the Rogue being underpowered in his league without these skills, he gets a boost, but now gets to fight against higher ECL characters. Isn't that one step forward, one step back? And what if people decide to change how much of these benefits they want to get each week? It's possible for someone to jump up and down on the ECL list; it's not possible for them to jump up and down on the EL list. In addition, how do we determine which ECLs are frozen? I think we can balance allies by penalizing the gp they get, either by reducing their gold per fight or charging them a "registration" fee. The registration fee model basically put a price on an ally based on the ally's ACR. This way, people don't get a benefit by, say, waiting until they're almost frozen to get an ally and thus lose only a little gold. In other words, unlike buying an item, getting an ally has a variable cost. In contrast, the registration fee model would price allies like an item. If the ally goes up in levels, so does the registration fee (the item got upgraded). The exact pricing would have to be made, but it shouldn't be that tough.
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 07:20 PM	What I don't like is that the EL numbers are completely made up, and that you are forced to use a Skill Package throughout your entire carreer. You basically decide at character creation what you want to use. If you picked ambush, you ambush every fight you will be in. Yes the EL mod's are made up. But I think the flexibility in that side of the equation is part of the beauty. If some time down the road, we decide that XXX skill package or ally type is overpowered or underpowered, just make a small adjustment to the EL Mod. The skill packages are not forced on you. You are not required to Ambush if you qualify. Just don't list it in the EL calculation if you don't want to Ambush. If you want to stop using it, then post in the character changes thread. There's also no chance to fail a skill package thus no reason to invest beyond the minimum requirement. Since it's now possible to gain a surprise round and outmaneuver it's almost a death sentence for some.At some point one or another skill package will be impossible to use unless you continue to invest skill points into the package. The packages all require something based on ECL+5 as the skill check modifier, so as you level the requirement increases as well. If you don't like the skill package, stop putting skill points in it. Also you don't have to list it in your character sheet EL calculation. Just notify Pitlords with the character changes thread and tell him that you are dropping x skill package if it results in a drop of EL. Most of them are fractional, so only sometimes will dropping package change your EL.
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 07:36 PM	It also has a higher prerequisite than dodge.That's immaterial. You missed the whole point. Leadership is perhaps the most powerfull feat at mid levels (where CoCo is maxed out right now). None of the other feats compare. You pay 1 feet and you get an ally who probably has 2 more feats, a bunch of HP, skills, class features and a full round worth of actions every round. That's the most powerfull feat before epic levels. I don't know - with the more recent changes to them they're a hell of a lot harder to get ahold of.That in no way detracts from the fact that with an ally you are a tougher encounter. And what you sacrifice to gain the ally does not make you much weaker in combat. Using allies is a net gain in power no matter how you gain them. It can be. It can also be a liability if your mount is killed and you're unable to fight well without it. Or if you fight in the Forest and don't do well without the mount's speed.Mounted combat allows you to gain a cover bonus to AC as a free action. It allows you to gain a movement speed that is beyond all base races. It gives you a few natural attacks. It allows you to perform a standard action in the middle of a full round action. Yes some specific terrains can make a mount not as good as the plains. But having a mount never costs you much more than a few skill points and a gew hundred gp. If you are in a terrain where the mount is less effective, big deal. You are still capable of thing that are not possible without the mount. Just like the allies, this is getting something that is universally valuable for very little investment. And that they carry a cost (using the spell/power, and thus some of your spell levels/power points for the fight, in advance) and a risk (that the spell/power must be able to last until combat begins).I'm not talking about the typical prebuffs we are using right now. (I've said this three times now.) I'm talking about the prebuffs we currently have on mismatched ECL guild battles. That kind of prebuff allows you to use short durration spells, and the correct ones for the foe you face. Clearly it's a combat advantage. In normal games, yes. Here? A caster with Fireball or other long range spells that gets one on the plains will get an edge, certainly (though our one method of getting one outside of Guild fights is not easily acquired by casters by any means since it involves cross-class skills for them, most of which are strength based). Maybe a surprise round on the plains by a good archer with either access to True Strike or a low AC foe will make a difference - maybe. Elsewhere all you can get out of it is a free round to cast/manifest or a round to do a single move action out of your box - not anywhere near as potent as it would be in most normal games.Doesn't it bother you that all these skill packages that are intended to benefit rogues are painfully difficult to use? Some of them are so hard infact that I doubt that many rogues will every be able to use them. They rely on so many skills that all must be higher than the foes skills. If I max out Spot, then I dont have to every worry about Ambush or Assasinate. Spot is a combat skill anyway. These packages are ineffective from the inception. True. What part of this suggestion pertains to that? I must have missed it.Again. The point is that various factors effect EL, and we ignore then all. We can get closer to achieving balance for every class if we take those factors into consideration. The only way to get a surprise round and outmanuever (aka the way to start in a favorable position) is to be involved in a Guild fight that gives you a surprise round and be the defender. There is no possible way to get that normally, since ambush is an attacker package and outmanuever is a defender one. Thus the need for new skill packages that make it possible for stealth to be an effective strategy. Its also currently nigh impossible. There is no way for a Rogue to be in sneak attack range in a surprise round with our current rules unless he has a huge outmanuever total, is the defender, has a favorable map, and guesses where his foe will start correctly (1 in 3 chance presuming he selects his start position relative to his own start box).Thus a suggestion to change the rules... Our current skill packages are like giving a thimble full of water to a thirsty man. They are not going to help rogues much. It's basicially impossible for rogues to have enough skills to do what the class is most effective at. So the skill packages need to change somewhat. If you realy want, you can just go ahead and leave things as they are. In 5 months the only people using Outmanouver will be high strength builds, and Assasinate and Ambush will be almost totally ineffective against anyone with ranks in spot or eyes of the eagle, and only rangers will use Scout, and Set Trap will be the only skill package that rogues can effectively and consistently use to good effect, and using traps will count as your ally. Talk about pigeon holing the class into a narrow roll. I don't know about you, but when I saw the final version of the skill packages, I thought OK... Nothing changes for my characters. None of them are so great I think Rogues are the next Psion Kineticist. Next I'll ask you why did we totally nerfed all the skill packages? We did it because we didn't want any of them to be overpowered. We were afraid what it would be like if a character at your ECL could get you in LOS with a surprise round, and what if it is a wizard with gobs of skill points and a save or die spell with DC2000? Holy crap! Fight is over before it began. Clearly these circumstances can and do happen ithin the scope of possibilities provided by the game. We are just not allowing them at all. Shifting to an EL paradigm allows us more flexibility. You are also thinking too much from a rogue's perspective here. The ECL 6 rogue using surprise and starting with LOS will not be fighting EL6 encounters who are ECL8 characters. The rogue will be fighting EL4 encounters. That's mostly other ECL6 characters, or ECL5 characters with some allies. You are still thinking that EL=ECL and the rogue will move up in ECL while everyone else will not. This is not going to happen. The rogue gets to use his special abilities with lower EL cost, and the stays EL4 while he fights lower ECL characters with allies or prebuffs.
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 07:51 PM	I think we can balance allies by penalizing the gp they get, either by reducing their gold per fight or charging them a "registration" fee. The registration fee model basically put a price on an ally based on the ally's ACR. This way, people don't get a benefit by, say, waiting until they're almost frozen to get an ally and thus lose only a little gold. In other words, unlike buying an item, getting an ally has a variable cost. In contrast, the registration fee model would price allies like an item. If the ally goes up in levels, so does the registration fee (the item got upgraded). The exact pricing would have to be made, but it shouldn't be that tough. There are inherent problems with this idea... First it basicially applies a penalty in a place that is different from the benefit. The idea requires that we create some kind of relationship between gold and ally combat prowess. That's not natural. Perhaps with enough trial and error and thought we could find an equation that is enough penalty to balance the potency of the ally. Also it applies a retroactive penalty for waiting to get an ally till a higher level, and that's something that is hard to rationalize. If I may, I'll use an analogy. Your suggestion is kind of like saying that since race cars are too fast on normal city roads, we should attach heavy trailers on all of them and that'll slow them down. Sure it could solve the problem... but I suggest that you just have the race cars drive on the speedway where the speed they travel is appropreat?
hogarth 10-17-06, 08:02 PM	There are inherent problems with this idea... First it basicially applies a penalty in a place that is different from the benefit. The idea requires that we create some kind of relationship between gold and ally combat prowess. That's not natural. It's not? That's exactly what we do with mercenaries. Anyways, I like the idea of having characters with allies fight up a category, but it does add another layer of complexity that people don't seem keen on.
Zelck 10-17-06, 08:15 PM	Saying there's a "retroactive penalty" for waiting to get an ally till a higher level is the same as saying there's a "retroactive penalty" for waiting to buy a Longsword +2 till a higher level. If you get the same ally at two different levels, you pay the same amount of gold. Maybe I wasn't too clear on that; the "registration cost" requirement would only depend on the ally's ACr, not your level. If the ally moves up in ACr, you have to pay the difference in costs just like if you upgraded that Longsword +2 to a Longsword +3. Now, balancing them would be tricky, but we could for instance draw on the mercenary price chart. Alternatively, some guideline like a ECL-2 ally should cost 1/5 or 1/4 of someone's WBL could be one of the possible ways of generating a price chart. And why not put them on the speedway? Well, we don't have a speedway right now; we'd have to build it from scratch. We'd also have to tear up many of the existing roads, so everyone would have to learn new rules. It would cause the traffic system to become much more complex and difficult to learn. And it has collateral damage: some of those sports cars that aren't race cars will also be forced to use the speedway. Besides, those aren't heavy trailers or anything; they're just restrictor plates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictor_plate). :P
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 08:32 PM	Anyways, I like the idea of having characters with allies fight up a category, but it does add another layer of complexity that people don't seem keen on. I'm not suggesting an additional layer of complexity. I'm suggesting a replacement layer of complexity that has fringe benifits allowing us to solve the blance issues we currently see and any future ones we become aware of (and I suggest more effective skill packages). There are several missconceptions going around... Let me try and clear that up. Allies alone don't make you fight in the next higher league. None of these skill packages alone will make you fight in the next higher league. Think about how CoCo uses ECL... now remove ECL and replace with EL (with one or two excpetions). The old assumption that EL=ECL is not true. So don't think your ECL9 character is now EL9. Instead the ECL9 character is probably EL7. If your ECL9 character has no allies and doesn't use a skill package or a mount, then you are definately EL7. If you use a mount, then you are probably EL7 unless it's a very powerfull mount customized and flying. If you use some skill packages, then you are probably still EL7. If you use one or maybe two leadership or diplomacy allies, you are probably still EL7. But if your allies are realy powerfull, and you use a powerfull customized flying mount, and you are using multiple skill packages, then you are probably EL8 or 9 or even 10 depending on what you are using. Is that clear?
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 08:36 PM	And why not put them on the speedway? Well, we don't have a speedway right now; we'd have to build it from scratch. We'd also have to tear up many of the existing roads, so everyone would have to learn new rules. It would cause the traffic system to become much more complex and difficult to learn. And it has collateral damage: some of those sports cars that aren't race cars will also be forced to use the speedway. Besides, those aren't heavy trailers or anything; they're just restrictor plates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictor_plate). :PI guess I'm just not someone who turns away from a corse of action cuz it's hard. I can understand that there is an "activation energy" to switch to EL based encounters. If the cost in effort and mental anguish is too high, then I'll understand if the community says "no".
Zelck 10-17-06, 08:44 PM	I guess I'm just not someone who turns away from a corse of action cuz it's hard. I can understand that there is an "activation energy" to switch to EL based encounters. If the cost in effort and mental anguish is too high, then I'll understand if the community says "no". Well, I don't think the benefits are worth the costs. I understand how this could potentially create more balance. I also see this turning new people off and throwing a bundle of new rules on the old people. If we want to fix allies or balance things, a gold penalty should be enough to do that, and that's relatively simple to implement. Changing the entire way we set up our leagues seems a bit much IMO... By the way, if we really want those activity packages to not conflict with free activities, we can just make them not conflict with free activities and activate automatically as long as they're noted somewhere in the title bar or on the top of the char sheet.
Zevox 10-17-06, 08:52 PM	That's immaterial. You missed the whole point. Leadership is perhaps the most powerfull feat at mid levels (where CoCo is maxed out right now). None of the other feats compare. You pay 1 feet and you get an ally who probably has 2 more feats, a bunch of HP, skills, class features and a full round worth of actions every round. That's the most powerfull feat before epic levels. It is indeed. Yet as I said, it carries higher prerequisites - and I wasn't just talking about the level 6 minmum. The need for a high charisma to get much use out of it is there as well, making it either less useful to those who aren't Paladins, Sorcerers, Wilders, Blackguards, or Bards (which aren't exactly the most powerful classes out there) or a greater cost to those characters in the form of investing ability points or expensive ability-increasing items into charisma. MindWandererB pointed all this out before, and was never replied to. It also costs you that feat slot, which as I said before I don't think is as negligable a cost as you're making it out to be. I'm not talking about the typical prebuffs we are using right now. (I've said this three times now.) I'm talking about the prebuffs we currently have on mismatched ECL guild battles. That kind of prebuff allows you to use short durration spells, and the correct ones for the foe you face. Clearly it's a combat advantage. Yes, but its also hard to get ahold of (Knowledge (Geography) and Survival? Only Rangers and Nomads get both of those as class skills, and we don't see any straight Rangers and have only one straight Nomad (who does not use this package anyway)). And I certainly disagree that its so potent an advantage as to be worth any sort of increase in EL. Doesn't it bother you that all these skill packages that are intended to benefit rogues are painfully difficult to use? Some of them are so hard infact that I doubt that many rogues will every be able to use them. They rely on so many skills that all must be higher than the foes skills. If I max out Spot, then I dont have to every worry about Ambush or Assasinate. Spot is a combat skill anyway. These packages are ineffective from the inception. They're not that difficult to use, at least not unless you want to use a number of them. Rogues get many skills to work with - 8+int is a huge number for skills! And Rogues who really focus on thier packages will almost always be able to beat those who focus in thier counters - its very easy to get high hide/ms modifiers with the high dex that all Rogues will want, maxed out ranks, and later on a boost from an item or armor enchantment, whereas only Druids will have a high enough wisdom and skill ranks in spot/listen to possibly beat that (or the occassional Ranger with Eyes of the Eagle). Bluff vs sense is harder to deal with, since Clerics and Paladins (who want high wisdom) get sense, but not impossible by any means, and sense vs bluff is easy to use since few who don't use the packages will have bluff anyway. Now, it is true that they aren't overall very effective, but that was part of my point with stating that they aren't worth something as big as an EL increase in the first place. Plus, I find it odd that now you're saying that the packages are nigh useless as is. If thats so then why on earth do you contend that they're worth an EL increase? Thus the need for new skill packages that make it possible for stealth to be an effective strategy. Ah, theres something you didn't say before. Changing the packages around could be a good idea, though I'm very leary of doing so enough so that they would qualify for an EL increase. ... and just because I feel obliged to say it, stealth already is an effective strategy - look at Mort Noir, The Chameleon, Saeandithas, or (before the Dragon bow ruling) Zero. Its just not as easy to pull off as doing a caster or alpha striking psychic warrior, and is thus less common. (By the way, strange how this has gone from a discussion about nerfing allies to helping Rogues... seems a tad odd, given that I was trying to argue against changing to the EL mainly on the ally grounds and the fact that as they are I really don't think the skill packages qualify for any such thing either.) I don't know about you, but when I saw the final version of the skill packages, I thought OK... Nothing changes for my characters. I saw outmanuever as a chance for Featylec to do something with his jump and balance ranks, and considered switching around the skills on some of my other characters (Eraca, Indrithia, Annalina) to use them but decided against it. Beyond that the same. None of them are so great I think Rogues are the next Psion Kineticist. I do hope you're using that as a metaphor only. I'd be really worried if we were trying to make Rogues actually as effective as Kineticists (my opinion of Energy Missile is something I'd rather not discuss in great detail, but it should suffice to say its not one of admiration for its balance). I have nothing against trying to help Rogues, but I also don't want to make them into that. Next I'll ask you why did we totally nerfed all the skill packages? We did it because we didn't want any of them to be overpowered. We were afraid what it would be like if a character at your ECL could get you in LOS with a surprise round, and what if it is a wizard with gobs of skill points and a save or die spell with DC2000? Holy crap! Fight is over before it began. Clearly these circumstances can and do happen ithin the scope of possibilities provided by the game. We are just not allowing them at all. Shifting to an EL paradigm allows us more flexibility. So we either cause those to increase your EL, thus balancing them with the alpha striker and wizard but making them not worth the investment and EL adjustment to anyone else, or don't and make the alphja striker/save-or-die wizard have another advantageous option so that the others can get some reasonable use out of it (I know you're not suggesting the latter, I'm just mentioning what the implied and undesired alternative is aloud)? I'm sorry, I just can't agree with that - they seem fine to me as they are. Uesful, but not overly so, and not easy to get if you're not a Rogue or Ranger. The ECL 6 rogue using surprise and starting with LOS will not be fighting EL6 encounters who are ECL8 characters. The rogue will be fighting EL4 encounters. That's mostly other ECL6 characters, or ECL5 characters with some allies. You are still thinking that EL=ECL and the rogue will move up in ECL while everyone else will not. This is not going to happen. The rogue gets to use his special abilities with lower EL cost, and the stays EL4 while he fights lower ECL characters with allies or prebuffs. Or ECL 6 characters who decide not to use enough allies/skill packages to qualify for that. If such a thing is implemented I'll guarantee you some will get it down to an art to get as many allies/packages as they can without going up an EL. But thats not the main reason I'm opposed to this anyway. Summing up point of all my arguing here: I'm sorry Sauro, but I just do not like the idea of making such a major change for so little gain. I'm of the opinion that making allies subtract only from gold and not from xp balances them just fine - I've been all for that one since it was originally suggested. Its a much simpler, more elegant solution to that, introducing another, very much so tangible cost to having allies and fixing one of thier advantages (slower leveling = more time for profession/craft/etc income). As for the skill packages, as they are I think they certainly don't warrant such a change for as is, and I'm very unconfortable with changing them enough so that they would warrant such a change. For those reasons I just plain and simple do not like this idea. If you realy want, you can just go ahead and leave things as they are. In 5 months the only people using Outmanouver will be high strength builds, and Assasinate and Ambush will be almost totally ineffective against anyone with ranks in spot or eyes of the eagle, and only rangers will use Scout, and Set Trap will be the only skill package that rogues can effectively and consistently use to good effect, and using traps will count as your ally. Talk about pigeon holing the class into a narrow roll. (Saved this for last because its the most tangential to the original points of my arguments - pretty well unrelated, really.) Truth be told, I expect something like that will be the way it turns out for Rogues no matter what we do. To be brutally honest, I just don't see any house rules we implement that don't make Rogues overpoweringly strong getting them to be much more present here. They simply do not compare to most any other class when it comes to combat, which is the core of what we do here. In tabletop games they see play because they can help significantly in non-combat situations (disarming traps, acting as a scout, tracking down and haggling with the local black market rep, that sort of thing), not because they're any significant help in battle. Here though outside of quests and campaigns those non-combat situations where they shine just don't happen in a PvP arena like we have, and no amount of skill packages are going to change that. Zevox
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 08:59 PM	Well, I don't think the benefits are worth the costs. I understand how this could potentially create more balance. I also see this turning new people off and throwing a bundle of new rules on the old people. If we want to fix allies or balance things, a gold penalty should be enough to do that, and that's relatively simple to implement. Changing the entire way we set up our leagues seems a bit much IMO.... Alright, I won't win your support. But I have heard several other members express support for the idea. Infact almost everyone assumes that EL based encounters are better than ECL based ones, but they are concerned about the logistics of how to switch over. That's what my last big post was trying to address. Let me reitterate once more. EL based encounters not only solve balance issues now, but it gives us more freedom for future growth. If at any point we find that a new balance issue is identified, we have far greater flexibility to introduce new options and still maintain balance. We can tweek the EL mod's on skill packages or allies or some new thing we want to introduce. We can keep adding new options for characters with less fear of producing an overpowered add-on.
MindWandererB 10-17-06, 09:04 PM	Put me down as agreeing with Zevox 99.8%. The remaining .2 percent come from: 1) A monk could meet those Spot and Listen checks nearly as well as a druid, depending on how high he prioritized Wisdom. 2) I think one good thing might come out of this: the option of permanent 2-character teams. That's a lot more TT-realistic than the jack-of-all-trades builds we see around here, and I'd very much like to see it. That would include (especially) teams of two characters belonging to the same player. EL would be a better index than ECL (although I fail to see any way that EL could be lower than CR, which for non-LA PCs is equal to ECL) in theory, but in practice there's just no way to implement it. It's also kind of one-sided: a DM might increase XP rewards, or lower the challenge, if the CR calculations don't accurately reflect how dangerous an encounter is, but they can't do anything about the PCs. For them, ECL is everything--if they come up with a brilliant ambush strategy on the fly, do you add monsters to the fight? Well, you could. But what if they had devoted skill points into the bluff/disguise/hide/MS required to pull off the ambush? Should you penalize them for using their class and HD-based features? Why penalize effective skill use, when you don't penalize effective weapon use or spell use? As long as there is a "real" cost (skill points, feats, ability allocation, or at the very least, money), I don't think increasing the battle difficulty is appropriate. If the "cost" is deemed too small, then either nerf the gain (easy for house rule like skill packages or diplomacy allies) or add another cost (such as GP for Leadership allies). ...another note: someone mentioned earlier how great cleric allies are, because they need little GP to work. How about mandating that a certain amount of money be spent on equipping the ally? That would put clerics and sorcerers on par with fighters and wizards.
lonewolf 10-17-06, 09:06 PM	I just want to say that the only reason I am not strongly arguing against Sauros last idea is that I saw others doing that way better than I could. The only important argument I´d like to add is that this will be completely incomprehensible to anyone new to the CoCo and we really dont need any more entry barriers. To sum it up: Dont make such a huge change for IMHO little gain.
False_Keraptis 10-17-06, 09:14 PM	Thus the need for new skill packages that make it possible for stealth to be an effective strategy. I don't get why everyone keeps saying stealth is underpowered. Take a look at Mort Noir; that plucky little ECL 3 gnome could probably defeat the entire ECL 6 league simultaneously. Well, maybe not simultaneously, but she will undoubtedly autowin the vast majority of her career's battles. Sorry to bring up your character's awesomeness in the council again, McJarvis. I'm not arguing that stealth should be nerfed or that Mort is a menace that must be stopped; she's just a really good counterargument to the claim that stealth is underpowered.
hogarth 10-17-06, 09:19 PM	Would this supplant inter-league fights? It seems to me that two ECL3 characters that were made for each other are not an equal match for two ECL 3 characters that just happened to get paired together. A good question. Technically this would be a team fight rather than an Inter-League fight. I'd say no because IL fights are about a number of weaker characters fighting a single higher character. I agree that fixed teams are better than loose teams. I didn't quite understand this interchange. It sounds like there will be both inter-league fights and team fights which will be very similar (except the team fights will probably be tougher). Is that correct?
MindWandererB 10-17-06, 09:23 PM	I didn't quite understand this interchange. It sounds like there will be both inter-league fights and team fights which will be very similar (except the team fights will probably be tougher). Is that correct? I agree. A Team Fight is a 2 vs. 2, an Interleague Fight is 2 vs. 1. Two teams fighting each other would be the former, a team fighting one character would be the latter. And yes, it would be pretty unfair if an "interleague" fight were drawn pitting, say, an ECL 7 team (two ECL 5 members) against two random ECL 5 characters.
hogarth 10-17-06, 09:36 PM	-- never mind, I think I get it now --
Zelck 10-17-06, 09:43 PM	Here's another way to balance allies: treat them as an item to be bought and upgraded. In other words, we could require allies to have "licenses" in order to be brought into the arena. They would work just like a magic item in how they can be upgraded. Here's how I think it could work: ACR Gold Cost 1 300 2 570 3 950 4 1350 5 2000 6 2800 7 3800 8 5100 9 6900 10 9200 11 11500 12 15700 13 21000 14 27300 15 35700 16 46200 17 60900 18 80000 That's basically if you want ACR = CR-2 worth of allies, you need to pay 10% of your gold at each level (by the WBL guide we use in the Rules of Gladius). We could increase it if we think that's too low (multiply by 2 for 20%, 1.5 for 15%, etc). But basically, in order to bring in an ally at a ACR, they have to first buy a license. You can upgrade licenses from one ACR value to the next by paying the difference similar to how you can upgrade a Longsword +1 to a Longsword +2 by paying the difference of 6,000 gp. This has an advantage over the %gold penalty for one big reason: it eliminates people getting an ally as they near a frozen status to almost eliminate the penalty. It also affects existing characters, but in a sane manner. Instead of trying to retroactively calculate their gold penalties (which would never happen, thus giving them a vast discount on their ally), they just have to buy the license before they can bring their ally in again. Perhaps we can allow people with existing allies to refund items at full price to cover this cost.
SauroGrenom 10-17-06, 09:57 PM	MindWandererB pointed all this out before, and was never replied to. It also costs you that feat slot, which as I said before I don't think is as negligable a cost as you're making it out to be.All that realy matters from a balance perspective is what you get for what you give. The Cohort and troup of followers provide a very powerfull ally for the cost of one feat. With the feat you get a full round of actions, ECL-2 class levels of abilities, a bucket of HP, all the feats your ally has, the list goes on... Sure you pay one feat at 6th level to get it all. The cost may not be negligable compared to say the cost of another similar feat like Improved Familiar. But the benefit is vastly greater than the benefit of any other feat untill you enter epic levels. Compared to the benefits gained, the cost is negligable. Yes, but its also hard to get ahold of (Knowledge (Geography) and Survival? Only Rangers and Nomads get both of those as class skills, and we don't see any straight Rangers and have only one straight Nomad (who does not use this package anyway)). And I certainly disagree that its so potent an advantage as to be worth any sort of increase in EL.OK, so you admit there is an advantage gained when you get prebuffs. Good start. Now how much advantage is worth an increase in EL? The DMG shows us that CR8 and CR6 monster are worth CR9. Let's say the CR8 is a warrior and his ally CR6 wizard that casts buffs on the warrior in combat. How about a CR8 warrior that is prepared with a bunch of potions before hand? What if he surprises the party and is charging the spellcasters in the back before anyone in the party acts? The DMG tells us the ally is worth +1 EL because it makes the encounter harder. We know as a fact form experience that the prior spell effects and surprise also make the encounter harder. How much harder is a foe who can cast spells before combat? How much harder is the wizard that hits the party with a surprise round fireball from high on a balcony above than the wizard the party surprises? I'd say that being surprised and having before combat spells in effect make the encounter much harder. They're not that difficult to use, at least not unless you want to use a number of them. Rogues get many skills to work with - 8+int is a huge number for skills! And Rogues who really focus on thier packages will almost always be able to beat those who focus in thier counters - its very easy to get high hide/ms modifiers with the high dex that all Rogues will want, maxed out ranks, and later on a boost from an item or armor enchantment, whereas only Druids will have a high enough wisdom and skill ranks in spot/listen to possibly beat that (or the occassional Ranger with Eyes of the Eagle). Bluff vs sense is harder to deal with, since Clerics and Paladins (who want high wisdom) get sense, but not impossible by any means, and sense vs bluff is easy to use since few who don't use the packages will have bluff anyway. I don't know about you, but i'm not willing to invest a bunch of skill points and my free action to get nothing half the time. Basicially Rangers, Druids, Monks, Bards and Rogues are all going to be practicially immune to one or two of the skill packages unless the rogue invests max skill points and lots of money into skill and stat boosing items. These classes get Spot as a class skill and it's combat relevant, so they are likely to want ranks in the skill anyway. The rogue suffers from terrible MAD (multi-ability-dependancy) if he wants to use the skill packages. He cannot have a great int for skill points at the same time as having extra points for a great cha and dex and strength. I suppose that time will tell, but I do not predict these skill packages as being realy powerfull for rogues. Now, it is true that they aren't overall very effective, but that was part of my point with stating that they aren't worth something as big as an EL increase in the first place. But in combination, they probably are. Also if we make it possible to have something worth an EL increase, then we also make it possible to have more powerfull skill packages that are actually usefull more often. Plus, I find it odd that now you're saying that the packages are nigh useless as is. If thats so then why on earth do you contend that they're worth an EL increase? In my mind effects that increase the difficulty of an encounter are linked together. The skill packages are an attempt to put those effects in without actually having them be too reliable or easy to use or effective and thus overpowered. I think we can put them in as being more reliable, easy to use and effective and catered to rogues. We can do it fluidly in an EL based environment. And we can give various classes some flexibility to use the skill packages associated with their class at no or decreased increase in EL. Ah, theres something you didn't say before. Changing the packages around could be a good idea, though I'm very leary of doing so enough so that they would qualify for an EL increase. [...] (By the way, strange how this has gone from a discussion about nerfing allies to helping Rogues... seems a tad odd, given that I was trying to argue against changing to the EL mainly on the ally grounds and the fact that as they are I really don't think the skill packages qualify for any such thing either.)As I mention above. Anything that modifies the difficulty of an encounter should factor into EL. That can be allies or other factors including surprise and positioning and short durration prebuffs. How much is worth an increase in EL to the next level is open to debate. But clearly some combinations are worth increasing the EL. As mentioned before and here again. We can allow some skill packages that are appropreat for one class or another to be used with none or decreased effect on EL, because those classes are designed to work inside the kinds of combat environments created by those skill packages. So we either cause those to increase your EL, thus balancing them with the alpha striker and wizard but making them not worth the investment and EL adjustment to anyone else, or don't and make the alphja striker/save-or-die wizard have another advantageous option so that the others can get some reasonable use out of it (I know you're not suggesting the latter, I'm just mentioning what the implied and undesired alternative is aloud)? I'm sorry, I just can't agree with that - they seem fine to me as they are. Uesful, but not overly so, and not easy to get if you're not a Rogue or Ranger.I've taken your previous comments into consideration in the proposal above (post with the example EL calculation at the bottom). All of the factors I identify effect the difficulty of an encounter. There is lots of room to have an ally or to use a skill package or two and not effect your EL. Only when used in combination, then EL is modified. It doesn't realy matter how hard it is to get some combat benefit. What matters is the combat potency of what you sacrifice to get the benefit. My proposal above allows for some classes to use the skill packages with little or no increase in EL. If a wizard or alpha strike spi warrior wants to use ambush and manouver ability, then he pays for it with increased EL. However the rogue pays less (most likely no EL increase unless combined with several other effects), since his class is intended to do these things. Or ECL 6 characters who decide not to use enough allies/skill packages to qualify for that. If such a thing is implemented I'll guarantee you some will get it down to an art to get as many allies/packages as they can without going up an EL. But thats not the main reason I'm opposed to this anyway. Yes people will naturally try to make their characters as tough as they can be without increasing EL. This is what we already do. Every character who has maxed allies on his sheet and a flying mount and psycrystal and... are all trying to do this already, but we are just not tracking it at all. Summing up point of all my arguing here: I'm sorry Sauro, but I just do not like the idea of making such a major change for so little gain. I'm of the opinion that making allies subtract only from gold and not from xp balances them just fine - I've been all for that one since it was originally suggested. Its a much simpler, more elegant solution to that, introducing another, very much so tangible cost to having allies and fixing one of thier advantages (slower leveling = more time for profession/craft/etc income). As for the skill packages, as they are I think they certainly don't warrant such a change for as is, and I'm very unconfortable with changing them enough so that they would warrant such a change. For those reasons I just plain and simple do not like this idea.First the gold cost for allies is a misplaces penalty. This relies too much on the gp as a way to punish players for being too savy with the rules. Seriously, you are equating a certian gp value to an EL increase. The DMG shows us that a cohort is worth basicially +1 EL. Where does it say that xxxgp penalty is worth -1EL? Yea it's a simple fix. Like putting a patch on a hole in the boat. What I suggest is a more flexable and permanent fix for not just this problem but many we do not yet know about. Let me list what are the gains caused by the EL idea... 1: Balance Allies 2: Balance all Pre-Combat modifiers on combat potency 3: Allow some classes to gain combat advantages associated with their class abilities without imbalancing combat. 4: Continued ability to balance new combat options in the future Sure there's some rewriting of the rules, and there is some relearning of the details, but in the long run I think switching to EL based encounters gives us more ability to keep balance as we continue to add in new options.
Caterane 10-18-06, 10:00 AM	You have interesting point Sauro but there is too much speaking against it right now: - I am not willing to allow changing Skill Packages in the Changes thread whenever they want. It just causes some characters to move up and down the EL roster and I am already not playing any characters because I am busy with keeping the board running. The next workload I want to add to my plate is writing tactics for the Harvester once again. - The EL is completely arbitrary and I foresee a lot of moving numbers back and forth before we find a good balance. The community doesn't react well to frequent changes. - It is almost impossible to assess which situation or ability justifies an EL modifier. - We haven't even seen Skill Packages in action. It's not the time to change them. - It'd be too hard to learn for newbies. As it is now, they have nothing to learn about ECL. They see their level and know their league. If they now have to learn a complicated EL system on top of all the other rules, we might turn off many newcomers. All this is a huge change and increase in complexity for little gain. A bit of balance for the cost of regulars and newcomers. Even I shy from learning this system. So let's put these modifiers aside. But! We have still a problem with allies and your suggestion would work well with them. It is superior to the GP penalty. It would be easy to implement with almost no new rules; we just need one new table that clearly and easily shows how much higher in EL you end up with which ally. This table must include all ECLs and all combinations of ally CRs and ECLs. The table in the DMG (p49) is not sufficient. If we would have such a table, we can easily use this solution to the long-standing ally problem; and this time, it would be a perfect solution. I also like to see teams and eventually parties in CoCo. This can be done with either our ECL roster or an EL roster. And it requires no extra rules.
Zelck 10-18-06, 02:17 PM	I will agree with SauroGrenom on two things. First, I also think that the free activity skill packages are too weak, and that they should at least be made automatic (not requiring free activities). I personally would do a gold free activity before I do a skill package one, with the exception of stuff like Burglary and Rob Store. Second, if the ONLY EL thing we mess with is with teams and allies, then it's a LOT easier to deal with and I wouldn't have nearly as much objection against that. I like my "Ally License" idea better than the EL increase, but I can see the difficulty in correctly doing the gold costs.
hogarth 10-18-06, 02:22 PM	I will agree with SauroGrenom on two things. First, I also think that the free activity skill packages are too weak, and that they should at least be made automatic (not requiring free activities). I personally would do a gold free activity before I do a skill package one, with the exception of stuff like Burglary and Rob Store. Er...you guys realise that most skill packages ARE automatic already, right? Cat added that to the rules last week. Don't believe me? Check the "Rules of Gladius": Hide Resources, Political Career, Court Connections, Ambush, Assassinate, Scout, Set Trap and Outmaneuver should all be applied automatically. The only free activity skill packages are Rob Store, Burglary, Discount and Sell Items.
Zelck 10-18-06, 02:24 PM	Er...you guys realise that most skill packages ARE automatic already, right? Cat added that to the rules last week. Don't believe me? Check the "Rules of Gladius": Hide Resources, Political Career, Court Connections, Ambush, Assassinate, Scout, Set Trap and Outmaneuver should all be applied automatically. The only free activity skill packages are Rob Store, Burglary, Discount and Sell Items. Mmm... I feel foolish. But that's a good rule :).
MindWandererB 10-18-06, 02:58 PM	The only free activity skill packages are Rob Store, Burglary, Discount and Sell Items.Which, I feel obliged to point out, are at least as useful as making money--two of them save you money, and two provide some pretty powerful tactical advantages.
hogarth 10-18-06, 03:01 PM	Which, I feel obliged to point out, are at least as useful as making money--two of them save you money, and two provide some pretty powerful tactical advantages. I absolutely agree. I just wanted to make Zelck feel foolish. Mission accomplished! ;)
MindWandererB 10-18-06, 04:01 PM	I have some time now, so I'm going to work on the ECL 10 encounter table. That's an important one, since it's the frozen league, so I'm going to take some time and do it carefully, and I encourage folks to error-check me when I'm done.
Zelck 10-18-06, 04:20 PM	Have we thought about making the gold values per week for acquiring ethereal items scale according to character level? As it currently stands, it can get really ridiculous. At the most extreme, buying a Manual of Gainful Exercise +5 requires a whopping 20 weeks. That's more than 1/3 of a year in real time. Buying a +6 enhancement item requires 5 weeks. Unlike crafting, there's also no way around this huge time requirement except to not buy equipment, which doesn't work so well, or to go on 3-week quests, which costs credits and also limits how much you can buy. ETA: Here's a possible chart. Basically, a free activity allows you to spend 1/50 or 2% of your WBL gold, and a full activity gives you 7/50 or 14%. Buying an item worth 50% of your wealth would take about a month. ECL Free Full ------------------------- 3 60 420 4 114 798 5 190 1330 6 270 1890 7 400 2800 8 560 3920 9 760 5320 10 1020 7140 11 1380 9660 12 1840 12880 13 2300 16100 14 3140 21980 15 4200 29400 16 5460 38220 17 7140 49980 18 9240 64680 19 12180 85260 20 16000 112000
Caterane 10-19-06, 05:06 PM	The UnCon begins on monday! We have to finish our planned contest asap so that I can submit it. This might bring a lot of new members. We decided to open a thread where participants can submit their character, ECL 7. After a deadline the Elders vote on the best four characters who will fight it out in a mini-tournament. The winner gets the UnCon tag and title and a gold tag behind his character name. Place 2 and 3 gain silver and bronze tags (I'd say it counts as +1, +2, +3 for leadership). All four finalists may keep their characters. Any additional final suggestions? Alternative: I am not sure how many characters we will see but if there are enough submissions we could divide it into four categories: - Best melee build - Best spellcaster/psionic - Best stealth build - Best all-rounder
Zelck 10-19-06, 05:09 PM	The UnCon begins on monday! We have to finish our planned contest asap so that I can submit it. This might bring a lot of new members. We decided to open a thread where participants can submit their character, ECL 7. After a deadline the Elders vote on the best four characters who will fight it out in a mini-tournament. The winner gets the UnCon tag and title and a gold tag behind his character name. Place 2 and 3 gain silver and bronze tags (I'd say it counts as +1, +2, +3 for leadership). All four finalists may keep their characters. Any additional final suggestions? Alternative: I am not sure how many characters we will see but if there are enough submissions we could divide it into four categories: - Best melee build - Best spellcaster/psionic - Best stealth build - Best all-rounder Switch best all-rounder to best archer build? Also, please allow regular users to have some input. Perhaps only people who have at least 1 char in the ECL5+ leagues. Maybe regular users combined count as 1 elder vote.
Erithmu 10-19-06, 05:10 PM	@Cat: If not selected I offer to run some of those fights. I would build the basic thread and set up the ground rules in an easy to find location. List xp/Gp and some of the basic house rules that might come into play. I would also make a discussion thread in addition to the actual Characters thread.
hogarth 10-19-06, 05:15 PM	Any additional final suggestions? One of my suggestions was to allow races and classes from Unearthed Arcana on entries without charging credits. I think it might add a little spice to what might otherwise be very similar-looking entries. Also, if only Elders are eligible to vote I don't think they should be allowed to enter the contest. Also, I think a free-for-all would be much easier to handle than a tournament.
MindWandererB 10-19-06, 05:16 PM	What are the criteria? Purely subjective, i.e. "coolest?" Since UnCon is only a week, we're going to be mighty pressed for time. We have 7 days to: 1) Submit characters 2) Elder vote (hopefully no tiebreaker will be needed; if so, Cat chooses) 3) Semifinals 4) Finals and loser's bracket The best I can think of is: 36 hours for character submission, 12 hours for the elder vote, 24 hours for tactics, 48 hours for the semifinals, and 48 hours for the finals and loser's bracket. No time for a safety net/argument/fight fixes/etc. cushion. We'd also need to get the best darn pitlords available, to crunch these fights out ASAP. What a time to not have Telin at full strength! There would be 4 slots: 2 for a fight run between the 26th and 27th, and 2 for a fight run between the 28th and 29th. And these pitlords would have to be 100% reliable, since the whole thing falls apart without them. Ugg... this UnCon thing really doesn't work well for us.
SauroGrenom 10-19-06, 05:21 PM	One of my suggestions was to allow races and classes from Unearthed Arcana on entries without charging credits. I think it might add a little spice to what might otherwise be very similar-looking entries. Also, if only Elders are eligible to vote I don't think they should be allowed to enter the contest.Awww... I wanted to put bill the pizza guy into the contest. Hmm. Well. I understand...:allalone: I suggest you allow all open content to build the characters. ECL7 is a great level. That's when 4th level powers come online. Also the submission deadline needs to be soon if there are going to be battles. Very fast infact.
SauroGrenom 10-19-06, 05:25 PM	We also have the fact that some of our elders are MIA and have been for a while. So voting could be a little sketchy... I suggest that each of the elders gets to pick 3 characters and rank them according that person's opinion of viability in the arena combat. We combine the elder's opinions to choose the 4 top ranked characters.
SauroGrenom 10-19-06, 05:29 PM	Cat, Make sure you mention that crafting items costs no xp. I suggest supplying a link to one of the SRD webpages that has UA content. Many players won't have those materials to draw upon.
McJarvis 10-19-06, 05:32 PM	I'm confused- will there be four gold star medalists then?(one for each category), or will there just be one overall contest?
Zelck 10-19-06, 05:32 PM	The list of sources is way too vague. You need to list exactly which parts of Unearthed Arcana are allowed, and which monsters/feats/etc. from the XPH aren't allowed. Also, I'm not sure if you can do this, but you may want to sticky the thread.
McJarvis 10-19-06, 05:33 PM	The list of sources is way too vague. You need to list exactly which parts of Unearthed Arcana are allowed, and which monsters/feats/etc. from the XPH aren't allowed. I don't know what you're talking about. *makes a gestalt Cleric&&PW/Bard version of Mort Noir* ;)
MindWandererB 10-19-06, 05:33 PM	Cat: Are you sure you want the XPH in there? That will allow non-CoCo-legal builds, like psionic Thri-Kreen. And you definitely don't want all of UA in there, or you'll have gestalt, and other horribly unbalanced things. Edit: late on that, but I echo McJarvis, and add this: there's no way we can run more than 4 fights, 2 at a time, with this schedule. We just don't have that many pitlords that can crunch them out that quickly.
Caterane 10-19-06, 05:36 PM	I don't see a problem in extending it beyond the UnCon dates. Do you? Well, I can announce it now: MindwandererB has joined the ranks of the Elders. He will replace Huan. We are still waiting for the title change but it's official now. As for King Uther, if he doesn't show up to vote, we will pick a substitution to vote for him; Telin probably.
Zelck 10-19-06, 05:40 PM	Well, I can announce it now: MindwandererB has joined the ranks of the Elders. He will replace Huan. We are still waiting for the title change but it's official now. :cheer: :cheer: :clap: :clap: :cheer: :cheer: Now, get to answering those questions in Elders! ;) @Cat: You also forgot about Wild Talent, Psionic Mind Flayers, Psionic Githzerai/Githyanki, etc. Just put "Psionics section of SRD" instead.
MindWandererB 10-19-06, 05:40 PM	I don't know if an extension would be considered kosher by the general UnCon rules. Something to investigate.
Erithmu 10-19-06, 05:41 PM	Additional recommendation: have any CoCo regular be required to post their character two days before the deadline. So that anyone who is new to the CoCo board can see what they are up against, and to prevent the regulars from submitting something scarry at the last minute disrupting everything.
TelinArtho 10-19-06, 05:45 PM	As for King Uther, if he doesn't show up to vote, we will pick a substitution to vote for him; Telin probably. That's not going to work for me Cat... I was planning on submitting my Were-Deinonychus for the contest so I could start him for free... :P (I'm just kidding of course - if you need me - let me know and I won't submit my character...)
McJarvis 10-19-06, 05:47 PM	Additional recommendation: have any CoCo regular be required to post their character two days before the deadline. So that anyone who is new to the CoCo board can see what they are up against, and to prevent the regulars from submitting something scarry at the last minute disrupting everything. ... Yay for not having any characters above ECL 3 and not being considered a regular. :D
Zelck 10-19-06, 05:49 PM	That's not going to work for me Cat... I was planning on submitting my Were-Deinonychus for the contest so I could start him for free... :P (I'm just kidding of course - if you need me - let me know and I won't submit my character...) Well, I'm not going to submit an entry... ;). And the XPH listing needs correcting :). ETA: Might also want to explicitly include the general feats and spells in the "Divine" section of the SRD
Caterane 10-19-06, 06:10 PM	Ok I opened a new thread. Let's move the discussion over there
Caterane 10-19-06, 06:38 PM	Next topic: Fixed Teams. Better name: Parties? Groups? Any special rules? I'd like to add that soon. - Only one character per player can be in a team - The characters behave as individuals (crafting, allies, etc) - Follows all rules for Inter-League fights - You can cast prebuffs on the team mate. - You must have the same amount of XP to team up. - To un-team, each character must pay 10° - Counts as one activation per character Anything else?
SauroGrenom 10-19-06, 06:43 PM	Isn't there a thing about fighting in the next higher league if you team up? Also I'd like to be able to use my crafting feats to help my ally. Not use my money to buy him equipment, but just use my feats so I can craft things for him. That way feats like craft arms and armor could get some use...
SauroGrenom 10-19-06, 06:45 PM	Also what happens if one team member has a cohort or other ally and has an xp penalty due to that?
MindWandererB 10-19-06, 06:51 PM	Also what happens if one team member has a cohort or other ally and has an xp penalty due to that?They'd have to split the penalty between then. Also I'd like to be able to use my crafting feats to help my ally. Not use my money to buy him equipment, but just use my feats so I can craft things for him. That way feats like craft arms and armor could get some use...So one teammate has the feat, and the other gets the discount? Could be problematic if they un-team. "Parties" isn't exactly right, but it has a connotation that I think is helpful. The higher-level member should have the option of voluntarily losing XP (and corresponding GP) to team up. Have we addressed whether one player can control both teammates? What about guilds? Do they count as two characters for rooms, missions, operations? That would be burdensome. (Low-priority item.)
SauroGrenom 10-19-06, 06:57 PM	So one teammate has the feat, and the other gets the discount? Could be problematic if they un-team.Exactially. Much like how the party wizard crafts scrolls and basicially "sells" them at cost to the party sorcerer. So some simular arrangement here. If the group unteams, then we can just require the character to sell his stuff that he cannot craft himself. No net loss of gp for the character, he liquidates his "illegal" items at the same price he got them for.
Zelck 10-19-06, 07:01 PM	I don't know... I think it might give teams/parties too big an advantage. Not sure if this had already been determined, but does a 2 person team count as 1 activation or 2?
MindWandererB 10-19-06, 07:04 PM	Not sure if this had already been determined, but does a 2 person team count as 1 activation or 2?2.
MindWandererB 10-19-06, 07:59 PM	Well, here's the ECL 10 monster list, as promised. The standard encounters definitely start petering out at these higher levels--I had to get pretty creative to fill some of these slots. Please check for errors, especially on some of the CR calculations for NPCs. 01: 1 Animated Object, Colossal [CR 10] 02: 1 Bebilith (demon) [CR 10] 03: 1 Couatl (1d2: normal or psionic version) [CR 10] 04: 1 Formian Myrmarch [CR 10] 05: 1 Giant, fire [CR 10] 06: 1 Golem, clay [CR 10] 07: 1 Hydra, 11-headed [CR 10] 08: 1 Hydra, 9-headed pyro- or cryo- [CR 10] 09: 1 Monstrous scorpion, Gargantuan [CR 10] 10: 1 Naga, guardian [CR 10] 11: 1 Rakshasa [CR 10] 12: 1 Salamander, noble [CR 10] 13: 1 Slaad, gray [CR 10] 14: 1 Dragon, White adult; Brass young adult; Red or Silver juvenile [CR 10] 15: 1d4+1 Dragons, Black juvenile; Copper, Bronze, Red, or Silver young [CR 7] 16: 1 Astral Construct, 9th-level (psionic) [CR 10] 17: 1 Cerebrilith (psionic) [CR 10] 18: 2d2 Intellect Devourers (psionic) [CR 7] 19: 2d2-1 Behirs [CR 8] 20: 1d4+2 Gauths [CR 6] 21: 1d4+2 Babaus (demon) [CR 6] 22: 1d4+2 Digesters [CR 6] 23: 1d4+2 Megaraptors (dinosaur) [CR 6] 24: 2d2-1 Tyrranosauri (dinosaur) [CR 8] 25: 2d2-1 Dire Tigers [CR 8] 26: 2d2+1 Bralani Eladrin [CR 6] 27: 2d2 Ghosts, 5th-level human fighter (MM default) [CR 7] 28: 1d4+1 Hill Giants [CR 7] 29: 2d2 Flesh Golems [CR 7] 30: 2d2-1 Gorgons [CR 8] 31: 2d2 Lillends [CR 7] 32: 2d2 Werebears (lycanthrope) plus 1d2+2 brown bears [CR 5 and 4] 33: 2d2 Medusas [CR 7] 34: 2d2-1 Mind Flayers [CR 8] 35: 1d2+2 Water Nagas [CR 7] 36: 2d2-1 Ogre Mages [CR 8] 37: 1 Ravid plus 1d2+3 Huge animated objects [CR 5] 38: 2d2+1 Salamanders, average [CR 6] 39: 2d2-1 Skeletons, Young Adult Red Dragon 40: 2d2 Skeletons, Cloud Giant 41: 2d2-1 Slaadi, blue [CR 8] 42: 2d2 Spectres [CR 7] 43: 1d4+3 Hieracosphinxes [CR 5] 44: 2d2 Umber Hulks [CR 7] 45: 1d4+2 Wyverns [CR 6] 46: 2d2+1 Xorn, average [CR 6] 47: 2d2-1 Xorn, Elder [CR 8] 48: 1d2+1 Yuan-Ti Abominations [CR 7] 49: 2d2+1 Zombies, Gray Render [CR 6] 50: 1d4+1 Monstrous Scorpions, Huge [CR 7] 51: 1 Celestial Stone Giant [CR 10] 52: 2d2-1 Celestial Nymphs [CR 8] 53: 2d2 Celestial Wyverns [CR 7] 54: 1d4+2 Celestial Unbodied (psionic) [CR 6] 55: 1 Fiendish Athach [CR 10] 56: 1 Fiendish Dark Naga [CR 10] 57: 2d2-1 Fiendish Water Nagas [CR 8] 58: 2d2 Fiendish Girallons [CR 7] 59: 1d4+2 Fiendish Manticores [CR 6] 60: 1 Half-Celestial Gynosphinx [CR 10] 61: 2d2-1 Half-Celestial Shambling Mounds [CR 8] 62: 2d2 Half-Celestial Cloakers [CR 7] 63: 2d2+1 Half Celestial Phase Spiders [CR 6] 64: 1 Half-Fiend Hill Giant [CR 10] 65: 1 Half-Fiend Gorgon [CR 10] 66: 2d2-1 Half-Fiend Phthisics (psionic) [CR 8] 67: 2d2 Half-Fiend Winter Wolves [CR 7] 68: 2d2+1 Half-Fiend Minotaurs [CR 6] 69: 1 Half-Dragon Treant (1d10 for type) [CR 10] 70: 1 Half-Dragon Giant Octopus (1d10 for type) [CR 10] 71: 2d2-1 Half-Dragon Digesters (1d10 for type) [CR 8] 72: 2d2 Half-Dragon Giant Constrictor Snakes (1d10 for type) [CR 7] 73: 2d2+1 Half-Dragon Hound Archons (1d10 for type) [CR 6] 74: Roll on EL 8 table and add Half-Dragon template (1d10 for type) [varies] 75: 1 Phrenic Elephant (animal) [CR 10] 76: 1 Phrenic Greater Shadow [CR 10] 77: 1 Phrenic Dragon: Juvenile black; young red, bronze, copper, or silver; very young gold (1d6) [CR 10] 78: 2d2-1 Phrenic Lamias [CR 8] 79: 2d2 Phrenic Hieracosphinxes [CR 7] 80: 2d2 Phrenic Mummies [CR 7] 81: 2d2+1 Phrenic Spider Eaters [CR 6] 82: 2d2+1 Phrenic Wraiths [CR 6] 83: 1 8th-level Maenad Ghost Wilder (psionic) [CR 10] 84: 1 5th-level Half-giant Werebear Paladin [CR 10] 85: 2d2+1 4th-level Hobgoblin Werewolf Fighters [CR 6] 86: 1 Troll Weretyrannosaurus [CR 10] 87: 1 7th-level Duergar-Vampire Ranger (psionic) [CR 10] 88: 1 9th-level Drow elf Psion [CR 10] 89: 1 7th-level Centaur Psychic Warrior [CR 10] 90: 2d2-1 Githzerai level 6 monk/level 1 Psionic Fist [CR 8] 91: 1 7th-level Svirfnevlin (gnome) Wizard plus 1 Shield Guardian [CR 8] 92: 1 8th-level Githyanki fighter plus 1 Young Red Dragon [CR 9 and 7] 93: 1d4+1 7th-level Satyr Bards [CR 7] 94: 1d4 4th-level Pixie (sprite) Sorcerers [CR 8] 95: 1 5th-level Yuan-Ti Pureblood Soulknife plus 1 2nd-level Yuan-Ti Abomination Cleric [CR 8] 96: 2d2 7th-level Dromite Psychic Warrions (psionic) [CR 7] 97: 2d2-1 7th-level 4-armed Sahuagin Rogues [CR 8] 98: 1 9th-level Troglodyte Cleric [CR 10] 99: 1 10th-level Xeph Druid with Megaraptor animal companion (psionic) [CR 10] 00: 1 8th-level Half-Celestial Wild Elf Sorcerer [CR 10]
Caterane 10-20-06, 04:27 AM	Awesome MWB! You earned the credits. There's only the ECL 6 list left to do. I updated the Teams post above. Crafting is too big of an advantage. Not even allies can craft stuff so shouldn't team mates.
Caterane 10-20-06, 06:04 AM	I've added the rules for parties to the Rules thread: Battles of Gladius II. Effective immideately. Please tell me if I have to clarify something.
Abyssal Stalker 10-20-06, 06:47 AM	I could do the ECL6. I have plenty of ideas, but I don't have the DMG and the necessary EL table... Any help with that would be appreciated.
Caterane 10-20-06, 12:50 PM	I finally found some time to type up some of the trap rules. The only thing missing is the calculation of the price but that can be found on p75 in the DMG. If someone is so kind and create table 3-15 and 3-16 I would assign credits for that. PS: It's in the NPC Service section.
MindWandererB 10-20-06, 01:03 PM	I could do the ECL6. I have plenty of ideas, but I don't have the DMG and the necessary EL table... Any help with that would be appreciated.I don't have the 3.5 table, either. I use the encounter calculator here (http://www.d20srd.org/). My rule of thumb was that if there's an encounter with a result of "challenging," then that should be the average roll (typically, 2 on 1d3 or 3 on 2d2), and if there's a result of "easy" that's still considered the right EL, then it should be just below average (e.g. 2 on 1d4). @Cat: Although it's lower priority, we will want ECL 11 and 12 tables, and possibly higher as well. This will permit inter-league monster fights, as well as high-EL guild-related random-encounter MQs (which we had talked about).
False_Keraptis 10-24-06, 08:49 AM	So are we going to ban grappling horses yet? Their reign of terror must end!
McJarvis 10-24-06, 10:09 AM	So are we going to ban grappling horses yet? Their reign of terror must end! Yes! *starts a druid with a camel*
Zelck 10-24-06, 12:16 PM	I finally found some time to type up some of the trap rules. The only thing missing is the calculation of the price but that can be found on p75 in the DMG. If someone is so kind and create table 3-15 and 3-16 I would assign credits for that. PS: It's in the NPC Service section. You never assigned a penalty for having an onset delay of 4+ rounds, which carries a -CR rating. EDIT: Nm, you only face the trap for one round. You should note that it makes onset delays of greater than 1 round useless.
Caterane 10-26-06, 07:00 AM	With the departure of Stormwind, WAR is without guildmaster. Is anyone willing to run this guild? It's 1° per week. It's not that much work. You send GAP and CAP action once a week and update the guild on wednesday (update accounting section, link missions/operations, add/remove members from the roster, add new stuff the guild built ...most of that need be done only once every few weeks since you don't buy a new structure every week)
MindWandererB 10-26-06, 03:14 PM	With the departure of Stormwind, WAR is without guildmaster. Is anyone willing to run this guild? It's 1° per week. It's not that much work. You send GAP and CAP action once a week and update the guild on wednesday (update accounting section, link missions/operations, add/remove members from the roster, add new stuff the guild built ...most of that need be done only once every few weeks since you don't buy a new structure every week) I'll just remind everyone that SauroGrenom is the backup, so he takes the role until someone else volunteers to pick it up. Stormwind was also the backup guildmaster for PSI, so we'll need a new backup guildmaster there, as well.
Caterane 10-27-06, 07:05 AM	There are three things to discuss: Problem: A problem that has bothered me since the beginning of the new system is that now, district traits have lost their individuality. For CEF, for instance, it doesn't matter if it moves into the religious district of Valhamya or the slums of Gauterix. We just add all trait points together when calculating the income of structures. The only thing that makes a difference is the 50/trait points but this effect is so minor that it is neglectable. The attitude can also be changed easily and is no deterent from entering a district. Fix 1: You can only build structures if the district has at least +1 in the main trait of the structure. For example, Plains of Naestitya (+1 COM, +1 NAT) can only hold Nature or Commerce structures. If CEF (FAI+2/POL+1) moves in, it can also hold Faith and Politics structures since these traits are now +1 too. If you build an Aqueduct (NAT+2/LEI+1) you can from now on build Leisure structures because Leisure is now at +1. You get the picture. Fix 2: Likewise, you can also only build Trait Rooms (Cranes, Trading Posts, etc) if the trait related to the room is at least at +1. Like above. Additionally, the trait points generated by the room are calculated according to the formula 50*trait with a minimum of 250 PTS. So if you have +6 EDU in a district, each laboratory room generates 300 RES-PTS instead of only 250. Note: Home Districts (those with the guildhall) are not affected by that. They can hold any structure and any room without meeting these requirements. * * * * * Problem: Defense Points are too weak and too passive. They are also too global. Fix 1: All Defense Modes are always active. The Mode "Focused Defense" can replace "District Defense" with a Free Action (instead of a GAP) and vice versa. Focused Defense needs to be adapted slightly (perhaps only half DEF-PTS are relocated) or removed entirely. Fix 2: Defense Points add Conscript Regiments to your defense. You have access to one Conscript Regiment per 100 full defense points in this district. These conscripts can also be used offensively and need to be regenerated normally. They are always automatically stationed in the district and do not cost upkeep. You can upgrade them to militia regiments normally. * * * * * Problem: Miniquests and Quests related to guilds are almost always a success (unless Telin moderates them :D) which is due to the fact that often only the Guildmaster or a fan of the guild volunteers to run a guild quest. I don't want to accuse anyone of cheating (!) but it's understandable that you are more inclined to see your new applicant or your guild member who befriends a district for your guild to succeed. Fix: Guild quests and Operations use Monsters from the Monster lists. Guildlords (and/or the Game Master; whoever reacts first) rolls the monster on an official roller and sends the information to the Questlord. Do you have any other ideas? Comments? Suggestions to improve the above?
hogarth 10-27-06, 07:13 AM	Problem: Miniquests and Quests related to guilds are almost always a success (unless Telin moderates them :D) which is due to the fact that often only the Guildmaster or a fan of the guild volunteers to run a guild quest. I don't want to accuse anyone of cheating (!) but it's understandable that you are more inclined to see your new applicant or your guild member who befriends a district for your guild to succeed. Fix: Guild quests and Operations use Monsters from the Monster lists. Is this not how it works already? That's how I ran the guild operation I did for Nell Leonne.
Vathelokai 10-27-06, 07:46 AM	It all sounds reasonable to me.
Abyssal Stalker 10-27-06, 08:33 AM	Problem: Miniquests and Quests related to guilds are almost always a success (unless Telin moderates them :D) which is due to the fact that often only the Guildmaster or a fan of the guild volunteers to run a guild quest. I don't want to accuse anyone of cheating (!) but it's understandable that you are more inclined to see your new applicant or your guild member who befriends a district for your guild to succeed. Fix: Guild quests and Operations use Monsters from the Monster lists. Guildlords (and/or the Game Master; whoever reacts first) rolls the monster on an official roller and sends the information to the Questlord. Do you have any other ideas? Comments? Suggestions to improve the above? This is not necessary true. I'm catching on Telin :) I can immediately name four recently run guild entry miniquests that ended in defeat (Jerrick's Alexander, Sjiggie's Maglu and Rith's Torel). I think that the problem is with all quests and mq's, and that it originates in D&D generally. No decent GM really wants to beat the players, because he can always do that. It's much more fun for both sides to see the PC's succeed. Our PvP system of course changes this, because the loser has to be always a player. In MQs there isn't any opposing player, so it easily slips into PC victory. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, this is just how it goes. If we change the MQs to random monster fights, it drains a lot of fun from them. I think that creating a opponent that somehow fits the character and the story is the most fun in them. If it's just a roll, it's going to be a lot harder to make it work RP-wise, and that should be the point of guilds anyway! The chance that everyone should take is to make the fights so balanced that they don't favor either side. At least I find troubles with this all the time.
SauroGrenom 10-27-06, 10:02 AM	There are three things to discuss: Problem: A problem that has bothered me since the beginning of the new system is that now, district traits have lost their individuality. For CEF, for instance, it doesn't matter if it moves into the religious district of Valhamya or the slums of Gauterix. We just add all trait points together when calculating the income of structures. The only thing that makes a difference is the 50/trait points but this effect is so minor that it is neglectable. The attitude can also be changed easily and is no deterent from entering a district. When we were discussing the new system, you mentioned that you wanted guilds to be able to branch out from the main guild trait and build other kinds of structures. You wanted that flexibility for CEF to build a leisure structure or an education structure. This appears to be a reversal of that opinion. Fix 1: You can only build structures if the district has at least +1 in the main trait of the structure. For example, Plains of Naestitya (+1 COM, +1 NAT) can only hold Nature or Commerce structures. If CEF (FAI+2/POL+1) moves in, it can also hold Faith and Politics structures since these traits are now +1 too. If you build an Aqueduct (NAT+2/LEI+1) you can from now on build Leisure structures because Leisure is now at +1. You get the picture. Such a system won't hurt any of the guilds. Also since the organization technologies are in place, guilds will naturally tend to build structures within a few traits anyway. You get more out of Industrial Organization III if you build industrial structures almost to the exclusion of all others. My point is that this is a non-limitation. I will always be able to build an A structure or a B structure as I desire in either the district's traits, or my guild traits. Fix 2: Likewise, you can also only build Trait Rooms (Cranes, Trading Posts, etc) if the trait related to the room is at least at +1. Like above. Additionally, the trait points generated by the room are calculated according to the formula 50*trait with a minimum of 250 PTS. So if you have +6 EDU in a district, each laboratory room generates 300 RES-PTS instead of only 250. This is probably too strong of a limitation. Especially with respect to cranes and construction points. Without those, further expansion or fortification is a real problem. This would have the side effect of making TLT vastly more capable of growth and fortification than anyone else. They'd be able to have cranes all over the place where WAR has cranes in only 1 or 2 districts. Problem: Defense Points are too weak and too passive. They are also too global. Fix 1: All Defense Modes are always active. The Mode "Focused Defense" can replace "District Defense" with a Free Action (instead of a GAP) and vice versa. Focused Defense needs to be adapted slightly (perhaps only half DEF-PTS are relocated) or removed entirely. Fix 2: Defense Points add Conscript Regiments to your defense. You have access to one Conscript Regiment per 100 full defense points in this district. These conscripts can also be used offensively and need to be regenerated normally. They are always automatically stationed in the district and do not cost upkeep. You can upgrade them to militia regiments normally. The defense points haven't come into play yet. Most of their effects are with respect to translating to security points and at a time when armies come into play. We are far from such a time. I expect that we are at least 4 months from the training of the first regiment. It may be too early to change these things. Perhaps we can wait till we have actually fought 1 or 2 guild wars before we change the rules with respect to them. It's not clear how much a difference it makes to have 3 extra conscripts, so it's impossible to judge how this suggestion may effect balance. Problem: Miniquests and Quests related to guilds are almost always a success (unless Telin moderates them :D) which is due to the fact that often only the Guildmaster or a fan of the guild volunteers to run a guild quest. I don't want to accuse anyone of cheating (!) but it's understandable that you are more inclined to see your new applicant or your guild member who befriends a district for your guild to succeed. Fix: Guild quests and Operations use Monsters from the Monster lists. Guildlords (and/or the Game Master; whoever reacts first) rolls the monster on an official roller and sends the information to the Questlord.I don't like this suggestion at all. It's not fun as the QL to kill off the players. We have all seen the hurt fealings that results sometimes. Killing players half the time is not nor should be the goal of all DM's. More importantly this suggestion stripps the QL of any power to actually run a game with a sensable story. The QL looses the ability to pick a reasonable monster for his story. The QL looses his ability to judge what he wants to toss at the characters. The QL looses his ability to be creative with monsters. Finally this won't realy fix the problem. I can help characters win a quest against a random monster. I can run the monster with dumb tactics, or I could give the players surprise or I could provide a battlefield that favors the players tactical combat abilities. As an aside, I think that quest encounters are probably already too tough for characters on an even playing field. You could probably take most CR10 monsters and drop them into the Arena and play them like characters and get greater success than a 50% win average. Take a Couatl for example. This creature could probably beat the pants of more than half of the ECL10 characters if it was played by a player. Or a Frost Giant with a level in fighter is CR10 but ECL19. Characters alone in ECL10 would certianly have a tough time against these foes in the arena or even on a quest in a fair or unfavorable battle. Even the Harvester would loose against a frost giant fully equipped who surprises the Harvester in melee and grapples you with armor spikes. Players know this. QL's know this. QL's try to build the combat environment to favor the players by offering prebuffs or surprise or distance. Your suggestion does noting to address the real issue you identify. Even if you could target the real "problem", then I don't think we should. Quests are quests, and they are supposed to be for fun.
hogarth 10-27-06, 10:25 AM	Guild quests/miniquests should involve random monstersI don't like this suggestion at all. It's not fun as the QL to kill off the players. We have all seen the hurt fealings that results sometimes. Killing players half the time is not nor should be the goal of all DM's. More importantly this suggestion stripps the QL of any power to actually run a game with a sensable story. The QL looses the ability to pick a reasonable monster for his story. The QL looses his ability to judge what he wants to toss at the characters. The QL looses his ability to be creative with monsters. [..] Quests are quests, and they are supposed to be for fun. The suggestion was only in regards to guild quests/miniquests, not all quests. I would argue that guild quests/miniquests are about trying to win the guild game, not just "for fun". With regards to stifling creativity, I like the approach that I've seen Telin use of renaming monsters to fit thematically (e.g. renaming hellcats as "hellspiders") without changing the stats. That way, you can use the stats of a random monster without hindering your creative freedom too much. And about hurt feelings after losing in a quest: I would think that there would be fewer hurt feelings if the player knew they lost as a result of "the luck of the draw" as opposed to the questlord actively plotting against them. Please take my opinion with a big grain of salt -- when it comes to quests/miniquests, I've decided that I don't care too much if they're easier than arena battles. I'm more concerned about the huge variation in difficulty in arena monster fights (which are theoretically supposed to be as tough as other arena fights, but have some rather unbalanced creatures -- both too weak and too tough -- on the monster tables).
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 12:35 PM	Fix 1: You can only build structures if the district has at least +1 in the main trait of the structure. For example, Plains of Naestitya (+1 COM, +1 NAT) can only hold Nature or Commerce structures. If CEF (FAI+2/POL+1) moves in, it can also hold Faith and Politics structures since these traits are now +1 too. If you build an Aqueduct (NAT+2/LEI+1) you can from now on build Leisure structures because Leisure is now at +1. You get the picture. I agree with this one fully. It has a nice interaction with district attitudes--if you move into a district that starts off Hostile to you, the advantage is that you have a greater variety of structures you can build. Fix 2: Likewise, you can also only build Trait Rooms (Cranes, Trading Posts, etc) if the trait related to the room is at least at +1. Like above. Additionally, the trait points generated by the room are calculated according to the formula 50*trait with a minimum of 250 PTS. So if you have +6 EDU in a district, each laboratory room generates 300 RES-PTS instead of only 250. I agree with Sauro, this is too strong a limitation, and favors certain guilds (TLT especially, but also EHTC for Trade and EYE's replacement for Defense). It also encourages insane specialization (it takes a bit to get higher than +5). I think Fix 1 is plenty. Fix 1: All Defense Modes are always active. The Mode "Focused Defense" can replace "District Defense" with a Free Action (instead of a GAP) and vice versa. Focused Defense needs to be adapted slightly (perhaps only half DEF-PTS are relocated) or removed entirely. Absolutely not. Operation Offense is far too powerful an option if used in this way. Defense points would be the be-all, end-all of points--every guild would need to practically max them out or risk annihilation by a kobold with a spoon (augmented with 5000 points to its power rating). Fix 2: Defense Points add Conscript Regiments to your defense. You have access to one Conscript Regiment per 100 full defense points in this district. These conscripts can also be used offensively and need to be regenerated normally. They are always automatically stationed in the district and do not cost upkeep. You can upgrade them to militia regiments normally.Since we've never had a battle, I have a very poor feel for this. Again, it seems too cheap--two Guard Posts net you five free regiments of conscripts? Why bother with barracks? Besides, I disagree with your premise. Defense points are very powerful, and they're not global at all (except for Security). If that needs a nerf, then nerf it--make the Security bonus local only. Passive, yes, but these suggestions actually make it more passive, if anything. Fix: Guild quests and Operations use Monsters from the Monster lists. Guildlords (and/or the Game Master; whoever reacts first) rolls the monster on an official roller and sends the information to the Questlord. Operations, I totally agree with. They need to be fair. (Cat: we'll just create a session on the Pitlords account for the purpose.) Missions probably don't need this (with certain exceptions), and it's a valid point that, since these are more story-driven, the ML should have the freedom to design it. However, I'm kind of the impression that guild entry quests should be easier than normal. We don't want to exclude poorly-optimized, or just unlucky, characters from even joining guilds. TLT's had Torel sitting in the waiting list for a month now because he gave up on passing his guild entry minis (for now, I hope), and there's really just no reason for that. If anything, making guild entry minis easier is a handicap for the guild in question, because it allows worse characters to join.
Gonbow 10-27-06, 01:26 PM	*snip* Operations, I totally agree with. They need to be fair. (Cat: we'll just create a session on the Pitlords account for the purpose.) Missions probably don't need this (with certain exceptions), and it's a valid point that, since these are more story-driven, the ML should have the freedom to design it. However, I'm kind of the impression that guild entry quests should be easier than normal. We don't want to exclude poorly-optimized, or just unlucky, characters from even joining guilds. TLT's had Torel sitting in the waiting list for a month now because he gave up on passing his guild entry minis (for now, I hope), and there's really just no reason for that. If anything, making guild entry minis easier is a handicap for the guild in question, because it allows worse characters to join. Two cents in agreement: I still remember my entry quests for the various characters that joined guilds. Santos (a lvl 2 monk at the time) had to kill a cockatrice, Gray Xander teamed up with someone else at ECL 3 to take on a Udoroot and last but certainly not least, my ECL 4 dretch had to singlehandidly take on a Hound Archon. So... letting the QL's handle the choice of enemies is far from making them too easy. Very, very far. No changes needed, imho. (And no, the dretch didn't have a chance against the Archon, got killed in one hit)
hogarth 10-27-06, 01:30 PM	Two cents in agreement: I still remember my entry quests for the various characters that joined guilds. Santos (a lvl 2 monk at the time) had to kill a cockatrice, Gray Xander teamed up with someone else at ECL 3 to take on a Udoroot and last but certainly not least, my ECL 4 dretch had to singlehandidly take on a Hound Archon. Dretch vs. hound archon? Ouch! Of course, this raises the question "Why do we require miniquests to join a guild?" For roleplaying reasons, I guess.
Caterane 10-27-06, 01:32 PM	When we were discussing the new system, you mentioned that you wanted guilds to be able to branch out from the main guild trait and build other kinds of structures. You wanted that flexibility for CEF to build a leisure structure or an education structure. This appears to be a reversal of that opinion. I did and we went too far. There's almost no difference between a zoo, a mint, and a nunnery anymore. When I look which structures I could build I always think it doesn't matter; I skip the whole part about traits of structures. Not our goal. Such a system won't hurt any of the guilds. Also since the organization technologies are in place, guilds will naturally tend to build structures within a few traits anyway. You get more out of Industrial Organization III if you build industrial structures almost to the exclusion of all others. My point is that this is a non-limitation. I will always be able to build an A structure or a B structure as I desire in either the district's traits, or my guild traits. That's unfortunately correct and should be fixed. Idea? I agree with Sauro, this is too strong a limitation, and favors certain guilds (TLT especially, but also EHTC for Trade and EYE's replacement for Defense). It also encourages insane specialization (it takes a bit to get higher than +5). I think Fix 1 is plenty. Sauro actually said that it's NOT plenty. He said it won't have any effect at all so I don't see why you think Fix 1 is plenty. It will have no effect at all without Fix 2. You just build the same structures all over again and won't be affected by Fix 1. This is probably too strong of a limitation. Especially with respect to cranes and construction points. Without those, further expansion or fortification is a real problem. This would have the side effect of making TLT vastly more capable of growth and fortification than anyone else. They'd be able to have cranes all over the place where WAR has cranes in only 1 or 2 districts. Fact is we have to do something to preserve the flavor of traits else we can just forget about structures and just name them Class A/B/C/D. And your assessment is not as reality would be. You say TLT would rule the game but thats not true. They could build cranes in every district, yes, spending GAPs and thousands of gold and SS to do that, and I of the CEF just have my four cranes in Arkhein and ship ressources to the target district. That's more dangerous and needs escorts but it doesn't prevent me from building stuff. TLT just has an advantage of constructing cranes near the construction site, and be able to repair district damage in case of an occupation. That's their guild bonus. But in no way is any guild being prevented from expanding. What my suggestion does is that you now need to plan carefully and look where you expand. In the worst case you can produce what you want in your home district. Without this fix it there's no reason to look at district traits because they're so neglectable in effect that we can almost do away with them altogether and just say "+1 Trait". That's surely not what we want. The defense points haven't come into play yet. Most of their effects are with respect to translating to security points and at a time when armies come into play. We are far from such a time. I expect that we are at least 4 months from the training of the first regiment. It may be too early to change these things. Perhaps we can wait till we have actually fought 1 or 2 guild wars before we change the rules with respect to them. It's not clear how much a difference it makes to have 3 extra conscripts, so it's impossible to judge how this suggestion may effect balance. With the recent fix on how defense points work (formula instead of flat deduction) these points are much less valuable. I have calculated that if I build like one or two guard posts (2 GAPs, 2000 gp, 2 precious SS) then all I accomplish is a perhaps -100 damage reduction. Before our fix, it was -500 DR. Same for offense. Defense Points are just too weak atm. Compare that with the options I gain with 500 TRA-PTS or 500 CON-PTS. Operation Offense, even if automatic, doesn't increase damage by 5000 (how do you ever want to get that number?? 20 Guard Posts??) but gives a little bonus to damage. The other guilds can build their own posts and reduce the damage again. Additionally, no one uses Ops Offense because it makes you too vulnarable to counter-attacks and thus you gain nothing out of it. You deal ~200 extra damage but suffer the full amount of PR damage because you now have no DEF-PTS active at all. As it is now, we can basically do away with anything but the District Defense. Bad. Since we've never had a battle, I have a very poor feel for this. Again, it seems too cheap--two Guard Posts net you five free regiments of conscripts? Why bother with barracks? Because you station Regulars and Irregulars in barracks who are much better and gain levels and equipment. But you're right that it is too much; we should make it 1 Conscript per 250 DEF-PTS. That's basically the guards in the post.
Zevox 10-27-06, 02:03 PM	Gray Xander teamed up with someone else at ECL 3 to take on a Udoroot You've mixed up two quests there - the Udoroot was wen he went with Sir Alboreth to help reclaim the TAO campus. His entry quest was with Eraca vs an Acheirai. my ECL 4 dretch had to singlehandidly take on a Hound Archon. Have I apologized enough for that one yet? :embarrass I'm still really, really sorry. Didn't know those were that damn powerful... Zevox
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 02:26 PM	I did and we went too far. There's almost no difference between a zoo, a mint, and a nunnery anymore. When I look which structures I could build I always think it doesn't matter; I skip the whole part about traits of structures. Not our goal. That's unfortunately correct and should be fixed. Idea? Sauro actually said that it's NOT plenty. He said it won't have any effect at all so I don't see why you think Fix 1 is plenty. It will have no effect at all without Fix 2. You just build the same structures all over again and won't be affected by Fix 1. Fact is we have to do something to preserve the flavor of traits else we can just forget about structures and just name them Class A/B/C/D. I agreed with him in that Fix 2 was too much. But it's a good point--the extra money gained by <Trait> Organization is too much of an incentive to stick to your "home" trait. I have a couple of ideas: 1) The Primary trait of a structure must match one of the two district traits. Alternatively, all trait points count except for the guild trait points. 2) The amount of action points you get from trait points is increased. There are several problems with the room restriction. Sure, CEF can use its four Construction Cranes to ship building materials. Not a big problem. But TLT has begun to do the Trade thing, and we wouldn't be allowed to build any more Trading Posts without moving into a +1 COM district or building several structures with COM as the secondary trait. And what about Guard Posts? Not being able to put those anywhere except your home base and locations with +1 POL is just brutal, not to mention silly. And if the guild traits count, CEF and EYE's replacement will have a colossal advantage. Along the same lines, research would be crippled, if not impossible, for guilds without EDU, and production for guilds without IND. I actually think EHTC and WAR would benefit most by this rule, since Trade can be used to make up for deficiencies in several other areas. What my suggestion does is that you now need to plan carefully and look where you expand. In the worst case you can produce what you want in your home district. Without this fix it there's no reason to look at district traits because they're so neglectable in effect that we can almost do away with them altogether and just say "+1 Trait". That's surely not what we want. With the recent fix on how defense points work (formula instead of flat deduction) these points are much less valuable. I have calculated that if I build like one or two guard posts (2 GAPs, 2000 gp, 2 precious SS) then all I accomplish is a perhaps -100 damage reduction. Before our fix, it was -500 DR. Same for offense. Defense Points are just too weak atm. Compare that with the options I gain with 500 TRA-PTS or 500 CON-PTS.My calculations show more like -230 damage reduction with two guard posts, -135 with one. Pays for itself with ten attacks (except for that SS). Operation Offense, even if automatic, doesn't increase damage by 5000 (how do you ever want to get that number?? 20 Guard Posts??) but gives a little bonus to damage. The other guilds can build their own posts and reduce the damage again. All right, let's look at that. If Offensive use is automatic, let's try a mid-game scenario. CEF and EHTC have expanded to four districts each, each with a Fortress. After their home base (which is overflowing with essentials like quarters and the main hall), they manage to get four guard posts into each Fortress. That's 12 guard posts altogether. Plus, they're Friendly in each district. That's a total of 4000 DEF each. (Actually, traits pump that up a bit higher, but let's go with this for simplicity. Adding the traits would increase the imbalances I'm about to illustrate.) CEF attacks EHTC's home base with a character with a power rating of 1000. We have two rule options on the table. One is that only district defense counts, defensively. Since EHTC's main base doesn't have room for guard posts, its defense is 250. The damage dealt is ((1000+4000)/(1000+250))*1000 = 4000 damage. Ouch. Or, we could allow half of EHTC's global defense to apply: ((1000+4000)/(1000+2000))*1000 = 1666 damage. Hefty, although not insane. Now, let's take another new proposal into account: EHTC, not having POL as a guild trait, can only build guard posts in Duken Marina. Since they know how important DEF is, they use up half their fortress and put eight guard posts there. With half of their global defense applied, we now have ((1000+4000)/(1000+1500))*1000 = 2000 damage. Still quite a bit--especially considering that if CEF continues to attack at that rate, EHTC will never have time to rebuild. The end is inevitable, unless they can successfully intercept the majority of attacks. And just for kicks, let's flip that last scenario over: EHTC, with their global defense of 3000, attacks CEF, with 4000. ((1000+3000)/(1000+2000))*1000 = 1333 damage. Reasonably mediocre. But one last scenario: take a look at TAO in this hypothetical situation. Having expanded into Valhamya, Kailo, and Luna Marsh, they have no POL districts, and thus no guard posts. If CEF attacks them, they deal 4000 damage, and there's really not a whole lot TAO can do about that. Assuming CEF uses both CAPs to attack, that's death in about 2 turns. Possibly 1, if CEF uses a GAP to attack with troops as well. If TAO counterattacks, they get to do a whopping ((1000+1000)/(1000+2000))*1000 = 666 damage. Whee. Nothing 2 Construction GAPs every 3 weeks can't handle. And again, they have little way to augment that.
SauroGrenom 10-27-06, 04:10 PM	I don't think the structures are an issue at all realy, and we can mostly leave it alone as is now. My mid game prediction is that most of the guilds will have 3 districts. There are 22 districts, and 7 guilds. So that's 3 districts each, and some lucky guild will have 4 (if Chandar forest is ever cleared). Perhaps another guild will have 4 while a third is limited to 2 districts. You can probably look at the map and easily pick the districts that all the guilds are most likely to go into. (BTW I think the south of the map is too crowded. There are only 2 guilds clearly positioned in the north and 3 of us in the south with two sort of middle. PSI is bordered by 4 districts, and all border on 3 guilds. TAO is bordered by 4 districts and 2 are uncontested. CEF and EYE simularly have uncontested districts near them. But that's another issue that I don't think anything can be done about at this point.) That's a total of 150 SS for three districts. If you consider the sizes of the fortresses needed to defend the districts and a few top level structures, we are only talking about 5 A structures, 2 keeps, the guildhall and perhaps a few smaller structures to fill in the gaps. If you have enough money to take the added cost and high research requirements, you can get an extra 75 SS for your districts. That's enough to build 3 more A structures and a few smaller ones or to upgrade the districts to fortresses. You're talking about about 12-15 structures in all, 24 at the most if you favor small buildings which will require larger fortresses to protect them. Now if I invest in Education organization 3, I can build 3 A level education structures. I can invest in industry 3 and build 3 A level Industry structures... Those two things, and I'm almost full on structures with my districts maxed out at 75ss each with 3 A structures and fortresses in them all. That's maxed research and development and only 9 structures. Is that realy a problem? I've branched out into 3 "home traits" and optimized them to use the kinds of technology I've developed. I don't see the problem. If you tell me that I cannot build cranes except in the home district or districts with nature traits, then that seriously limits my growth options. Now the first person to make it into guilds with nature traits are at a seriously large advantage for building or repairing structures in that district. Also guilds with limited membership will be very vulnerable to having caravan's attacked. This would be anotehr way that weaker guilds are hedged out of play. How about this? You cannot build a room for the district chapter house unless the district supports at least +1 in the associated trait. So PSI cannot build cranes in Gauterix untill we build enough structures to give the distict +1 nature. That means that a Class B nature structure or a Class A structure with nature as the secondary effect is necessary before I can put cranes into the chapter house in Gauterix. Right now I'm thinking about building and expansion, but there could be serious side effects to such a limitation. I'm not sure how it will play out with defense rooms, or leisure to hire staff and regiments. Also if such a huge limitation were to now be placed on us, I'd insist that we be allowed to switch the currently existing PSI structure to "save" class A Ind/Nat structure for a district with no nature traits. Finally certian imbalances may appear in the classificiations of structures and the guild traits and district traits. For example if you have no Faith/Nature structures as Class A or B, and thus Orgaization Faith will be a technology not worth persuing for even faith based guilds. They will avoid building faith structures as the primary trait untill expansion isn't the main goal anymore. Meh... I'm just rambling here. I'm not convinced that this is a real problem that needs to be fixed. Specialization should be a reasonable tactic to follow. It should be possible to get that Powercenter bonus in 4or5 districts. Getting +12 in three traits is not a simple task even with lots of special bonuses and maximum specialization.
Caterane 10-27-06, 04:28 PM	But it's a good point--the extra money gained by <Trait> Organization is too much of an incentive to stick to your "home" trait. It's not that development that is a problem but the lack of significant distinction between traits. Whatever we do we should fix that else I roll the next structure I build randomly with the online roller, and roll the district I'll move in aswell. I have a couple of ideas: 1) The Primary trait of a structure must match one of the two district traits. Alternatively, all trait points count except for the guild trait points. 2) The amount of action points you get from trait points is increased. The former was already proposed by me as Fix 1 although yours is even narrower and determines the type of structure you can only build ever in this district. Boring. Worse, it doesn't do anything to solve the problem I mentioned above. So I can now only build POL or EDU in Gorthyum? So what? Is POL better or worse than COM or NEG? It's the same xcept for the whooping 50 PTS a trait. I gain 250 per room if I need points. Bottom line: no effect. The second proposal is bad because the system is carefully balanced as it is and messing around with points could create holes we cannot foresee. It also affects all guilds retroactively which is bad. There are several problems with the room restriction. Sure, CEF can use its four Construction Cranes to ship building materials. Not a big problem. But TLT has begun to do the Trade thing, and we wouldn't be allowed to build any more Trading Posts without moving into a +1 COM district or building several structures with COM as the secondary trait. And what about Guard Posts? Not being able to put those anywhere except your home base and locations with +1 POL is just brutal, not to mention silly. And if the guild traits count, CEF and EYE's replacement will have a colossal advantage. Along the same lines, research would be crippled, if not impossible, for guilds without EDU, and production for guilds without IND. I actually think EHTC and WAR would benefit most by this rule, since Trade can be used to make up for deficiencies in several other areas. You can ship CON, RES, and PRO points anywhere. REC, TRA and NEG works from anywhere too. Infact, it encourages to look and conquer districts that possess the wanted traits. You cannot construct with cranes if there's no material in the district. You have a point in one thing though. The problem you portrayed is the lack of defense which you probably need in any district. We should then rather change the whole Politics section and make Guard Posts and DEF points seperate from the guild point system. Here's a draft: Defense Points (which are only generated in Guard Posts and by District attitudes) are seperated from the guild point system; you can build guard posts anywhere. Their modes as they're now can be kept and no modification is necessary since they need not compete with other types of points any more. Negotiation Points go to Politics as that's the domain of the politicians. Faith needs a new point type then. Or we leave NEG to Faith and look for a new point type for Politics; whatever's easier.
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 04:36 PM	How about this? You cannot build a room for the district chapter house unless the district supports at least +1 in the associated trait. So PSI cannot build cranes in Gauterix untill we build enough structures to give the distict +1 nature. That means that a Class B nature structure or a Class A structure with nature as the secondary effect is necessary before I can put cranes into the chapter house in Gauterix.This is exactly what Cat proposed. It requires four total classes of structure, though (one A, or a B and a D, or two Cs, etc). Also if such a huge limitation were to now be placed on us, I'd insist that we be allowed to switch the currently existing PSI structure to "save" class A Ind/Nat structure for a district with no nature traits.Not necessary. You can build a Shipyard in every district, if you like. You just can't double up in the same district. But I'd want the chance to re-do some things, too. Finally certian imbalances may appear in the classificiations of structures and the guild traits and district traits. For example if you have no Faith/Nature structures as Class A or B, and thus Orgaization Faith will be a technology not worth persuing for even faith based guilds. They will avoid building faith structures as the primary trait untill expansion isn't the main goal anymore.A big, fat "agreed" there, although it's not as bad as you think. For instance, if PSI wants to build a training hall in a district, they don't have any IND/LEI or EDU/LEI Class A strcutures, but they could still build, for instance, a Gold Smithy (C-IND/LEI) and a School (C-EDU/LEI). That would get them their +1 LEI and allow them to build the room. A bit tedious, but it works. If TLT wants to build Trading Posts, we could either do a Mission (C-FAI/COM) and a Farmstead (C-NAT/COM), or an Occult Sect (B-FAI/COM) and a Logging Camp (D-NAT/COM). You can ship CON, RES, and PRO points anywhere. REC, TRA and NEG works from anywhere too. Infact, it encourages to look and conquer districts that possess the wanted traits. You cannot construct with cranes if there's no material in the district.Not the point. You have to be able to produce them somewhere before you can use them anywhere. If TLT wants to build up a ton of Trade, we have to get as many COM districts as we can (which ATM would be Naestitya only, which I'm sure PSI and EHTC would be thrilled about), and fill them with trading posts, or else build the aforementioned structures all over the place. But I am thinking that taking DEF points out of the 7-trait system might be a good idea. They never worked the same way as the others, anyway. I'll think about a different ability for POL or FAI (either would work; FAI could keep NEG if necessary).
Caterane 10-27-06, 04:44 PM	How about this? You cannot build a room for the district chapter house unless the district supports at least +1 in the associated trait. So PSI cannot build cranes in Gauterix untill we build enough structures to give the distict +1 nature. That means that a Class B nature structure or a Class A structure with nature as the secondary effect is necessary before I can put cranes into the chapter house in Gauterix. That's exactly what I proposed. If you need cranes in Gauterix, try to build structures until there's a +1 in the associated trait. Or other option: you can build any structure anywhere (as it is now). The change is that you can build only one room associated with a trait per +1 in the district. Example: Naestitya has +2 COM, +3 NAT, +1 LEI. You could build up to 2 Trading posts, 3 cranes, and/or 1 training hall there. The difference to the proposal above is that you only need a Class D structure for one room. Or: we add the old individual structure effects back on. Or: we come up with two new effects. One individual effect for each trait (eg all Politics structures increase district attitudes constantly) and one individual effect per Class (probably the strength of the first effect). But I am thinking that taking DEF points out of the 7-trait system might be a good idea. They never worked the same way as the others, anyway. I'll think about a different ability for POL or FAI (either would work; FAI could keep NEG if necessary). Yes. As said, I didn't invest a lot of thought into DEF points when I created the guild system. I still think NEG would much better fit Politics; that's what they do all day. What point type can we add?
SauroGrenom 10-27-06, 04:46 PM	I'd rather have effects of the structures that are determined by the traits of the structuers and class of the structures. Limits on what you can and cannot build in the chapterhouse puts too much emphasis on which structures you put in. It locks in too many dependancies.
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 04:51 PM	Or other option: you can build any structure anywhere (as it is now). The change is that you can build only one room associated with a trait per +1 in the district. Example: Naestitya has +2 COM, +3 NAT, +1 LEI. You could build up to 2 Trading posts, 3 cranes, and/or 1 training hall there. That's even more restrictive. I think it's challenging enough building up to a +1. Getting more than that would be prohibitive. ...on the other hand, if a +1 lets you build primary structures in the area in question, then you could build four levels of structure to allow you to build another two levels per +1. Not horrible... but say goodbye to any headquarters larger than a Citadel, and rarely larger than a Keep. Or: we add the old individual structure effects back on. Or: we come up with two new effects. One individual effect for each trait (eg all Politics structures increase district attitudes constantly) and one individual effect per Class (probably the strength of the first effect).These are so challenging to balance that I'd really rather avoid them if at all possible. And besides, if they are balanced, then working towards one will be just as good as working towards any of them.
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 05:22 PM	A few thoughts for new points: [CHARITY] - Generate Charity Points (CHA-PTS) <|Donate Aid: You send points of another trait to be used by a different guild. <|Receive Aid: Receive the donated points of another guild. <|Alms: Spend money to improve the attitude of a district. <|Solicit Volunteers: Perform a Construction task inefficiently but cheaply. Donate aid: you would follow this act either in the same week or in the next week with expenditure of another trait point. For instance, if CEF spend 500 CHA-PTS, they could send up to 500 RES, PRO, or CON points (or perhaps gold, maaaybe even just any type of trait) to benefit an allied guild. Edit: The expendture of the second type of resource doesn't cost an additional GAP. If you have 500 CHA-PTS and 1000 CON-PTS available, you can spend 1 GAP and the other guild gets 500 CON-PTS. You can't use those same 500 CON-PTS in the same week, though. Receive aid: Same as Donate, but in reverse. So a guild with CHA-PTS could give or receive to a guild without them. Edit: This requires a GAP for the donating guild, but it's a free action for you. Alms: Spend gold and CHA-PTS to improve district attitudes at 1:1:1. Sort of like the Hire Mercenaries trade option. Alternatively, could be used for paramilitary groups. Not appropriate for other guilds, though--although donating aid should improve guild relations. Solicit volunteers: Spend 1000 CHA-PTS and 250 gold and you get to construct 500 points worth of stuff, as if you had spend 500 CON-PTS and 500 gold. Versatility and cost efficiency at the cost of time efficiency. I'll add more as I think of them.
Caterane 10-27-06, 05:47 PM	Donate Aid: What good does it do if I spend a GAP to waste my CHA-PTS and lose stored ressources? Receive Aid: I don't get this. I use this and the EHTC gives me their Construction Points? Which guild does that? Even allies have more than enough to build themselves. Alms: There's the improve attitude GAP for NEG-PTS already. This is similar; just worse. Volunteers: I save a neglectable amount of gold (~250 gp?) for using up 4 SS and 4000 gold worth of rooms? First it takes months to get the money back in if at all; I think there's not enough space in Gladius to construct to get the invested money back by using this option, and it also takes twice as long to build something when time is an important factor. I need EIGHT! rooms to get +1000 CON-PTS. I would always buy 4 cranes before I use this.
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 05:53 PM	<shrug> I guess I place more value on versatility than you do. Those eight rooms could get you 1000 CON-PTS, but they'd do much of the work of NEG-PTS, plus allow you to share points with another guild. If TLT were on friendly terms with another guild right now, I'd gladly spend points to be able to give them CON or TRA in exchange for RES or PRO. Perhaps it should be more efficient, but I guess it doesn't matter. I'll try to think of something else. Edit: The original proposal has been edited to make it more desirable. Probably not good enough, but better.
SauroGrenom 10-27-06, 06:15 PM	Hmm charisma points.. I won't comment on modifying the various kinds of points. I'll just suggest that you not mess with the flavor of leisure or politics too much. That could effect the new guild and put us back with respect to the decision on the new theme. Next I think that limits on what you can and cannot build is too restricting especially if we place those limits now after several months of building has already taken place. First I must ask what is the goal here? My impression is that Cat wants it to make a difference if he chooses to build a faith/education structure instead of a commerce/politics one. That difference should be big enough to influince his decision. I don't realy care if a Ranger Station is a class A structure or a class B or Class Z. To my mind the trait combinations on all the structures are not perfectly balanced nor flexabe enough. Let's assume that we creat a rule that makes a difference between which structures get built. It's frustrating if I want to build a class A structure that is Industry as the prime trait, and Faith as the secondary trait, but there is no option. I must move down to class B to get that. Meh. So I have a two fold suggestion: Release the trait pairs and classes to be freely selectable by guildmasters when the structures are built. So I can build my Class A IND/FAI Brewery if I want. Limit this so that the saime trait pair can only be owned by the guild once. I can only have one X/Y structure of any class. If I want it to be a higher class I will need to upgrade it. This means that a guild will have at the most 6 structures that are all Faith/Y or Education/Y. Second make the structures provide a guild point bonus that stacks with the district synergy bonus and is dependant on the traits of the structure. Cat mentions that the synergy bonus is a measly 50 or so guild points. This is not enough to be of any serious consequence. The simple thing is to just boost it. I suggest that every structure with X/Y traits simply works much like a room in the guildhall (except it eats many more SS and generates some income and is independantly attackable). So Level D X/Y structures give +100 bonus in trait X and +50 bonus in trait Y. Level A structures will give +400 bonus in trait X and +200 bonus in trait Y. Of course they must be activated in the same way as normal, and the traits are of whatever kind the guild decides they are in need of. The structure functions as a room of sorts and helps the guild in that way. If you build a big class A lumbermill, then the sure you get +400 construction. And building more structures is easier with the boost in CON points. These bonuses for many small structures or larger ones will quickly add up. By building Nature structures too much you will soon have more CON points than you can spend. Or too many Trade points to use. Or whatever. I like this because it give the guildmasters more freedom to build whatever structures they like. Also it makes your structures more than just gold generators. They also generate serious guild points and as a source of all that, they are necessary to protect them. And you need to choose the correct kind of structure to generate guild points of a kind you need. We could also give structures 1 SS/ class to put rooms into. They then become mini chapter houses where you can put counter measures in them or a guard station or even a laboratory depending on what you want to do. Class D structures will have 1SS while Class A will have 4.
Caterane 10-27-06, 06:17 PM	This exchange of ressources between guilds could be added to TRA-PTS although this type is already very powerful and diverse. Maybe we have to add a new layer, like population or prestige or elections. @Sauro: I don't want to remove the names we found with so much effort. And as said, messing around with the amount of points unbalances the system unless we reduce the amount generated by rooms in return. But you have a good idea in that the trait rooms can only be built in structures. So a Temple (FAI/IND, Class A) has 4 SS which can be filled with Embassies and Workshops, or counter-measures. In return, these rooms cannot be built in a headquarter except for the Guildhall which can hold any room. PTS-generating rooms should then be renamed to "Structure Upgrade". I have to think about that some more.
SauroGrenom 10-27-06, 06:21 PM	Seriously guys, this is taking too long. We should probably setup a chat and all get together to discuss it.
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 06:25 PM	1: Not a bad idea. That allows each guild to build a total of 10 levels' worth of X/Y structures, and another 10 levels' worth of Y/X structures. Would work well with the minimum +1 rule. 2: I suggested that above. Cat shot it down: "The second proposal is bad because the system is carefully balanced as it is and messing around with points could create holes we cannot foresee. It also affects all guilds retroactively which is bad." I don't quite follow that--none of the balance would be changed, and all of these proposals would affect guilds retroactively. 3: I don't really see the point. It's basically like increasing the SS of a district, except that you get more out of it the less you invest in your base. For instance, if you build only a chapterhouse, you get 14 SS worth of rooms total (5 + 9), but if you build a Keep, you only get 18 (10 + 8). Every 5 SS you increase the headquarters by, you only get 4 SS to work with. Although I am starting to feel the SS crunch. There aren't nearly enough to do even half of what I want. I don't want to remove the names we found with so much effort. And as said, messing around with the amount of points unbalances the system unless we reduce the amount generated by rooms in return. But you have a good idea in that the trait rooms can only be built in structures. So a Temple (FAI/POL, Class A) has 4 SS which can be filled with Embassies and Guard Posts. In return, these rooms cannot be built in a headquarter except for the Guildhall which can hold any room. I have to think about that some more.Maybe we should consider removing headquarters entirely, in that case--or else reducing them to defense/control functions only, and removing the SS cap on the guildhall (which is already very tight).
SauroGrenom 10-27-06, 06:37 PM	Cat, Keep the names, but allow the structures to be of any size. Simply list them as things like: IND/FAI Glassworks or Brewery That means that a small Brewery is Class D and a big one is Class B and a huge famous on is Class A. It allows me as guildmaster to have a Class A IND/FAI structure when it's not in there now. Win Win! We keep the names and offer more flexibility. I'll support the idea of more synergy bonus. The system isn't actually carefully balanced. We are running through the game now for the first time and we see that some holes are in it. How can you balance things without playtest? If we put a greater secondary bonus on the structures, then guildmasters choose them as needed for their effects. This achieves our aim without confusing everything else or adding another layer of complexity to the already complex game. Also putting a few extra SS into the structures makes them customizable. Your structures can be defended or trapped or provide extra guild point bonuses. This also achieves our aim of making structures more distinct from eachother.
Caterane 10-27-06, 06:37 PM	God no, headquarters must stay because they are everywhere in the rules. We just want a slight change and Sauro's could work. - Structures generate 100 PTS per home, and 50 per synergy trait (twice as now) - PTS-generating rooms become "Structure Upgrades". These can be built only in a structure associated with that trait, or the Guildhall. - Structure Upgrades produce +100 PTS. - Since there can be counter-measures in structures, those in the headquarter affect the headquarter only, not everything in the district. That more or less generates the same amount of trait PTS but puts the focus on structures and not on rooms. Also, rooms are now dependent on the structure you build which makes structures more important and diverse. We'd have both my goals accomplished. It also frees up SS in the headquarter for other stuff like Guard Posts and Barracks and counter-measures. If we now anyhow tie structures to district traits, we are done with our problem without changing too much.
SauroGrenom 10-27-06, 06:48 PM	I would not cut back so far on the points generated on structure upgrades. That puts a heavy cost on them. You pay for the stucture then 1000gp a pop for upgrades just to get the number of points we now expect? Ouch. I think we should allow the points generated by structures to be even higher than you suggest. There is a serious barrier to using structures of varius kinds your guild is not already focused in. It will be a long long time before PSI builds a faith structure if the bonus for a class C is only 100 negotiation. We will have use of our production and education for a long time before negotiation looks attractive. So we just won't branch out. However if we had more production points than we could use... then we branch out. It's like this, if your character is causing 5000hp damage on a grapple check with a +50 check mod, then you won't spend any more feats or abilities increasing that. You'll recognize that the flying casters are kicking you butt, so you'll develop abilities to counter that. Do you get my point? Giving a measely point bonus will not make me want to branch out into a new kind of trait. However if I already have more CON points than I can use, then I'll branch out into trade.
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 06:49 PM	Could work. We'd have to decide how many SS to allow in each structure. The "default" would be the number of SS it takes up, but that might be a little much. Structure Upgrades producing only +100 makes them pretty weak for 1000 gp. I'd keep it at 250, and maybe increase the points to 125 per attribute point. What about CON-PTS? I would say no, upgrades shouldn't require CON. And do you mean to produce countermeasures in every structure? CEF would need five Bucket Brigades even now. I think they should cover the whole district. We would have to retrofit the rooms that already exist--many guilds will want to relocate rooms into structures (although at a cost of 150 points per... hmm) and many will want to change the structures they already have. Of course, that will also be true when we fix DEF-PTS. While we're at it, here's a secondary consideration: as I mentioned before, the guild halls are pretty packed. If we could move the "upgrade" rooms out of them without a loss of efficiency, it would allow us to actually build things like barracks and towers.
SauroGrenom 10-27-06, 07:00 PM	I'd modify your suggestion as follows: - Structures generate 100 PTS per home, and 50 per synergy trait multiplied by the structure class (1=D, 2=C, 3=B, 4=A). - PTS-generating rooms become "Structure Upgrades". These can be built only in a structure associated with that trait, or the Guildhall. - Structure Upgrades produce +200 PTS. (or cut the price of these upgrades, they cost 1000gp and 1 GAP now and that's a high price, remember most guild already have spent lots of gold and GAP to get the ones they have now) - Since there can be counter-measures in structures, those in the headquarter affect the headquarter only, not everything in the district. (agreed, but again the cost should be lowered in gold and in CAP if you do this. It will take a great deal of gold and CAP to put defenses in all your structures. Also if we expect structures to defend themsleves, then we could run into another serious squeeze on the number of SS in a structure. They need guards and all the counter measures and rooms for points? That's alot to fit into 4ss on a class A.) It also frees up SS in the headquarter for other stuff like Guard Posts and Barracks and counter-measures. (Very good effect, I agree it's usefull.) If we now anyhow tie structures to district traits, we are done with our problem without changing too much.(THis idea makes me learly. I want to have some freedom as to which district I move into. If the structures are determined by the district, then I must move into a district with traits that I need. That's very limiting. It will dictate how every guild develops on the map.)
SauroGrenom 10-27-06, 07:07 PM	I need to drop out of this for now, and go out to dinner with my wife. I'll pick it up again in the morning or perhaps late evening. I'll be available on Yahoo tomarrow afternoon, perhaps we can chat about it then and move this along much faster.
Caterane 10-27-06, 07:13 PM	@Sauro: You mean we should flood the guilds with enough points so that they can build a Class A in 1-2 weeks in the beginning phase? Why not just give everyone 1 million gold to branch out. That's not our goal. We want to let the guilds decide if they focus on something or branch out, and if they do then because it seems a good option and not because they have nothing left to do. There is a problem with our latest idea: The CEF would have 4 cranes for +400 CON-PTS but no NAT structure so this would result in a slow pace. Fix would be to say these rooms built in the Guildhall generate 250 PTS in any case. To make it clearer, the current trait rooms will be divided into two categories: - Structure Upgrades: can only be built in a related structure and generate +100 PTS. We could reduce the price to 500 gp or up the efficiency to +200. - Guildhall Rooms: work like our current trait rooms: +250 PTS. Only available for the Guildhall. We have to be careful with granting too much PTS. With the additional SS from structures you have also more options to frontload. It should not happen that you can stay in your home district, fortify it to the roof, without having to expand. I am sure the current SS amount is enough for headquarters, even more now if we move the trait rooms out. EDIT: Sauro, let me give you an example of your suggestion. District: NAT+1/IND+1 => 100 CON, 100 PRO Guild: NAT+2/IND+1 => 200 CON, 100 PRO Class A: NAT+2/IND+1 => 200 CON, 100 PRO *Class Level = 800 CON, 400 PRO ---------- From one Class A in a district you gain 1100 CON and 600 PRO. Add four upgrades for another +800 CON. You never need anything else. You are playing with WAY too many points. Here's my idea: District: NAT+1/IND+1 => 100 CON, 100 PRO Guild: NAT+2/IND+1 => 200 CON, 100 PRO Class A: NAT+2/IND+1 => 200 CON, 100 PRO ----------- One Class A in a new district gains 500 CON and 300 PRO. As it is now, it would be 250 CON and 125 PRO so we'd already double it. Now let's compare building upgrades: GOLD..... NOW............. ...NEW 5000..... ClassA+100 (100) ...ClassA+200 (200) 6000..... Crane +250 (350) ...Crane +200 (400) 7000..... Crane +250 (600) ...Crane +200 (600) 8000..... Crane +250 (850) ...Crane +200 (800) 9000..... Crane +250 (1100)...Crane +200 (1000) It's a bit more in the beginning and a bit less in the end (really minor), ie we have preserved the balance, and gained: - You have 4 SS which you previously didn't have => More space for other rooms - We have made structures more diverse and distinguishing - We have tied rooms to structures EDIT2: Hm, actually even that might be too much. My table seems to list the same quantity of PTS but since rooms are now removed from the headquarter (where there was limited SS) you can now build more cranes than before. Look: the Class A structure above could be built a second time to gain a net CON of +2000 for one full district. This was only possible with 8 SS in the old system which alone needed a Keep with little else in it. I'll run some more examples...
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 07:25 PM	I think this is workable, but I still think the guilds should have a chance to reassign existing rooms and structures, once we get this hammered out. I think with money becoming more plentiful as the game progresses, increasing efficiency is the way to go. +150 or even +200 per upgrade might do it. There's still the issue of SS's per structure--I think 20 SS's for a Class-A structure is a bit silly, when all you can put in it is two types of upgrade. 1/5 might be about right, but only if they're efficient enough. If they stay at +100, or even +150, I'd go with 2/5 SS (so 2 for D, 8 for A). Actually, +125 might be best of all at that rate (so a full D would give +250, and a full A would give +1000, which sounds really good to me).
Caterane 10-27-06, 07:44 PM	One SS per class
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 07:54 PM	One SS per class Then even +125 is pretty paltry. A full Class-A would get only 500 points. I mean, it's something--I guess it's just barely enough to be worthwhile--but it's a bit skimpy, especially for 1000 gold and a GAP. It would also be hard to do repairs while under siege with no more than 500 CON-PTS. Then again, the money is beginning to come in pretty steadily for most guilds at this point, and it will continue to improve. And GAPs will get better, too, with main halls and grand halls (although currently, almost no one has enough space left in their HQ to build a grand hall). It might be just barely enough.
Caterane 10-27-06, 08:55 PM	You misunderstand that MWB. You'd gain +2 Primary Trait and +1 Secondary Trait from the structure to the district traits. Since we increased the District Effects from 50 to 100 per +1 trait, you'd gain a base +200 PTS in the primary trait, and +100 PTS in the secondary trait from the Class A structure alone. This structure then has 4 empty SS which you can fill with rooms related to the primary or secondary trait. We said 200 PTS per room? That's another +800 pts for a total of 1000 PTS for a filled Class A structure. Add to that amount the base district traits (+100/+100) and the guild traits (+200/+100) and we have +1300 PTS per GAP. You used up 20 SS in the district for the structure and generate 1300 PTS. You could now build a second such structure in the same district for a total of 2300 PTS max in one district. This would require almost 10 rooms in the headquarter in our current guild system version which is impossible until late in the game when you have a Castle or Palace. You see, the maximum PTS generated in the new system are more than what we have now.
MindWandererB 10-27-06, 09:58 PM	Now that sounds more like it. With 200 points, that sounds pretty good. And I doubt very much that anyone will ever upgrade their home base to a Palace. That will require either no more structures in the home district, or else lots and lots of research and money (since even with the tech, exceeding 50 SS costs double--that's probably 30,000 gp!).
Caterane 10-28-06, 05:12 AM	Wait till I research Trebuchets :evillaugh And we should now make the district base traits more important. It's still so that you can build any structure anywhere. If we say you need +1 trait to build a certain type of structure then districts will become much more diverse. You can always build structures related to your two guild traits. You can always build structures of the base district traits; that's 3-4 options (of seven!) per district. Your home district can hold any structure if you really need a room of a certain type. Or you can build up +1 with synergy traits (1 Class A, or 2 Class C) to free the missing trait. There are enough options. Let's give that a try. If it is too restricting, then we can always come up with a special structure "Trait Focus" that simulates +1 in a trait (without adding it). Now we need a substitute for Defense Points which can be either Politics or Faith related. I am also thinking about reducing the effects of a Befriend District/Guild/Group Missions (or remove it entirely) because that is a way to circumvent Negotiation Points. If there would be a mission "Build Structure" anyone would go on that mission before building cranes. NEG-PTS should be important yet not even the CEF uses them because a mission is three times as effective and costs no GAP. @Sauro: I'll think about your structure suggestion some more. I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble.
Caterane 10-28-06, 09:59 AM	The following changes have been made in the Guild Rules: To fix the missing diversity of structures, and to free SS in headquarters, and to make district traits important, these changes have been made: New Guildhall Rooms have been added. These are basically the traitpoint generating rooms we had before. I changed some of the names to make it clear that these are different from structure upgrades. [Link] Structures now have 1 SS per class which can be filled with upgrades. Structure Upgrades have been added. They are similar to trait-generating rooms but can only be built in a structure, and only if the main traits match. [Link] Structures can only be built if the district has at least +1 in the structure's main trait. District Effects have been increased from 50/trait to 100/trait. To fix the problem with defense points which are too different from the other points and which cannot be restricted like the other points by the rules above, the following changes have been made: Defense Points do not belong to the 7-point system anymore. They continue to exist as they are, though. Guard Posts are still headquarter upgrades. To replace Defense Points with a new type the following changes have been made: Negotiation Points have been moved from Faith to Politics. Faith is renamed to Religion. Religion (REL) creates Faith Points (FAI-PTS). Religion uses Chapels (Guildhall) and Sanctuaries (Structures). Draft Conscripts (from a district, group, or structure) has been moved from REC-PTS to FAI-PTS. Convert Ruin has been moved from TRA-PTS to FAI-PTS. New FAI-PTS options are: [PREACH] - Generate Faith Points (FAI-PTS) <|Agitate Citizen: Worsen attitude of district to rival guild <|Inflame Citizen: You use FAI-PTS to draft conscript regiments in reaction to an attack. This cost no GAP. <|Launch Charity: You invest the FAI-PTS and gold to improve a districts attitude towards you. <|Convert Ruin: You convert a ruin to your guild. Agitate: You worsen the attitude to target guild of target district by FAI-PTS, minus NEG+DEF points of target guild in target district. Inflame: this is the former REC-PTS ability "Draft NPC" Charity: like Befriend District NEG-PTS but weaker in that it costs an equal amount of gold. Convert Ruin: this is the former TRA-PTS ability of the same name. To rebalance other things the following changes have been made: The formula to hire Irregulars has been changed from 300*ECL² to 400*ECL². The difference between Regulars and Irregulars was not significant enough. TRA-PTS have a new option: Inter-Guild Trade (name might change) which allows to exchange ressources between two guilds. The option to hire Staff with TRA-PTS has been removed. You can still hire mercenaries with TRA-PTS. Hiring Mercenaries (TRA-PTS) has been made more expensive. It now costs +50% in TRA and gp. Else there's no reason to use REC-PTS. Buy goods (TRA-PTS) has been made more expensive. You now need twice the amount in TRA-PTS and gold. It's just much more difficult to go the long chain of (1) buy laboratories, (2) research the stuff, (3) buy workshops and (4) produce it than just buy it for the same price and a bit of gold. Befriend Guild/Group/District Missions have been changed. Instead of improving the attitude based on ECL of the operator, it improves the attitude by an amount equal to your total NEG-PTS. This basically saves you a GAP for a Mission. Before, there was no reason to invest in NEG-PTS since a mission was always more effective and cheaper.
SauroGrenom 10-28-06, 08:20 PM	Jeeze...Leave for half a day, and decisions are made in your absense before you can reply. This is why I suggested a chat since we could all be present to discuss the details in rapid time. District: NAT+1/IND+1 => 100 CON, 100 PRO Guild: NAT+2/IND+1 => 200 CON, 100 PRO Class A: NAT+2/IND+1 => 200 CON, 100 PRO *Class Level = 800 CON, 400 PRO ---------- From one Class A in a district you gain 1100 CON and 600 PRO. Add four upgrades for another +800 CON. You never need anything else. You are playing with WAY too many points. Here's my idea:First off you got my suggestion wrong by a factor of 2. Also I agree that's lots of Con points, but your example is a nature guild in a nature district with a nature structure. Obviously they have lots of CON points. Also they have no RES points. Consider what happens if a non-nature guild builds in a non-nature district with a structure with nature as a secondary trait (as in the suggested system would be the only way to get nature structures in this district) District: IND+1/EDU+1 Guild: IND+2/EDU+1 Class A: [u]IND+2/NAT+1[/s] [Not directly relevant to the points generated by the structure.] Class A Structure Points: 100 PRO/ 50 CON * 4 (structure level) = +400 PRO/ +200 CON Net District : +2 EDU / +5 IND / +1 NAT District Points Generated: +200 EDU / +500 PRO / +100 CON Structure Points Generated: +400 PRO / +200 CON TOTAL POINTS: +200 EDU / +900 PRO / +300 CON That doesn't look extreme to me. A measely 300 CON points? Is that unbalancing? Even if the guild was a nature guild, and the district was a nature district, and the structure was a nature structure, then we would only see a max of 900 CON points. That may look like a lot, but it's not excessive for a guild that focuses on CON with exclusion of nearly everything else. As far as a game mechanic, all it allows is that the guild can get 900 guild points in the primary point type for that guild without being required to build any rooms of that kind to generate points of that kind. If anything this allows guilds to expand into different point types more readily. CEF will be able to rely on getting a decent amount of FAI points without needing to build rooms for it. PSI will have a decent about of PRO points without needing to put rooms in the guildhall. And so on. Each guild will have a reasonably good baseline of points in the focus of that guild, without needing to build rooms to support it. That's not unbalancing at all. In fact it encourages guilds to diversify into structures of other types so they can get a decent TRA score or a decent NEG score or whatever. The above example is PSI in their home district. We still need to build 3 Cranes to have a CON near 1000. We will still need to build rooms and laboratories to have a decent RES score. The only thing is that we can use PRO points without needing to build rooms. Not over powered at all. Isn't PRO the whole focus of an industry guild in an industry district with an industry structure? Shouldn't a decent PRO score that come along with the focus in IND for the guild/structure/district? I don't think the criticism of this idea holds water. About the structure flexibility with class and trait pair, I'll do the typing if you want. I realy want to have the option to build a class X structure of the chosen Home trait and chosen Secondary trait. In one district I'll want a class A in another I'll want a class D, but I realy hate that I'm limited to having only the structures of the desired trait pair at a class level I don't want. About the nerf of Befriend District Missions... Ouch. PSI has alredy spent 4 CAP on 2 missions to befriend Gauterix. Taking that away now hurts. That was my plan for the future expansion of the guild. In any case it has the effect of further channeling guilds into their already maxed trait types. If changing attitudes is hard, PSI won't move into hostile districts at all. That means we will only move into EDU and IND districts. That means that we will only be able to build IND and EDU structures, and that means that we won't be able to build much in the way of NAT or FAI or LEI or whatever types of structures. The district and the guild traits are linked too closely, and the options to grow the guild's abilities is very limited. If you go with this kind of limitation, then it is even more unlikely that EHTC will ever build an EDU structure or that PSI will ever build a nature structure. All of the districts that surround PSI or EHTC are hostile to EHTC if they have EDU and hostile to PSI if they have NAT. So I guess these guilds will just never get to build these kinds of structure? I think you're moving too fast Cat. Before you edit all the rules, we should discuss it a bit more.
Caterane 10-28-06, 08:47 PM	I disagree completely. Your post sounds like everything will blow up when in reality we have finally reached a level of balance we didn't have before. CEF is also surrounded by hostile districts, all having strong Para-Military Groups on top of that (which you don't have). So what? Ix and Leif begun to attack the rioters in Gorthyum. If you want to expand, buy an Embassy or Chapel and negotiate. That's what these points are for; not to ignore them because you can do a mission instead, as we've seen Raskos and anyone else do. It's a fix, and a great one at that because NEG is finally useful. You think CEF restricts itself to POL and REL? I am planning to move into Traversam to build up research and Gawane for Industry. You can do the same, and you don't even have to deal with annoying groups. If you need CON-PTS build Winding Plants in your Guildhall for +250 CON a plant. Really, I've thought a lot about it and its much better now.
MindWandererB 10-29-06, 02:49 PM	I'll accept as much of that as I can stomach, but I still have some important requests. First: I think structures should be upgradeable in their primary or secondary traits. Otherwise, it's just way too hard to develop in multiple ways--and Class D structures become a lot more desirable (because you're not locked in to one kind of upgrade for 4 SS). Guilds should immediately have a chance to change some of their previous choices. From my own perspective, TLT would now be swimming in CON (4 cranes, two primary structures), and have nothing else. Our second-line for getting stuff was Trade, and now that's been nerfed in a big way. Without the opportunity to alter our previous choices, the only way we'd ever catch up is to expand everywhere like crazy and build new structures, because we'd have the capacity for 2475 CON-PTS and almost nothing of anything else. Meanwhile, CEF, with its diverse class-D structures, would be a lot less trapped (although still overloaded in FAI). Just to clarify: the only advantage of attitude-changing missions now is that you save a GAP? That's pretty crappy--it takes weeks, has a substantial chance of failure, can be intercepted.... I agree with Sauro, it's now too hard to move into Hostile districts. Actually, it's only a little bit too hard--but anyone who has no NEG-PTS is screwed. Even 250 points would be adequate, but if you have zero, you're just trapped. If we allow changes based on the new rules, this will be acceptable. I see there are no rules for Inter-Guild Trade. That's kind of important. And what the heck is a Winding Plant? @Sauro: No matter what, previously-announced missions and whatnot will operate under the old rules. Retroactive changes would be difficult at best, but would also be unfair (since if you lack NEG-PTS, they'd be wasted CAPs).
SauroGrenom 10-29-06, 05:40 PM	Since I know PSI best, let me examine what it would take for PSI to move into one of the surrounding districts with Nature as a district trait... There are 2 districts. The Plains and the Park are the two options. Both of them are hostile to PSI. So if I want to build in one of them I need to get NEG points and spend 2000 NEG points to make the district indifferent. So PSI has no NEG points now. We have no SS remaining in the guild hall to build a Conference Chamber. Our district is nearly full with structures. Even if I tore down the Class A structure and built a IND/POL structure and get only 100 NEG points... That's what 20 weeks of GAP to switch the district to indifferent? Getting into the neighboring district takes almost half a year after I replace our class A. We are still just barely making enough NEG points to be able to do anything and spend a half a year getting into one neighboring district. You call this balanced? Or perhaps you expect me to tear down one of the other rooms in the guildhall and replace it with a Conference Chamber. Sure I can get into the district faster that way, but what do I tear down? Perhaps I throw out the Main Hall? Perhaps I loose the Laboratories? In order for the guild to go forward I have to back up and remove previous weeks of GAP and GP. You tell me you've given this alot of thought, but I suspect you've though it through for CEF. I haven't thought it through for all the guilds, but I think that WAR would probably have a tough time getting access to NEG and CON points so they can expand at a decent rate. They clearly cannot build much in the way of POL structures. They cannot build NAT structures either. By doing this change you've made NEG points necessary for expansion in almost every case. We already know that CON points are necessary to expand. It is reasonable to expect all guilds to build a few cranes. But now you are saying they need to reserve space in the guild hall for conference chambers as well. Why stop their? You call requiring two kinds of points for expanion balanced? Shouldn't we require all 7 types of points for expansion? That would be balanced. This suggestion is not balanced it's just different and makes expansion harder for some guilds to manage. I don't like where this is going. Everyone saw from the beginning that CON points would be required for growth. We all built rooms to provide those points. We all budgeted the SS of our guildhalls to fit them in. Putting new barriers up now is disingenuous. It requires several guilds to back up and change things. For what gain? You say that NEG points are not useful enough, but I disagree. They are already of serious value for political negotiations between guilds and as a shortcut to improve the guild attitudes if you have no high level operatives available (a serious problem for may guilds). NEG points are simply a kind of point type that hasn't been necessary yet. I assure you they will be used later and once the guild wars with regiments start marching around, then NEG points will be of great value to gain allies when needed to attack or defend. The ability to quickly improve relations with a district or guild will be critical to having strong attack or deffense forces. I can read between the lines of your last PM. I get the impresion that you looked at PSI and were surprised that the guild was growing as fast as we are. I assure you it is not because the rules are imbalanced. I've tried very hard to make sure that every GAP and nearly every CAP of the guild has been used every week since the guild system began. I decided to have a mainhall at the beginning instead of several cranes and rooms as CEF has. That ment that the guildhall was very bare bones. We had barely enough rooms for the members to stay. My players have been very active and they have been available to missions of various kinds. For this I thank them often and sincerely. It's been a struggle getting enough money to use the CAP every week. In every possible way I've used the guild members to compensate for the weaknesses in the decision to have a mainhall. We needed cash, and we used raid opperations untill they were nerfed ( as we did this we ruined relations with some guilds). We've used missions to generate some cash and compensate for the lack of NEG points to improve relations with other guilds. Now it appears that all of the ways I've been using membership to compensate for the weakness of the guild are being systematicially eliminated. The elimination of raid actions which generate gold was followed by the suggestion for random encounters for guild missions deamed too easy and now we see a quick decision to make missions to improve relations totally worthless unless you also have NEG points (that are not easily acquired by PSI). This whole discussion has moved very far from it's origination. We wanted the district traits and structures chosen to make some kind of significant game impact. I think we have already done that by limiting what you can build in a district, and by increasing the "synergy" bonus from district traits associated with structures. Missions are already balanced. They are not sure to succeed, they take 3 weeks and 2 CAP, they can be opposed and they tie up your members for weeks. Missions are already slow, costly and risky. Don't go farther and nerf missions making them even less effective.
Caterane 10-30-06, 04:21 AM	So PSI has no NEG points now. We have no SS remaining in the guild hall to build a Conference Chamber. Our district is nearly full with structures. Even if I tore down the Class A structure and built a IND/POL structure and get only 100 NEG points... That's what 20 weeks of GAP to switch the district to indifferent? Getting into the neighboring district takes almost half a year after I replace our class A. We are still just barely making enough NEG points to be able to do anything and spend a half a year getting into one neighboring district. You call this balanced? Or perhaps you expect me to tear down one of the other rooms in the guildhall and replace it with a Conference Chamber. Sure I can get into the district faster that way, but what do I tear down? Perhaps I throw out the Main Hall? Perhaps I loose the Laboratories? In order for the guild to go forward I have to back up and remove previous weeks of GAP and GP. If that's your plan for expansion then you need indeed half a year. Here's my suggestion for PSI: Week 1: Conference Chamber (exceed SS) / Construct Outpost (1000/2000) Week 2: Conference Chamber (exceed SS) / Construct Outpost (2000/2000) Week 3: Negotiate (500/1000) / Build Class C (1000/3000) Week 4: Negotiate (1000/1000) / Build Class C (2000/3000) Week 5: ... My plan for PSI needs only 4 weeks to improve the relation, plus have an outpost plus have a structure almost finished; and no tearing down of Structures. If you choose a route of 50 miles for a 5 mile run contest, then it's not the fault of the contest. By doing this change you've made NEG points necessary for expansion in almost every case. We already know that CON points are necessary to expand. It is reasonable to expect all guilds to build a few cranes. But now you are saying they need to reserve space in the guild hall for conference chambers as well. Why stop their? You call requiring two kinds of points for expanion balanced? Shouldn't we require all 7 types of points for expansion? That would be balanced. This suggestion is not balanced it's just different and makes expansion harder for some guilds to manage. All 7 points are necessary. CON and NEG and REC for expansion. REC for regiment battles (you can't survive without later). RES, PRO, and FAI are not necessary necessary but without them you're at a severe disadvantage much like you would without defense points. You can always exceed your Guildhall SS to build rooms at double price. You say that NEG points are not useful enough, but I disagree. They are already of serious value for political negotiations between guilds and as a shortcut to improve the guild attitudes if you have no high level operatives available (a serious problem for may guilds). NEG points are simply a kind of point type that hasn't been necessary yet. I assure you they will be used later and once the guild wars with regiments start marching around, then NEG points will be of great value to gain allies when needed to attack or defend. The ability to quickly improve relations with a district or guild will be critical to having strong attack or deffense forces. No way. NEG points are the only points who were ignored so far. Even the CEF - the former NEG master - would always use Missions to improve relationships. That costs CAPs instead of the much more valuable GAPs, and with an ECL 10 PC it's also much more effective. I'd have needed 3 GAPs during which other guilds build up while I could have just sent Leif or Hagrid or Ix on a mission who all have a great chance to succeed in bringing the +1000 attitude. Would we have the option to build structures with missions, I am sure Raskos and Co(nsortium) would quest like mad instead of building cranes! I can read between the lines of your last PM. I get the impresion that you looked at PSI and were surprised that the guild was growing as fast as we are. No. You just violated the rule that you cannot use the same GAP twice in a week. Time is a crucial matter and I am always limited by this rule - which btw is even bolded! - so PSI saved 2 weeks by that violation. First: I think structures should be upgradeable in their primary or secondary traits. Otherwise, it's just way too hard to develop in multiple ways--and Class D structures become a lot more desirable (because you're not locked in to one kind of upgrade for 4 SS). In that case, we would have accomplished nothing at all. Every home trait has two structures of every synergy trait; eight if we use Sauro's suggestion. That means if you can upgrade the synergy trait too, then it once again doesn't matter which structure you build. Example: Gawane (IND/LEI) is next to me but I need NEG points! With your suggestion I just build IND or LEI structures with NEG as synergy trait, shrug, and upgrade these structures. District traits are once again meaningless. Guilds should immediately have a chance to change some of their previous choices. From my own perspective, TLT would now be swimming in CON (4 cranes, two primary structures), and have nothing else. Our second-line for getting stuff was Trade, and now that's been nerfed in a big way. Without the opportunity to alter our previous choices, the only way we'd ever catch up is to expand everywhere like crazy and build new structures, because we'd have the capacity for 2475 CON-PTS and almost nothing of anything else. Meanwhile, CEF, with its diverse class-D structures, would be a lot less trapped (although still overloaded in FAI). To a limited extend yes. But it must be 100% clear that the guild is now handicapped by the change! TRA was the best trait out there. Look. Too produce stuff you need to 1) Use up SS to build laboratories, say 2 SS for 2 GAPS and 2000 gp. 2) Research each development individually, many GAPs and time 3) Build workshops in your 2 SS, another 2 GAPs and 2000 gp 4) Produce the researched stuff with GAPs and time. That takes months! Instead you use 1 GAP (!) for a trading post, and another GAP to buy the stuff. The disadvantage? You have to pay for the equipment but since weapons cost what? 200 gold? it's ridiculously cheaper than what you would spend in time, SS, and construction cost by using Production. On that line of thought, I think Research needs some more development and Production should also be improved. I'm also asking Sauro as PSI guildmaster for suggestions to up PRO-PTS a bit. TRA-PTS could be used to hire regiments at the same price like REC-PTS. I'm asking you who would invest in Research, Production, and Recruitment when he can have all that with trade? And it doesn't stop there! You can ship even CON pts to the construction site with TRA! That was WAY WAY WAY too much. It's still one of the best points! Your browser probably doesn't update the page if you can't see "Exchange Goods" in the Trade Section. It's in there. Just to clarify: the only advantage of attitude-changing missions now is that you save a GAP? That's pretty crappy--it takes weeks, has a substantial chance of failure, can be intercepted.... That's a start and we can discuss that but I don't want to go back to this hidden path to get around NEG-PTS. With one GAP and 2 CAP you can improve the relations to any district, guild, or group by one step if you have 500 NEG (2 rooms). And what the heck is a Winding Plant? Better idea?
Caterane 10-30-06, 10:59 AM	What do you think about removing the entry requirement miniquest from ECL 3 and 4? Atm we have no pitlords to spare and along with the SoE many cannot join guilds for some time. This change would be in line with our recent simplification of ECL 3 and 4 and I doubt that we will see many guild hoppers there. It's rather that we don't 'waste' a miniquest for newbies who disappear after two weeks.
Abyssal Stalker 10-30-06, 12:46 PM	On the other hand it doesn't make running guilds easier if there are several characters who just join and then their players disappear. They just occupy some of the expensive space of guilds. Just my two cents.
MindWandererB 10-30-06, 02:12 PM	On the other hand it doesn't make running guilds easier if there are several characters who just join and then their players disappear. They just occupy some of the expensive space of guilds. Just my two cents. I agree. That would be pretty chaotic. TRA was definitely overpowered--which I noticed early on. Which is why TLT invested in it, despite a clear lack of thematic fit. I would like to undo that now, and replace our two trading posts with more "appropriate" rooms. Similarly, our structures are now much worse choices than before--especially, getting both POL and REL is silly (and the functions of both structures have now changed). I'll have to think about what to replace them with.
Caterane 10-30-06, 02:51 PM	On the other hand it doesn't make running guilds easier if there are several characters who just join and then their players disappear. They just occupy some of the expensive space of guilds. Just my two cents. You know that the same thing can happen now; it just uses up a miniquest on top of that.
MindWandererB 10-30-06, 02:56 PM	You know that the same thing can happen now; it just uses up a miniquest on top of that. The MQ discourages random member adds--they really have to want to get involved. Joining should never be as simple as a single post. I would support this if and only if ECL 3-4 members didn't need rooms.
MindWandererB 10-30-06, 02:56 PM	Bloody double post.
Abyssal Stalker 10-30-06, 03:21 PM	Just like MWB said, I think it's "too easy" to join a guild if it's only a simple post.
Caterane 10-30-06, 05:51 PM	Ok but what should we do with those who wish to join now in the SoE? I agree that a miniquest should be required but more important is that we don't lose arena pitlords to miniquests. I mean you can kick an inactive member out anytime.
SauroGrenom 10-30-06, 06:03 PM	Last time we started a new guild, there were 5 members who go in for "free". These founders are still around in a few cases. Raskos and Kracknol were founders. I'm sure that Ixenthore was a CEF founder. Do the same now. 5 free members gets the guild going.
Caterane 10-30-06, 06:09 PM	But all guilds had a full year to get new members in. It's unfair to restrict them to 5 now.
MindWandererB 10-30-06, 06:18 PM	But all guilds had a full year to get new members in. It's unfair to restrict them to 5 now.EYE only had 5 members anyway, so leaving the new guild at 5 isn't technically a disadvantage. Just part of the "resources" they pick up.
SauroGrenom 10-30-06, 06:25 PM	Perhaps give them a month of open doors policy where new members can get in without a quest.
SauroGrenom 10-30-06, 06:47 PM	PRO points or any guild point for that matter is only as good as what you can do with them. So making PRO points better is simply a question of making better options with respect to what you can do with PRO points. The task of making PRO points better has a rather limited number of options actually. 1: Make better options of things you can build with PRO points. 2: Decrease the PRO point cost of everything we now have, so that stuff can be built faster (Less GAP investment). 3: Allow PRO points to be used for more kinds of guild actions. Option 1 requires lots of creativity, and it's easy to make something too good. Option 2 shifts balance a bit, and it allows cheaper stuff to be had with little investment in PRO points. I don't think that's what you're looking for. Option 3 can be interesting depending on how we do it. Here is one idea: Allow PRO points to be used at 1/2 efficiency to augment construction projects (getting extra CON points) or decrease the gp cost associated with construction projects (don't buy door hinges, make them yourself). Or: Allow PRO points to be translated into gold by producing things and selling them. Or: Allow PRO points to be used to repair structures. Or: Allow PRO points to be used to build guilhall rooms at decreased or zero gp cost. Just a few ideas.
Caterane 10-31-06, 01:14 AM	I like the last two. Since CON is already a necessary trait, we could move Repairs to PRO, and reduce the cost for rooms. However, once you have 1000 gold you can basically build any room for free. Perhaps only in conjunction with the NEW ROOM GAP? That way you spend two GAPs to get a free room. However, gold is already a thing that should not be made any less valuable by adding new options to get around. I'd rather like to see new projects (and developments) than taking away from Gold. I can already see us having tons of gold in the future without the GAPs to spend them.
Caterane 10-31-06, 10:38 AM	I've thought about a good add-on for Production and Research, and along with that I came upon some problems with our current guild point system. The fix is easy and the improvement great. Here it is: Instead of generating Guild Points by activating a guild point processing facility (like cranes, training hall, workshops, etc) these facilities produce a fixed amount of points automatically each week without a GAP (100 points per facility). These generated ressources are stored in a storage. It is illogical that your workshops remain idle until you use a GAP to activate them. It also makes the system much less flexible; with the fix guild points actually become a real ressouce. With a GAP you use your stored ressources to do the various things that you can do with a GAP (250 points per facility, as it is now). Example: PSI has four cranes, two workshops, and a laboratory. On week one they gain +400 CON, +200 PRO, and +100 RES. These ressources are stored in a storage. After four weeks, PSI decides to build a structure. They have meanwhile 1600 CON in their storage. With a GAP, they activate their cranes to construct up to 1000 CON (4*250) on a structure. During the same week, the cranes continue to generate 400 CON so PSI can next week construct for another 1000 CON and a GAP. They also have 1000 PRO and 500 RES in their storages. So we basically just split generation and construction apart. This allows us to have a much more sophisticated ressource system and is easier to regulate. District Traits are another source that generate points constantly. But we can now add additional ones: - Trade Routes: As now but you exchange the shipped ressource with your stored TRA-PTS. Instead of a fixed amount however, there should be a TRA:Ressource ratio given which is how much you get from which ressource for your TRA-PTS. - Trade Ressources: Buy CON, PRO, or RES or double gold up to TRA-PTS generated in all trading posts. In order to store NEG, FAI, and REC we need a 'storage' for them. Since they're immaterial we need a good explanation on how to store them. It basically represents your ongoing efforts of your embassies and chapels and traininghalls. Finally the mentioned add-on for Production and Research: Ships! There are five ship classes (from barque to galleon) which each cost 1000*class in PRO to build (or double that in TRA; perhaps you have to research the class first) and needs 10 crewmen per class. Each ship has 100 cargo * class. You ship TRA-PTS to a region on the world map (we make a list of possible destinations) and gain twice that amount in CON, PRO, RES, or GOLD. You then ship it back to Gladius and store it in your Storage. Each ship has also one SS per class which can be filled with certain ship upgrades, like catapult or extra sail or regiments or extra cargo space. It is possible that a guild attacks a trade ship from a rival. It's similar to the bombard phase which is simple to handle, followed by a regiment battle. That way guilds can decide to build war ships which raid ships or big merchant vessels. It's also possible to form a fleet (several ships, up to 10 ship classes combined) with merchantmens and fregattes to protect them. Eventually it should be even possible to create a list of available ressources for each harbor and a price ratio to make it even more realistic.
MindWandererB 10-31-06, 02:27 PM	Yay. More complexity. :surrender In that case, all the guilds definitely need a retrofit. Storage is mandatory--and probably more than one, unless we make them more efficient. We may want to increase the amount to 2000 or even 5000, or else everyone will fill up in no time. I don't follow your example, Cat. Is PSI using 2600 CON in that week (1000 active + 1600 stored)? And if so, is that a good idea? It could be possible, even easy, to slap up a chapterhouse or high-class structure in one week. Also, what do structures and upgrades produce without being activated?
SauroGrenom 10-31-06, 09:11 PM	I'm starting to think the guild system is looking more and more like a a warcraft game with 9 different types of "resources". :blink: No let me refine that. It's more like Warcraft with 9 resources crossed with Risk and a layer of Civilization and a dash of an RP game where the rules for everything are in flux the whole time. :uh-huh:
MindWandererB 10-31-06, 09:28 PM	Well, Civ III and IV have multiple types of resources already (although it's a yes-or-no mechanic) as well as warfare, so I think that's the closest analogy. But yeah... it's definitely not D&D. But then again, that's the point--it bears no resemblence to D&D at all. Even less than the Affiliation rules in the PHB II. I begin to wonder: is it worth it? There are a total of 8 credits' worth of work being handed out for guild management (7 guildmasters and Guildlords). How many guildmasters would be pitlording an extra fight if they weren't doing this? (I wouldn't, due to schedule conflict.)
SauroGrenom 10-31-06, 09:59 PM	The increased number of options isn't so much of a problem untill it needs to be tracked every week and accounted for. That's what takes time. Tracking down links for every guild mission, calculating attitude changes with all opperations or oppositions or mission, tracking gp, structure efficiency, guild points of 8 kinds that are stored and accumulated, district security scores... and we haven't even begun to have regiments that will move around the map and require tracking their xp and equipment and developments and location with links... This is only going to get worse as time goes on. I don't think the point is to have something not like DND. I think the point is to have a portal for players to permanently mark the world of gladius. The 1st incarnation of guilds was just RP. If someone said they wanted to start a convent of axe wielding nuns, then bam! It was done, but it had no impact on anyone else unless they wanted to RP about it. The idea here is to make the guild a bit more formal, so that nunnery can be interacted with in some way. Someone can sack the nunnery and carry off virgin maidens. And someone can try to stop the attack. The point is to get a step closer to a real dnd game where the GM puts your character's gambling hall on the map and it becomes a part of the story and your character can be an important part of the story as he defends the hall from thugs who are from a rival gang. Or your character joins a mages guild and goes on a mission to retrieve a rare fresh treant's eye for a fancy spell, but you get in trouble with the druids guild that tries to stop you. That's the point of the guilds in my opinion. We've traveled far from that and we're now in our 3rd or 4th generation of the guilds. I think we've lost sight of the goal, and we've now got a strategy/war game that's becomming vastly complicated and filling the desired purpose only in part (and not very efficiently). I'm doing the uncon contest this week, but after that's done I'll start pitlording again. For me the guild duties are not a conflict with pitlording. They happen on different days. But there is a mental investment of resources. If I wasn't thinking about guild stuff, I'd think about making the quest I'm running better. Something like that. The thing that realy burdens the community is the quests and MQ's are probably a bit to many durring this time of low pitlords. Also we've recently seen many senior players leave. That drains our pitlords as well. Another thing is that our senior people don't always participate as PL's. We've created enough ways to get credits that pitlording can be avoided. Also since almost everyone who's senior now has frozen characters, many of us are involving them in lots of quests and guild missions that drain the DM pool with only 1 character involved.
McJarvis 10-31-06, 10:11 PM	Actually, I'm thinking it from a Guild Master POV as totally like Starcraft/Warcraft/Risk. The exact same principles apply- but you won't get past this in a guild-like situation unless you take out the resources element. From a guild-member perspective though, it needent be like that. Essentially each guild master is just a mini-DM that sends the PC's on quests, no? The point is to create a system through which a DnD-like world can be born. What I don't like is the PvP nature of the guilds(I'm incredibly nervous of screwing up and my guild getting obliterated)...but I suppose that's to be expected from a PvP forum:) As far as credits are concerned- they just are a non-issue to me. I use them, yes, but the stuff I get from them isn't nearly worth the effort of Pitlording. Pitlording isn't about getting paid to do something- it's about helping the CoCo because you want to see it thrive. If anything I spend credits merely because I have them- I don't save up for things, or do jobs because I'm planning on characters that require them. Unfortunately not everyone sees it that way, and even fewer people have time to invest in that notion. :(
NiQil 10-31-06, 10:15 PM	The increased number of options isn't so much of a problem untill it needs to be tracked every week and accounted for. That's what takes time. Tracking down links for every guild mission, calculating attitude changes with all opperations or oppositions or mission, tracking gp, structure efficiency, guild points of 8 kinds that are stored and accumulated, district security scores... and we haven't even begun to have regiments that will move around the map and require tracking their xp and equipment and developments and location with links... This is only going to get worse as time goes on. I don't think the point is to have something not like DND. I think the point is to have a portal for players to permanently mark the world of gladius. The 1st incarnation of guilds was just RP. If someone said they wanted to start a convent of axe wielding nuns, then bam! It was done, but it had no impact on anyone else unless they wanted to RP about it. The idea here is to make the guild a bit more formal, so that nunnery can be interacted with in some way. Someone can sack the nunnery and carry off virgin maidens. And someone can try to stop the attack. The point is to get a step closer to a real dnd game where the GM puts your character's gambling hall on the map and it becomes a part of the story and your character can be an important part of the story as he defends the hall from thugs who are from a rival gang. Or your character joins a mages guild and goes on a mission to retrieve a rare fresh treant's eye for a fancy spell, but you get in trouble with the druids guild that tries to stop you. That's the point of the guilds in my opinion. We've traveled far from that and we're now in our 3rd or 4th generation of the guilds. I think we've lost sight of the goal, and we've now got a strategy/war game that's becomming vastly complicated and filling the desired purpose only in part (and not very efficiently). I'm doing the uncon contest this week, but after that's done I'll start pitlording again. For me the guild duties are not a conflict with pitlording. They happen on different days. But there is a mental investment of resources. If I wasn't thinking about guild stuff, I'd think about making the quest I'm running better. Something like that. The thing that realy burdens the community is the quests and MQ's are probably a bit to many durring this time of low pitlords. Also we've recently seen many senior players leave. That drains our pitlords as well. Another thing is that our senior people don't always participate as PL's. We've created enough ways to get credits that pitlording can be avoided. Also since almost everyone who's senior now has frozen characters, many of us are involving them in lots of quests and guild missions that drain the DM pool with only 1 character involved. I would have to say that I think the single biggest drain on our pitlord resources right now are the guilds. I am all for roleplaying, and think that if the strategy end of things was toned down (and I mean WAY down), the guilds would probably see a little more participation. But the guild game generates a lot more quests and miniquests than we had even under the old guild system, and I think that is where a lot of our drain is coming from. Also, the 10 level characters that are now questing regularly is probably 5x as high as it was under the last guild incarnation (the one that was in effect when I ran WAR). When I scroll down the front page of the forum and see almost as many active quests and miniquests as I do arena fights, that tells me something is severely out of balance. Just my cynical 2 electrum pieces...that and some ranks in Perform will get you a cup of ale.
SauroGrenom 10-31-06, 10:15 PM	Lastly I think it would be great to see credits be worth more. I sent a email to Cat today asking if it would be possible to pay credits to "un-Freeze" a character. I'd be willing to pay 5 credits to gain the right to level a single character to ECL11, and 5 more credits for every level beyond. I could use inter ECL fights or guild missions or quests or campaigns to level the character up. At this point both of my characters are frozen. I'm not going to do much with my credits once they are fully frozen. Perhaps buy a custom magic item. But I'd realy rather level the characters. That's the fun of the game. Developing your build is what the whole CoCo is all about for me. The stories are fun, the gamesman ship is fun, but when I cannot develop my build I start to feel un-rewarded. Perhaps I can start a new character, but I'd still like to see my other characters grow. Raskos hasn't hit his stride yet. He will realy develop in ECL12-17. That's not possible to ever see the way we run the show now.
McJarvis 10-31-06, 10:20 PM	Sauro: wouldn't that just unfreeze ECL 10 automatically? I'm fairly certain for a small amount of creds like 5 every single person with a ECL 10 char could just unfreeze their character. Unless you meant 5 creds per fight... Or maybe I think 5 credits are like nothing just because of my high level of activity(I get 5-6 creds a week, I think. I don't really check up on creds the prison gives me...or if cat remembers to give me all of the creds for the fights he accidently signs me up for ;))
TheMagister 10-31-06, 10:22 PM	It's dizzying. And dry. It's like 2nd Edition AD&D2. I'm not saying it couldn't be fun, but it's too many changes to already shaky rules, and each change makes things "better" but more complicated. :ton: TM
SauroGrenom 10-31-06, 10:29 PM	Sauro: wouldn't that just unfreeze ECL 10 automatically? I'm fairly certain for a small amount of creds like 5 every single person with a ECL 10 char could just unfreeze their character. Unless you meant 5 creds per fight... Or maybe I think 5 credits are like nothing just because of my high level of activity(I get 5-6 creds a week, I think. I don't really check up on creds the prison gives me...or if cat remembers to give me all of the creds for the fights he accidently signs me up for ;))This whole though is beside the point of the guilds. More about a sort of dissatisfaction I'm fealing and I think may be felt by others. It also helps get at the problems of not enough pitlords. The idea basicially sets an upper limit on how high your character can develop without working to make the board run. As it is now, you can play 1 or 2 characters to ECL10 and pitlord no fights. Perhaps you can earn the right to level your character above a certian point. You can ride for free for only so long. I suggested allowing to buy the right to the next level starting at ECL10, because that's where we are at now. And as I said I'd realy like to see how some of those builds do in higher and epic levels. As it is we will never see that, no matter what. If the limit was flexable and somehow contingent on how much work you put in for the community, then that's more reasonable as an incentive to participate fully. I'd like to be able to push my characters above ECL10. I'm sure others around here would like that option as well. Such characters wuld probably participate less in fights and more in campaigns and quests. Perhaps we freeze everyone at ECL8 unless you buy the right to level to ECL9. Then we may get a few more players involved as pitlords.
McJarvis 10-31-06, 10:31 PM	Ok, thanks for re-wording your reasoning :) That makes alot more sense. As an extension of what you just said- Perhaps SoE could carry implications of higher level characters being the last to get paired.(or somehow tie SoE into the freezing of levels, as you suggest) [[though now that I think about it, you might have meant this in what you said]] Isn't the unfreezing of ECL 10 waiting on an iron man tournament or something?
MindWandererB 10-31-06, 11:02 PM	Isn't the unfreezing of ECL 10 waiting on an iron man tournament or something?In theory. I've been hearing that since I joined in December. I think next time we do a guild reset, it should be more abstract, and more in the d20 vein. Much like the Affiliation rules in PHB II. It is extraordinarily complicated as-is--and it's really just as much of a game as the arena thing. More so, in some ways--I feel like the guild thing is getting to be more important than the D&D part. I know all my own character directions are influenced by the guild aspect--I choose which ones to activate based on how their guild will find them useful. Addition: I just noticed, the Guardian company still needs a name. Addition 2: I also just noticed that the Raid Caravan rules are messed up. They imply a monster fight even if there's no Guardian hired. I can't find anything to back that up. And if there is a Guardian, the rules are highly unusual (it's matched, but it's added to the PCs, so it's not matched anymore).
Zevox 11-01-06, 12:19 AM	Isn't the unfreezing of ECL 10 waiting on an iron man tournament or something? In theory anyway, yeah. There was some pretty serious talk about getting it running a couple months ago, but King Uther was the only one who gave any substantial ideas about it at the time, and since hes in psuedo-retirement now... Well, anyway, we probably can't muster the necessary participants now. Looking at the ECL 10 league, we could theoretically get 11 participants from there, and in the ECL 8 league we could muster all of two teams realistically (discounting characters of players with ECL 10 entrants), which totals to 13 participants. Not enough to run it the way Cat wants to (I think he mentioned a 16 fighter minimum?). Zevox
Hirumajoe 11-01-06, 08:01 AM	If people are actually interested in seeing a 16 man, ECL 10 Iron man tournament in the realistic future, then perhaps the best way to do that is artificially help it along. We just recently had the Uncon contest where 4 new ECL 7 characters were added. Some even went to people without high level characters already (Is Poe your first character above ECL 3 McJarvis?) There's nothing preventing the CoCo from running a similar contest, or raffling off 30 credits to used on a ECL 9 character to active pitlords. As it stands, any new active player (assuming he has a character with a 50/50 record) is going to take about 42 fights to get to ECL 10. Thats over 10 months. I'm guessing CoCo's retention on new players over that great a time period isn't that good. One option might be raffle off 25 credits a week to active pitlords meeting certain requirements (i.e. no current ECL 10 characters, but at least 1 ECL 4 character or run at least 3 fights, etc). These credits could only be used to create a higher level character. This would let them start ECL 8 characters (or 9 or 10 if they use some of their normally earned credits). This would most likely increase your supply of iron man tournamentable characters on the order of 1-2 months rather than on the order of a year. Is this a bad suggestion, good, completely crazy?
Abyssal Stalker 11-01-06, 09:01 AM	There was also conversation about opening the higher leagues in steps of two ECL's, so that ECL11 and ECL12 characters would be fighting in the same league. What happened to that? Hirumajoe's suggestion isn't completely crazy, that's for sure. On the other hand - why do the higher entries need to cost so much? Would it be awful if they were cheaper? Would it lead to a situation where everybody just makes higher level characters? Would there be something wrong with that? At least I enjoy playing the lower leagues. I like the whole D&D system more in lower levels. There is of course nice and interesting things at higher levels, but I wouldn't like to play only around ECL8... And I happen to have an ECL9 character waiting to be activated...
Caterane 11-01-06, 09:29 AM	I really don't want to go again through the discussion about the guild system. It has created a huge amount of roleplaying situations and many forget that all previous guild incarnations failed, beginning from a 100% freestyle version to the rigid last incarnation. The current one is flexible and understandable with plenty of options. Many just didn't read the rules which is not the system's fault. The above mentioned changes require one simple additional tracking: you just increase your ressources weekly, 7 of them in the worst case. How hard can adding +200 to your 1400 CON be? You get a credit for it and it's still easier than running a fight. Without it we'll run into a problem sooner or later when a guild has 15 cranes and can stamp out more structures than others can destroy. The new ressource system is a great way to prevent that while it at the same time gives us many more options to regulate it. I also think that will be the last fix. The system has proven to be well-running. I surely wouldn't connect the lack of coco users with the guild system. No one is forced to participate, and if you as a player are not interested in the rules you can just enter a character in a guild and roleplay him. Everyone can do what he likes best in the guild system. @Sauro: Ben, your posts sound so negative and pessimistic lately. No one died and no major changes are happening. As for the higher leagues, I could open a community poll to see how many would like to see that. If the majority really wants that, we could start the Iron Man soon and open the higher leagues till 15. If your theory is right we should get more users.
McJarvis 11-01-06, 09:56 AM	The guild system could almost use a quickstart guide of its own...kind of like a "This is what your guildmaster is doing for you" kind of thing. As a soon-to-be guildmaster I had no problem reading through the rules & understanding them. As a potential-guildee, I found them way too big & confusing.(I didn't want to read everything about guilds- just what I could do for them)
Hirumajoe 11-01-06, 10:14 AM	There was also conversation about opening the higher leagues in steps of two ECL's, so that ECL11 and ECL12 characters would be fighting in the same league. What happened to that? Hirumajoe's suggestion isn't completely crazy, that's for sure. On the other hand - why do the higher entries need to cost so much? Would it be awful if they were cheaper? Would it lead to a situation where everybody just makes higher level characters? Would there be something wrong with that? At least I enjoy playing the lower leagues. I like the whole D&D system more in lower levels. There is of course nice and interesting things at higher levels, but I wouldn't like to play only around ECL8... And I happen to have an ECL9 character waiting to be activated... Thanks for the positive vote. :-) I also like the lower level leagues and working my way up. It also, given the system, can lead to stronger (read richer) characters if you go the long way, because of money making options and the choice to not spend gold on expendables. Perhaps reduce the cost of starting a high level character for active pitlords, if thats what you're trying to increase. One could reduce the higher level character cost to 1 per level, up to the number of fights the pitlord has run. For example, a pitlord who has ran 10 fights could spend up to 10 credits to create an ECL 13 character. This doesn't increase the amount of custom items, or UA rules, but rather allows you to populate the higher ECLs with characters for people who stick with pitlording for a month or two. It might help them stick around a little bit longer if they can play around with a high level character in addition to the low level ones. Anyways, I think everyone knows what I'm trying to get at, so I'll shut up on the topic for now.
TelinArtho 11-01-06, 10:43 AM	Heh heh - and for pitlords like myself who have run over 175 fights? I can start lots of higher level characters for relatively cheap? Sounds like fun... In all seriousness, the people who like to pitlord are already doing it. The people who don't either do what they can without credits or try to generate the credits from the many other sources available. Not to diminish the benefits these other sources provide, but perhaps pitlording credits should be "worth" more. Or perhaps a poll should be made for the non-pitlords and determine what would be needed in order to get them to pitlord (poll is a loose word here - this would be entirely "write-in" votes). I, for one, am very curious about what are the main reasons why people don't pitlord/pitlord more. It happens to be an activity that I find enjoyable 90% of the time, and the 10% of the time that it isn't - really it still isn't bad. The main reason why I step back is because I feel like I "control" pitlords - the more responsibility I take up, the fewer pitlords come to take up the opportunity. While I have little problem running 5 fights a week in order to prevent the community from going into a SoE or to prevent a fight from being held over, I am fairly disappointed when one or two of my own characters get held over for no other reason than I am not allowed to run the fight. Anyone can use the excuse that they don't have enough time, and there's nothing that can be done to refute it. I would like to argue that fights only take about 1 hour for me to run (on average), with a deviation to the extreme of up to 3 hours, but that's me - I can't say how long it is, or should be, for others. Not everyone types at my speed, not everyone has everything at their fingertips. But for the rest of the reasons, I am very curious. Nervousness/Unfamiliarity about the rules? That one is probably pretty high on the list. The only thing I can say there is that I came to the CoCo as a 3.0 player without any 3.5 experience. Familiarity comes with time and experience. Pitlording is the fastest way to become familiar. Anyway - my PM box is (most of the time) always open for questions and I am always willing to help if I am able.
Hirumajoe 11-01-06, 10:53 AM	Anyone can use the excuse that they don't have enough time, and there's nothing that can be done to refute it. I would like to argue that fights only take about 1 hour for me to run (on average), with a deviation to the extreme of up to 3 hours, but that's me - I can't say how long it is, or should be, for others. Not everyone types at my speed, not everyone has everything at their fingertips. In all honesty I find it takes me on the order of 4 hours to complete a fight. You can look at my session rolls to see that. Between doing all the maps, coloring properly, updating the beginning of round summary, and trying to make intelligent pitlord decisions, it eats up alot of time. If I could run a fight in 1 hour, I'd probably offer to do 2 to 3 a week. Perhaps in time I'll get faster, or I may just have to lower my standards. Skip the coloring, limit the redundant data (i.e. list the position only in the actions and not in the end of turn summary), follow the tactics to the letter with no improvisation. I'm open to suggestions on how to run it faster.
waywreth 11-01-06, 10:54 AM	Telin - The main reason I don't Pitlord is the time it takes. The half a dozen (if that) fights I've tried take me no less than 4 hours each. That's a four hour block which is hard to set aside. I can do multiple 15 minutes blocks, but that doesn't help with running a fight since I need the map open, the character sheets open, dice roller, and usually the SRD. On the other hand, I have great respect for those that do run the fights, so I almost never complain, and try to submit tactics promptly and keep my characters detailed and easy to understand.
Zelck 11-01-06, 10:56 AM	In all honesty I find it takes me on the order of 4 hours to complete a fight. You can look at my session rolls to see that. Between doing all the maps, coloring properly, updating the beginning of round summary, and trying to make intelligent pitlord decisions, it eats up alot of time. If I could run a fight in 1 hour, I'd probably offer to do 2 to 3 a week. Perhaps in time I'll get faster, or I may just have to lower my standards. Skip the coloring, limit the redundant data (i.e. list the position only in the actions and not in the end of turn summary), follow the tactics to the letter with no improvisation. I'm open to suggestions on how to run it faster. Do you use a template and just change things? I usually have one round set up with all the coloring and the status stuff, and then I just copy-paste that over and over.
Hirumajoe 11-01-06, 10:58 AM	Do you use a template and just change things? I usually have one round set up with all the coloring and the status stuff, and then I just copy-paste that over and over. I generally copy and paste the previous round, and then edit all the changes in position, paste in the map, etc.
McJarvis 11-01-06, 10:59 AM	I don't even bother listing position: I've found the map to be good enough. I think Pitlording takes me around 2 hours now on average, but it has a pretty large standard deviation. Also note that I typically get up and do other things mid-fight. My household is fairly chaotic & I often have to go and help someone climb some stairs or something :-)
TARDIS 11-01-06, 11:03 AM	I don't pitlord because I don't know all the rules of CoCo yet. While the community itself is friendly enough, I'd like to at least understand how diplomacy allies work, for example, before I run a fight with any. I don't run because I really don't have the time--- I can barely scrape by enough time to squeeze in a bit of rp and character play as it is. I am working 75+ hour work weeks now in a foreign country, and between jet lag, culture shock, and high stress my free time is priceless beyond compare. I choose to participate in CoCo because it is fun, but it must by necessity be limited to being a PC at this time. It's certainly not a lack of desire--- I love DMing, and I doubt I'll find a group of RP'ers here.
McJarvis 11-01-06, 11:05 AM	I love DMing, and I doubt I'll find a group of RP'ers here. I think you meant to say something else.
hogarth 11-01-06, 11:14 AM	Anyone can use the excuse that they don't have enough time, and there's nothing that can be done to refute it. I would like to argue that fights only take about 1 hour for me to run (on average), with a deviation to the extreme of up to 3 hours, but that's me - I can't say how long it is, or should be, for others. Not everyone types at my speed, not everyone has everything at their fingertips. But for the rest of the reasons, I am very curious. Nervousness/Unfamiliarity about the rules? That one is probably pretty high on the list. The only thing I can say there is that I came to the CoCo as a 3.0 player without any 3.5 experience. Familiarity comes with time and experience. Pitlording is the fastest way to become familiar. The reason I don't pitlord more is because of how long it can take. At this point, I can run a straightforward fight in a reasonable amount of time (1-2 hours, not counting some set up); if all fights were like that, I could probably run two or even three per weekend. It's the possibility of getting the other, longer type of fight (e.g. a war of attrition, or a game of hide-and-seek) that limits the amount of fights I'm willing to sign myself up for. I also prefer to have fights done fairly early so that there's a reasonable amount of time for players to comment and for me to make any necessary edits. By the way, I find that multiplayer fights (free-for-alls, hunter fights, interleague fights and team battles) only take a bit longer than normal 1-on-1 fights. Maybe we reduce the number of pitlords we need by increasing the frequency of multiplayer fights.
McJarvis 11-01-06, 11:25 AM	By the way, I find that multiplayer fights (free-for-alls, hunter fights, interleague fights and team battles) only take a bit longer than normal 1-on-1 fights. Maybe we reduce the number of pitlords we need by increasing the frequency of multiplayer fights. I agree with this
Caterane 11-01-06, 12:00 PM	I used a CAP (Cat Action Point) and my free day to reword the Guildhall. For guildmasters and players however only this passage is important: Ressources: Generation and Processing Each ressource (CON, TRA, RES, REC, PRO, NEG, and FAI) is generated by your Structure Upgrades (like a Laboratory or Workshop), by your corresponding Guildhall rooms (Assembly Hall, Research Facility, etc), by District Trait Effects, or other sources (like Trade Agreements). This generation of ressources takes places automatically each week and needs no GAP (it must be listed along with the Bookkeeping Free Action though). The generated ressources are always directly stored in any one Storage of the Guild's choice. Each Structure Upgrade or corresponing Guildhall Room also has the ability to make use of stored ressources which is called Processing, and the Structure Upgrades and Guildhall Rooms with this ability are called Facilities. With a GAP, each corresponding facility is activated and can process ressources stored in any Storage. Example: PSI has two Workshops in Gauterix, and one in Lower Merx. Their workshops generate 300 PRO-PTS a week (automatically) and adds it to any one Storage of PSI's choice. After several weeks, PSI decides that it is time to fabricate Chainmails for their new elite regiment. Chainmails cost 1500 PRO-PTS to fabricate which PSI fortunately has in its Storages. With a GAP it activates all three workshops which are able to process 750 PRO-PTS; half the chainmails are finished and PSI substracts 750 PRO-PTS from their Storage. The following week, PSI uses another GAP to finish the fabrication of their chainmails and deducts another 750 PRO-PTS from their Storage. Since a Storage is now more or less necessary, each guild gets one for free! A Storage has now 2500 Ressource Slots instead of only 1000 and you can store all 7 point types. Effective from next wednesday (Nov 08) on.
TelinArtho 11-01-06, 12:03 PM	I think you meant to say something else. When he says "here" - I think he is referring to the foreign country where he is rather than the CoCo. ------------ Okay - how about another thought. What if the fights are all set regardless of pitlord participation and any that don't fit within the current list, get queued up with some priority. For instance, we have 25 fights to run in a given week, but only 22 pitlords set up. Often in these circumstances, Cat has to ask around for volunteers who may or may not be able to meet the extra needs of more fights. However, it does happen on occasion that a pitlord finishes early and then says "Hey I have more time that I thought - give me another if needed!" This would prevent the "need" for a state of emergency, but it would require that people who do have the time to actually step up and volunteer rather than have things assigned via the current system. Priority could be pretty arbitrary (ie lower ECL gets paired and assigned first) or more complicated (ie people with only one character active will get priority over people with 5+, etc). In this system it would require a "bank" of tactics to send to, and someone to manage that bank in order to disperse them to the players involved. Before we go further - I would volunteer for that position, since I tend to have the time to login and check if there's any help needed - and since it would only involve forwarding PMs - we're not talking about a lot of work. Heck I could even PM Pitlords to make sure the credits are taken care of. By the way, I find that multiplayer fights (free-for-alls, hunter fights, interleague fights and team battles) only take a bit longer than normal 1-on-1 fights. Maybe we reduce the number of pitlords we need by increasing the frequency of multiplayer fights. Well, each fight is different in its own right, but I do tend to agree with this sentiment. Actually if I was to classify what makes up the longest fights, I would use this list: 1. Fights on the Forest map without any pitlord intervention (ie - both players set out to explore the map in the clockwise direction, have the same movement speed and have relatively low spot/listen skills combined with huge distances). 2. Fights where both players want the fight to be ranged but don't have the effectiveness in ranged attacks to resolve the fight reasonably. (ie Anya vs Perius - talk about a long time ago...) 3. Fights where one of the players is able to force a condition that is more optimal for him than the other, but the other is able to reduce the success of that option to a high degree (ie - Sunstroke vs Sir Valkin - Sir Valkin can't effectively fight Sunstroke on the roof, but Sunstroke's ability to take down Sir Valkin at range is limited at best). Multiplayer fights tend to be quicker to run in my opinion, but are aften more difficult to adjudicate and they can lead to resentment - for instance if a teammate doesn't send tactics in time or sends tactics in opposition to what was discussed. Free for alls don't have this issue obviously. Skip the coloring, limit the redundant data (i.e. list the position only in the actions and not in the end of turn summary), follow the tactics to the letter with no improvisation. Ironically enough, I dislike the coloring that is done in fights as it rarely helps identify what's going on and only serves as a distraction to the reading - as some colors are not optimal on some skins of the boards - meaning I might need to highlight it in order to read it. I try to only list positions when I don't have more information to provide. I often don't include maps other than an overall mocked up map on occasion because frequently minute movement changes will make little difference. I always save the mocked up map to disk if I don't provide positions so that I can provide it on request, but unless there's a pressing need for it - I don't include them. As to the last, I tend to prefer reading the tactics to the letter and dislike improvisation in most forms. This is mostly because a good portion of the arguments about fights comes from the improvisations that were made. If you look up most of the arguments about the fights I've run, I can guarantee you that most of the problems were disagreements with the way I improvised. Most of the time, I didn't edit the fights because improvisations are just that. The players involved shouldn't be allowed to go back and say "Hey - I don't like that improvisation - do this one instead." I do tend to write fights in a "minimalist" style (if there is such a thing in a CoCo fight), but doing so lets me focus on turning out more fights (and that's something for which I am appreciated from what I can tell).
McJarvis 11-01-06, 12:36 PM	When he says "here" - I think he is referring to the foreign country where he is rather than the CoCo. Now that makes alot more sense... :) As to the last, I tend to prefer reading the tactics to the letter and dislike improvisation in most forms. This is mostly because a good portion of the arguments about fights comes from the improvisations that were made. If you look up most of the arguments about the fights I've run, I can guarantee you that most of the problems were disagreements with the way I improvised. Most of the time, I didn't edit the fights because improvisations are just that. The players involved shouldn't be allowed to go back and say "Hey - I don't like that improvisation - do this one instead." This is a sentiment that pretty much killed me when I first started Pitlording(not following it, that is). When I came back I decided I would follow tactics to the letter & I have not had to do re-dos or re-runs except those in which I actually made a rules error. We should compile a "Begining Pitlords Handbook" or something with tips like these. People might be more inclined to volunteer to Pitlord if they knew the secrets of elite pitlords that save them time. ;) There are some activities that people can not complain about that make pitlording easier(instead of re-runs, preserving die rolls & using them for new actions in combat. Following tactics to a t. Listing acceptable improvisations on pitlord profile...etc, etc)
hogarth 11-01-06, 01:13 PM	I do tend to write fights in a "minimalist" style (if there is such a thing in a CoCo fight), but doing so lets me focus on turning out more fights (and that's something for which I am appreciated from what I can tell). I have to admit I would like it better if you included maps, but it's your choice. I find creating the maps is the least arduous part of a fight, so leaving them out wouldn't save me much time.
MindWandererB 11-01-06, 01:45 PM	I think all pitlords put as much time into it as they want, really. Zevox, for instance, spends a lot of time on his because of his high standards. Others' (Cat, for instance, not to pick on him) are a bit harder to follow, but still get the job done, and are undoubtedly faster. I concur with some of the colors, though: Drac's default colors are legible enough, but when pitlords use pink and cyan, I can't read a thing. I'm not running fights anymore simply because my real life gets in the way. Tactics are due about two hours before my wife gets home on Fridays, and I'm generally not fast enough to get them done by then. In previous months, I could finish my fight(s) on Monday, but now I have a class that inconveniently straddles the middle of the day. I might be able to squeeze off a fight if I woke up early enough, and especially if tactics were in early. Hmm... I think after I get the guild situation under control, I'll sign up for a fight a week again.
Abyssal Stalker 11-01-06, 02:23 PM	OK, here's my take on the ECL6 monster table. I'd like someone to check that the ELs are roughly where they should be. Needs fixing... Edit: I need to fix this.
Pitlords 11-01-06, 02:25 PM	That's great but please use the format of the other lists. AFAIKS this only requires you to put the CR in brackets like that [CR 6]
Zevox 11-01-06, 02:45 PM	I don't pitlord more fights for time reasons. With school giving me a constant flow of research, writing, and so on to do now in addition to my job, I'm usually pushing it just keeping up with the Guilds, my characters, and doing one fight a week. I'd love to go back to doing 4/week like I could over the summer, but can't. And yeah, the fights do take me a lot longer than Telin. 3 hours seems average, though with plenty of exceptions one way or the other. @ Cat - With those Guild changes, can those of us with a storage already turn down the free one? Or exchange an existing building for it (that would be preferable)? I don't want to give anything away, but having one more of the EHTC's structure spaces in our Guildhall filled would be a real pain for my current plans. Zevox
Caterane 11-01-06, 02:54 PM	Each guild will be allowed to make changes related to the changes. Just send it to Guildlords who adds it to his recent approval post. For example, exchanging your storage would be ok.
MindWandererB 11-01-06, 03:21 PM	I just finally understood the new storage rules, I think. We're going to need to make some "tweaks," or else no one will be able to build anything for a while. Summary of the rules: each room or upgrade you have produces 100 points per week. However, it requires a GAP to "process" those resources. So if you want to build 1000 points toward a new structure, for instance, you need to: 1) Accumulate 1000 CON-PTS in storage, then 2) Activate a CON GAP worth at least 1000 CON-PTS (from 4 Cranes, for instance). That means it will take months to build anything. If you have 4 Cranes, for instance, building a Chapter House will look like this: Week 1) Gain 400 CON-PTS. Week 2) Gain 400 CON-PTS. Week 3) Gain 400 CON-PTS, activate GAP, spend 1000 CON-PTS. 200 left in storage. Week 4) Gain 400 CON-PTS. Week 5) Gain 400 CON-PTS, activate GAP, spend 1000 CON-PTS. 0 left in storage. Week 6) Gain 400 CON-PTS. Week 7) Gain 400 CON-PTS. Week 8) Gain 400 CON-PTS, activate GAP, spend 1000 CON-PTS. 200 left in storage. Week 9) Gain 400 CON-PTS. Week 10) Gain 400 CON-PTS, activate GAP, spend 1000 CON-PTS. 0 left in storage. Week 11) Gain 400 CON-PTS. Week 12) Gain 400 CON-PTS. Week 13) Gain 400 CON-PTS, activate GAP, spend 1000 CON-PTS. 200 left in storage, and the Chapter House is complete. Cat: Are you sure this is what you want? It will take us forever to get anywhere at this rate. Three months to expand into a new district, and the same for each new structure? That's crazy. Same goes for research and production. And recruitment! Staffing the chapterhouse will take just as long; although it can be done simultaneously, you're spending a lot of money on upkeep for the unassigned staff. I really don't think we need to be gimped like this.
McJarvis 11-01-06, 04:27 PM	Cat: Are you sure this is what you want? It will take us forever to get anywhere at this rate. Three months to expand into a new district, and the same for each new structure? That's crazy. Same goes for research and production. And recruitment! Staffing the chapterhouse will take just as long; although it can be done simultaneously, you're spending a lot of money on upkeep for the unassigned staff. I don't think it's as bad as you think: but the rate at which buildings can go up is definately retarded by the new rules. From LOY's perspective: The most likely way I would go about creating a build is as follows: I have 5,000 storage space & 4 cranes.(current storage+freebie=2,500*2). Store: 400 per week * 8 weeks= 3,200 building stuffs stored. 1,400 free storage(perhaps for recruiting stuff? I haven't looked into that yet) 9th week: generate 400 & build 1,000 (2,600 left) 10th week: generate 400 & build 1,000 (2,000 left) 11th week: generate 400 & build 1,000 (1,400 left) 12th week: generate 400 & build 1,000 (800 left) 13th week: generate 400 & build 1,000 (200 left) Plus there are all the materials you were auto-generating during construction. Essentially this system will keep us from just building out the wazoo every chance we get. Perhaps the "free" storage facility should come stocked with whatever supplies each guild wants as a way of keeping there from being a 10-week lull? Once I build a Main Hall and get 2 gaps per week that going up time will really accelerate too :-) It will also encourage doing a diverse number of things rather than just construction-construction-construction.
Caterane 11-01-06, 07:01 PM	Right. There should be some basic ressources in there. I suggest every guild gains... +250 PTS per facility they have (crane, training hall) +100 PTS per trait point they have (eg district with NAT+4.25 would grant 425 CON) ...as starting ressources in their storage.
McJarvis 11-01-06, 07:16 PM	Right. There should be some basic ressources in there. I suggest every guild gains... +250 PTS per facility they have (crane, training hall) +100 PTS per trait point they have (eg district with NAT+4.25 would grant 425 CON) ...as starting ressources in their storage. Do you need to "use up" resources to demolish buildings, or is that just considered processing?[[Or am I already reading the new rules on that?]] Seems to me it should just be processing :-)
MindWandererB 11-01-06, 07:18 PM	Right. There should be some basic ressources in there. I suggest every guild gains... +250 PTS per facility they have (crane, training hall) +100 PTS per trait point they have (eg district with NAT+4.25 would grant 425 CON) ...as starting ressources in their storage. So, basically, the same amount as would be produced in 1 week, if all their PTS were activated at once? That seems reasonable--although in TLT's case, that's more than one full storage room (2525 points). You see why I wanted the storage rooms to be a lot bigger? @McJarvis: Let's not start making exceptions to the rules, if possible. You would indeed use up resources to demolish a building. @Cat: We/you need to make some modifications to the Excessive Reources random event. It doesn't make much sense now.
Caterane 11-01-06, 07:57 PM	So, basically, the same amount as would be produced in 1 week, if all their PTS were activated at once? Not exactly. One Facility generates 100 PTS a week but processes 250 PTS with a GAP. That seems reasonable--although in TLT's case, that's more than one full storage room (2525 points). You see why I wanted the storage rooms to be a lot bigger? You gain 500 NEG from 2 Conference Chambers. You gain 500 REC from two Training Halls. You gain 575 CON from your NAT district trait. 200 FAI from REL and 250 RES from EDU. That's 2025 PTS altogether. Did I miss anything? Let's not start making exceptions to the rules, if possible. You would indeed use up resources to demolish a building. Actually, you gain ressources (CON) from demolishing: 25% of what you demolish. We/you need to make some modifications to the Excessive Reources random event. It doesn't make much sense now. Discovered Ressources: A <random> guild gains 1000 ressources of <random> trait. The guild must have enough Storage space; anything else is lost. Other adaptions to Random Events: Perfect Deal: The next trade agreement <random> guild seals costs only half TRA-PTS than normally. [Extended durations are no advantage anymore] FYI: TLT is currently incapable of processing CON.
Guildmaster_LOY 11-01-06, 08:30 PM	Crap. The new boards don't accept user names with spaces or anything but letters or numbers.
Zelck 11-01-06, 08:56 PM	There was a brief discussion over the balance of being able to move into the ground. IIRC, in the end it was decided that moving into the floor or the ceiling was not going out of the arena. I'd like to get that changed to the following. If a character moves all the way into the wall/floor/ceiling, it takes an out of arena penalty. On the other hand, it can get improved cover by moving halfway into a wall/floor/ceiling without any penalty. Additionally, an out-of-arena round only accrues if the contestant ends his/her round out of the arena, so they can briefly dip into and out of the ground without penalty. This should nerf the most egregious (ab)uses of going into walls, but still preserve most of the advantages of incorporeality and such. Honestly, I just don't see much that can be done against someone in the ground. My planned abuse with Walden was to grab a reach weapon and hit people while staying inside the ground. So... I just thought I'd warn you about this potential abuse before it starts, if you guys want to do something about it :). (By the way, I'm not saying this is unstoppable. You can sunder the weapon or fly. Still, it'll be an adamantine weapon, and not everyone can fly. If you guys don't want to nerf this, I won't complain :P)
MindWandererB 11-01-06, 09:48 PM	Not exactly. One Facility generates 100 PTS a week but processes 250 PTS with a GAP. You gain 500 NEG from 2 Conference Chambers. You gain 500 REC from two Training Halls. You gain 575 CON from your NAT district trait. 200 FAI from REL and 250 RES from EDU. That's 2025 PTS altogether. Did I miss anything? ... FYI: TLT is currently incapable of processing CON.I don't follow that. One Facility processes 250 PTS with a GAP, and we're starting with +250 PTS per facility. Similarly, 1 attribute pount processes 100 PTS, and we're starting with 100 PTS per attribute. You missed 500 CON-PTS from two excavation pits. Oh! But I see the way that attributes work have been altered without notice. Instead of 100 processing per point, it's 50 storage per point. That makes a big difference. I'll have to change things around again.
Caterane 11-01-06, 09:55 PM	If you have 2 Excavation Pits you can process 500 CON; I missed those. Do you think it would be better to use only one name per point type instead of Construction Crane / Excavation Pit Embassy / Conference Chamber After all, they are the same room; one is just for the guildhall the other one for structures.
MindWandererB 11-01-06, 11:26 PM	If you have 2 Excavation Pits you can process 500 CON; I missed those. Do you think it would be better to use only one name per point type instead of Construction Crane / Excavation Pit Embassy / Conference Chamber After all, they are the same room; one is just for the guildhall the other one for structures. I think it will avoid some confusion if we keep them seperate. That way we'll keep the locations straight.
Caterane 11-02-06, 06:04 AM	Changed the Strike Event. It was way too tough and no one wouldn't double the upkeep; that wasn't really a choice. Here's the new wording: Strike: 10 Staff of all structures of <random> trait stop to work unless the guild permanently doubles the upkeep for each affected structure (announce as Free Action). After three weeks of a strike, these 10 staff leave the guild and the strike ends. Note that inactive staff reduces the efficiency of a structure!
Guildmaster_LOY 11-02-06, 09:50 AM	Changed the Strike Event. It was way too tough and no one wouldn't double the upkeep; that wasn't really a choice. Here's the new wording: Strike: 10 Staff of all structures of <random> trait stop to work unless the guild permanently doubles the upkeep for each affected structure (announce as Free Action). After three weeks of a strike, these 10 staff leave the guild and the strike ends. Note that inactive staff reduces the efficiency of a structure! Should read: "10 Staff of all structures of <random> trait stop to working..."
MindWandererB 11-02-06, 01:54 PM	Should read: "10 Staff of all structures of <random> trait stop to working..." Right... if they stopped to work, no one would be complaining. "Hey, you! Stop working and get back to goofing off this instant!"
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-02-06, 05:09 PM	It's TM. My head is spinning. Help me out: WAR currently is sitting on Central Gladius, which (thanks to structures and upgrades) is currently a [+5 LEI/+3 COM] district. This means that WAR gains +500 REC-PTS and +300 RES-PTS just from its district. WAR recently added a Conscription Office to the Festhall. The Conscription Office generates +100 REC-PTS a week, and can process +250 REC-PTS a week. WAR is gaining +600 REC-PTS a week, but can only process +250 REC-PTS a week. Is that accurate? Another Question: Does the "Conscript Training" upgrade immediately upgrade WAR's conscripts to Militia Regiments? It is my understanding that since we don't actually house the conscripts (but call on them in an emergency) that they just "show up" when I spend a reactive GAP. That would lead me to beleive that my Conscripts (x3) that I have in reserve should be changed to Militia Regiments (x3). Correct? Edit: I also think that my Stored amounts of Guild Points are incorrect, but I don't know how to double check them. Help?
McJarvis 11-02-06, 05:14 PM	It's TM. My head is spinning. Help me out: WAR currently is sitting on Central Gladius, which (thanks to structures and upgrades) is currently a [+5 LEI/+3 COM] district. This means that WAR gains +500 REC-PTS and +300 RES-PTS just from its district. WAR recently added a Conscription Office to the Festhall. The Conscription Office generates +100 REC-PTS a week, and can process +250 REC-PTS a week. WAR is gaining +600 REC-PTS a week, but can only process +250 REC-PTS a week. Is that accurate? Not from my understanding of it. District trait points(from guild, district, and buildings) generate 50 units per week. They USED to give +100 units per week of activated gap...now they just produce 50 units and provide no processing power. So from my understanding of it you get 250 REC-PTS from district traits and 100 REC-PTS from buildings, for a total of 350 REC-PTS per week. You can process 250 REC-PTS per week. [/quote] Edit: I also think that my Stored amounts of Guild Points are incorrect, but I don't know how to double check them. Help? I'lll look into this right now.... edit- Right. There should be some basic ressources in there. I suggest every guild gains... +250 PTS per facility they have (crane, training hall) +100 PTS per trait point they have (eg district with NAT+4.25 would grant 425 CON) ...as starting ressources in their storage. Your freebie storage container would thus come along with... 500 CON(buildings) 500 RES(buildings) 500 REC(trait points) 300 TRA(trait points) Not sure on how to track already-stored points, though...
McJarvis 11-02-06, 05:20 PM	Another Question: Does the "Conscript Training" upgrade immediately upgrade WAR's conscripts to Militia Regiments? It is my understanding that since we don't actually house the conscripts (but call on them in an emergency) that they just "show up" when I spend a reactive GAP. That would lead me to beleive that my Conscripts (x3) that I have in reserve should be changed to Militia Regiments (x3). Correct? That is my understanding of those features.
Guildmaster (EHTC) 11-02-06, 05:51 PM	Okay, any chance someone can make a post summarizing all those changes to the Guilds? I thought I had everything down, but now I'm looking back over the duscussions and rules and just getting confused again... Zevox
MindWandererB 11-02-06, 05:56 PM	I would do it, but I'm not sure I have it down, either--I keep turning up surprises when I look through the new rules. Besides, Cat and I are currently arguing out some changes--regardless of how that discussion turns out, what's in the rules right now will definitely not be the final version.
Caterane 11-03-06, 08:31 AM	I've stumbled upon some problems with the recent overhaul but I've already found the solution. I apologize for the changes but they were necessary else we would have reached a point in future where the whole system doesn't work again and better change it now than later. This fix doesn't really affect the guilds anyway. Ok here it is: Fact: You can either build Guildhall Rooms or Structure Upgrades to generate points (asides from district traits of course). This was our latest upgrade. However: Problem 1: To generate a certain type of point you have to have the appropriate district which is not easy to get. You need to 1) build an outpost, 2) build a big structure 3) staff the structure (for which you need REC facilities!), then fill the structure with rooms. That's a long way for only a few points. Problem 2: This is made even more difficult since you can only build certain structures in a district. That means if you want to get CON you need a NAT district. For example, it'd be very hard for TLT to get EDU, or even NEG if you don't want to clash heads with PSI in Gauterix. Building a Class A structure to get the necessary Structure Upgrades takes months of uninterrupted GAPs. That's not working. Problem 3: Headquarter SS are not as attractive anymore; definately less than Structure SS. It doesn't encourage to build up anything but your guildhall where you can get all points. If we allow such rooms in any HQ (not just Guildhall) it... Problem 4: ...it quickly becomes way too much. You'd be swimming in points. Here's my solution: you can build Headquarter Rooms in any headquarter; not just the Guildhall but... Structure Upgrades (like Excavation Pits) generate 100 PTS and process 0 PTS. (Now 100/250) Headquarter Rooms (like Construction Cranes) generate 0 PTS and process 250 PTS with a GAP (Now 100/250). However: In your home district, you can build Structure Upgrade for secondary structure traits too. Eg you could fill a Townhall [POL/LEI] with a Training Hall or a Freemason's Guild [POL/NAT] with an Excavation Pit. This requires guilds to adept their current structures, and it also requires us to use Sauro's list of structures (ie every combination available in every class). Developments improve the generation or processing of Points. I'll post a summary of all changes soon and explain it again in detail. Please hold on till I've completed rewriting the Guildhall rules...
SauroGrenom 11-03-06, 10:33 AM	I got your email yesterday after work. I'll put together the list for you either today between tasks at work, or tomarrow on my day off.I think it may be informative to try for a moment to achieve a perspective on the game play of the guild system. So far the discussions have revolved around balance and concerns that are a part of balance such as strategy and options. I'm not going to propose any particular cahange to the rules. Rather I suggest that Cat and MWB and all the other guildmasters take a few minutes to think about the guild game from a particular perspective. I ask that you think for a bit about how the game is played by a player. What does a player do? How does the player see his actions unfold into consiquences? These are some elements of game play. Like most reasonably complicated turn based strategy games with territory, our guild wars game can be divided into a beginning, middle and end. The beginning is marked by the "land grap". Most resonable players won't enter conflict with another of equal force untill it's requred to compete for resources. In our game there is only one truely limited resource. This is district Structure Slots. All other things can be acquired in plenty with patience. Gold, guild points, GAP, CAP everything else in the game can be had by waiting long enough to gather the needed points. However, when all your districts are full of structures, your rate of aquiring all other resources is fixed. The district SS can be expanded with research, but that achieves a maximum at some point. So any reasonable tactician will recognize this, and they will try to grab and defend terrirory in the beginning of the game. The amount of territory controlled and ultimately developed determines the rate of acquiring all resources. Once all the terriroty is claimed, the middle of the game begins. This is the time where the territories are all developed. So long as guilds can continue to grow without fighting another guild, this will be the prefered course of development. Technologies will be developed, defenses will be constructed and regiments will be hired/trained. This time is characterized by defensive kinds of actions. The fastest way for a district inor game to be developed is to build A level structures. The number of CON points required to fill the district is minimal that way (10,000 with A's and 16,000 with D's). The final stage of the game is the end game, where internal development is no longer possible. This is where the guilds begin to combat one another in ernest to acquire the district SS of the neighboring districts. It typicially begins when a player senses that it has enough technological and military advantage to capture the territory of another player. I mention all of this because I want to make a point. The beginning stage of the game requires CON, REC and NEG points. So any reasonable guildmaster will attempt to gather as many CON, REC and NEG points as possible. Yesterday I was trying to convert PSI over to the new rules. Being a non-Nature guild in a non-Nature district, I recognized the need for CON points a while back. PSI built 4 cranes and a training hall to have a decent construction rate. Now if I do everything I can, PSI has +600CON points/week. This means that it takes 9 weeks and 5 GAP with +600 CON points to complete construction of a single A structure. Also it takes 10 weeks and 4 GAP with PSI's current +100 REC points to earn enough points to staff the structure. The CON and REC points can be acquired at the same time and since PSI has 1 GAP/week, we can hire and build at the same time. But in my opinion this is a very very long time. To build 1 structure takes 10 weeks? That enough time to level a normal CoCo character up 3 levels on quests. If it takes 10 weeks to build one A structure, then I predict that it will take about 2-3 years time to complete the beginning and middle of the game and get PSI to a point where I'll start thinking about attacking another guild with a regiment. After this point, how much longer will it take to actually succeed and capture a rival guild's district and develop it? For some players, that's acceptable. I consider myself to be a patient man. But there is patience and then there is years worth of patience. There are indeed very few CoCo players who stick around that long. Cat may be the only one here now who has been with CoCo for 2 years or more. By slowing the pace of the game to this degree, the game becomes playable by only those who have this incredible degree of patience required to play a 3 year game. Perhaps with the recent focus on balance the speed of the game has not been considerd. The most recent rules changes dramaticially slow the pace of the game. If that is the intent, then it should be openly admitted. However if slowing the pace of the game is not the intent, then perhaps some thought should be given to considering the pace of game play.
Caterane 11-03-06, 01:20 PM	I'll explain everyone what's different and what guildmasters have to do now to convert their guild. So far, we had "Rooms" built in a headquarter that - if activated with a GAP - let you do things depending on the combined value of these rooms. So two Construction Cranes would generate and process 500 CON-PTS with a GAP. We have now split this generation and processing up, and instead of "Rooms" there are now "Structure Upgrades" and "Headquarter Facilities". O==================- -==================- -===================O |Structure Upgrade | HeadquarterFacility| Guild Point Type | O==================- -==================- -===================O===O |Excavation Pit | Construction Crane | Construction Points|CON| |Trading Post | Guild Office | Trade Points |TRA| |Library | Laboratory | Research Points |RES| |Workshop | Assembly Hall | Production Points |PRO| |Training Hall | Conscription Office| Recruitment Points |REC| |Embassy | Conference Chamber | Negotiation Points |NEG| |Relic | Chapel | Faith Points |FAI| O==================- -==================- -===================O===O Structure Upgrades: Like a headquarter, a structure has also Structure Slots (SS) on its own which can be filled with certain upgrades. These Structure Upgrades generate weekly Ressources without a GAP, and these generated ressources are automatically stored in any free Storage. Each Structure Upgrade generates 100 PTS of its associated trait. So a Workshop, for example, generates weekly PRO-PTS. You can only build a Structure Upgrade that matches the Home Trait of the Structure so a Workshop (PRO) can only be put into an Industry Structure. Headquarter Facilities: To make use of your stored ressources - called Processing - you need facilities which are built in headquarters. Each facility processes 250 PTS of its corresponding trait so an Assembly Hall processes stored PRO-PTS. Here's an example. PSI has three workshops in their Foundry [INDUSTRY]. Each week, these workshops generate 300 PRO-PTS which are stored in the Storage. After several weeks, PSI has gathered 1500 PRO-PTS and likes to make use of them. They have two Assembly Halls in their headquarter and they like to fabricate a "Bucket Brigade" (costs 1000 PRO). They use a GAP to activate their Assembly Halls which in turn process 500 PRO from the storage and half-finishes the Bucket Brigade. The processed ressources are removed from the Storage. The following week, PSI can finish the project with another GAP. District Traits: Another way to generate guild points are the district traits. You gain Trait*50 PTS to your storage. So a district with Religion 4 and Nature 2 generates 200 FAI-PTS and 100 CON-PTS. Now you know everything about generation and processing. ------------- Rules you should know: (1) You can only build a structure if the district has at least +1 in the structures home trait. So a Foundry can only be built if the district has at least +1 IND. (2) In your home district, you can build Structure Upgrades (see above) for both the Home AND the Synergy Trait. So a Marketsquare [COM/IND] in your home district can hold Workshops and/or Trading Posts in their SS. ------------- Other additions - Some Structures have been renamed and some even moved to another trait - Every trait has now every structure in all combinations of classes and traits. - Street Lights have been added as Special Structure. - Treasury can hold a maximum of 10,000 gold (not unlimited as it was) - New Developments have been added: Advanced Storage I-III: Your Storages can hold an additional 500 RS per level. Research: 500*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Advanced <Guild Point> Facilities I-III: Pick one type of Guild Points, eg. Production. All facilities processing this type of Guild Points process an additional +25 PTS per technology level. Each type must be researched individually (so if you have Advanced Production Facilities III, you're still at level 0 for the other six types). Research: 500*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Advanced <Guild Point> Upgrades I-III: Pick one type of Guild Points, eg. Production. All Structure Upgrades using this type of Guild Points generate an additional +25 PTS per technology level. Each type must be researched individually (so if you have Advanced Production Upgrades III, you're still at level 0 for the other six types). Research: 500*Level Requires: All lower technology levels <Trait> Cooperation I-III: Pick one trait, eg Industry. All structures belonging to this Home Trait are able to hold Structure Upgrades of their Synergy Trait aswell but the Upgrades' marketprice and upkeep are increased depending on the level of this development. The levels are I-100%, II-50%, III-0%. Each trait must be researched individually (so if you have Industrial Cooperation III, you're still at level 0 for the other six traits). Research: 500*Level Requires: All lower technology levels <Guild Point> Coordination I-III: Pick one guild point type, eg Industry. Whenever you process guild points, you may also process guild points of this type with the same GAP up to the amount of processed guild points, albeit at reduced efficiency which depends on the technology level. The levels are I-25%, II-50%, III-75% Efficiency. Example: CEF has Faith Coordination II. Anytime CEF processes guild points, eg CON, it may also process an equal amount of Faith Points at 50% efficiency. Let's say CEF processes 500 CON-PTS, then it may also process 500 FAI-PTS with the same GAP but gains the effect of only 250 FAI-PTS (50%). Each Guild Point type must be researched individually. Research: 500*Level Requires: All lower technology levels Requires: Same technology level in <Trait> Organization of the corresponding trait @Guildmasters: We make a one-time change for guilds. You pick one Class A structure of your Guild Trait (the +2 trait) and you can exchange your current structures with new ones as long as the Class is the same. Since you can fill your synergy traits of the structure with Structure Upgrades too you should carefully pick your new structures. Construction Cranes, for example, do not generate CON-PTS anymore. Another change you may do is to exchange your current facilities. Maybe four Construction Cranes - which only process - are of no use now to you. You can exchange such former "rooms" with either Headquarter Facilities or Structure Upgrades. Other changes must be requested and explained. I've already mentioned it but you gain one Storage for free. Your Storage comes filled with ressources. You gain... +250 PTS per structure upgrade (pit, embassy, etc) +100 PTS per district trait point (eg district with NAT+4.25 would grant 425 CON) ...after this change. Send your requests to Guildlords and link his confirmation post. If you have any questions, ask away. The changes should be complete by next wednesday when the system goes gold. Send this weeks GAPs according to the old rules (ie no ressources). Tip: Send your GAPs now before you edit your guild thread.
Vathelokai 11-03-06, 02:25 PM	Is there a new research development to exceed SS in a structure, as there is in the district? A shame now that having 2 class a structrues is more of a liability due to the lack of point diversity; TAO just finished their 2nd Class A. This will take some thought. I feel forced into a situation where there are only 2 choices for my structures; the Edu/con and the edu/lei. Neither of which really fit for RP purposes. TAO has always put RP first, so our points have not had the best diversity. A assume that it is still allowed to rename a structure for RP purposes? Thinking about it, if the guild system does go global after the end of the 'guild game', it might be better to have a system to create your own structures and everyone can name them themselves; something like 'Creating a structure - you pick two traits. One primary and one secondary. Then you come up with a name for the structure.' I think it a bit late for that in the current game, but it might simplify things in version 4.0 *EDIT* Can you mangage the storage spaces? For example you produce three kinds of points and all go to storage. But you are saving up for a large Con expendature. Can you throw out the other types of points, or choose to only let in Con in the first place?
SauroGrenom 11-03-06, 03:08 PM	Vath, Cat has asked me to type up the revision of the available structures list. It will include all possible structures at all possible levels. You can have an EDU/CON structure if you desire it at Class A or Class D. This is indeed the Create A Structure you mention. The guildmaster simply chooses two traits and puts it at the chosen class. You can pick and choose what structure you desire.
MindWandererB 11-03-06, 05:25 PM	@Vath: you could always exceed structure SS by overbuilding. Yes, you can rename structures as you like, as long as it's not misleading. Yes, you can--and will have to--discard unwanted materiel from your storage. The due date for getting all this done is, of course, pushed back a week, to Nov. 15. I'll start auditing and putting up violations at that time. It's a lot to go through, so if anyone else turns up a mistake somewhere, please let Guildlords or the relevant Guildmaster know. @Cat: Looking through what I would like to start off with, I have come to the realization that FAI sucks. I resent the fact that REL is TLT's secondary trait, because I have no desire to invest in FAI processing now or ever. I imagine you feel the same way. I think it needs an improvement--right now, it has four functions, of which one is something I don't imagine ever wanting to do, one has a wonky mechanic (apparently, you need to spend FAI-PTS as a reaction), one is accomplished more easily with NEG, and one is accomplished more easily with CON. (By the last I mean that much of the time, it would be easier to raze and build a new structure than convert an existing one.)
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-04-06, 04:47 AM	@McJ-thanks for the help! @ All - ACK! Flummoxed again! What's the difference between TRA-PTS and COM-PTS? If there is a difference, how does one produce TRA-PTS? Answer: COM is a trait, and is more like a "rating" than a "point". TRA is a "resource", and is stored in your Storage. Edit: Lemme AXE you another question: If Headquarters can only process CON-PTS, where did we all get the CON-PTS to build our initial structures/rooms/facilites?! I must be missing something, but it doesn't seem like this new system is "backwards compatible", so to speak. Right now, Cat is saying, "Shut UP, TM...Why do you keep bustin' my chops all the time?" Crazy Idea: Headquarters are produced via "volunteers" working for free and generating the necessary CON-PTS. Thereafter, they produce some minimal amount of CON-PTS, due to the "volunteers" staying to "help the guild get on its feet". After the first two structures have been built, the "volunteers" expect to be paid for their efforts, and become staff (not a registered number, but are subsumed in the staff of the 2nd building or something). Edit2: What exactly do you mean by this, Cat? The changes should be complete by next wednesday when the system goes gold. Send this weeks GAPs according to the old rules (ie no ressources). Tip: Send your GAPs now before you edit your guild thread. I've changed some little things in the WAR post 6 (mostly trying to make things make sense to myself...like organizing a work desk that was organized to someone else but is gibberish to you [sorry Storm!]). Do you mean that for ONE MORE BLESSED WEEK, all the stuff works the way it has in the past? I get 500 more CON from my winding plants? Do you mean that IN THIS WEEK'S GAP PM (date November 8th) (which play by the old rules) we send our requests for headquarters/structure/research changes which will THEN go into effect on November 15th? TM (whose posts are starting to look like Book5s)
Caterane 11-04-06, 08:08 AM	A shame now that having 2 class a structrues is more of a liability due to the lack of point diversity; TAO just finished their 2nd Class A. This will take some thought. I feel forced into a situation where there are only 2 choices for my structures; the Edu/con and the edu/lei. Neither of which really fit for RP purposes. That is a very valid point! You need CON, REC, and NEG to expand (or trade CON in) which is hard to come by with only two structures. Here's the fix: You can build Structure Upgrades in your Guildhall! They use up SS normally. This should be seen as a temporary solution for guilds. In the beginning, a Conscription Office in the Guildhall might help to get the necessary staff for structures and chapter houses until you have a LEI district and can raze the room again. I posted Training Hall and Conscription Office in the wrong order. Training Hall is the Structure Upgrade, Conscription Office the Headquarter Facility. @Cat: Looking through what I would like to start off with, I have come to the realization that FAI sucks. I resent the fact that REL is TLT's secondary trait, because I have no desire to invest in FAI processing now or ever. I imagine you feel the same way. I think it needs an improvement--right now, it has four functions, of which one is something I don't imagine ever wanting to do, one has a wonky mechanic (apparently, you need to spend FAI-PTS as a reaction), one is accomplished more easily with NEG, and one is accomplished more easily with CON. (By the last I mean that much of the time, it would be easier to raze and build a new structure than convert an existing one.) I've come to the same conclusion. Each trait point has a major application which you cannot ignore; Faith however can be completely ignored. Perhaps you can resume your brainstorming? :smirk:
Vathelokai 11-04-06, 09:36 AM	Vath, Cat has asked me to type up the revision of the available structures list. It will include all possible structures at all possible levels. You can have an EDU/CON structure if you desire it at Class A or Class D. This is indeed the Create A Structure you mention. The guildmaster simply chooses two traits and puts it at the chosen class. You can pick and choose what structure you desire.I saw. I was refering more to the titles of the structures. TAO would be doing good point wise to have a weather station, but that dosn't fit out university of wizards theme too well. Anyway, The only solution I see is to rename everything and silver in the real names of the structures behind it. My thoughts were more directed to Cat's mention a while back of the 'the next guild game will be using the world map instead of the city map.' If that does happen ( 5 years from now :P ) then the diversity of the world would be served by allowing a create your own structure system. @Vath: you could always exceed structure SS by overbuilding.Actually you can only do that by researching a development that allows overbuilding in your district (that was changed a while back to require a development first). I was wondering specifcly about overbuilding in a structure.Yes, you can rename structures as you like, as long as it's not misleading.I was thinking along the lines of having an explorers guild and renaming it a wizard tower, but I think that falls under misleading. I'll just rename things via proper names. Yes, you can--and will have to--discard unwanted materiel from your storage.Might want to add that to the free activites. The due date for getting all this done is, of course, pushed back a week, to Nov. 15. So I can pick the next weeks Gaps using the old rules? Even if it's a super cheese action? Fun stuff.
Pitlords 11-04-06, 09:56 AM	Hm, overbuilding in a structure. Double price and upkeep and efficiency decrease by the amount exceeded. So 1 exceeded SS in a Class A structure reduces efficiency by 25%, and 100% in a Class D structure. Research as development first. Thoughts? @Vath: You can find new names if they are not confused with existing ones and as long as you put the real name somewhere.
McJarvis 11-04-06, 10:57 AM	I've come to the same conclusion. Each trait point has a major application which you cannot ignore; Faith however can be completely ignored. Perhaps you can resume your brainstorming? :smirk: I came the conclusion that if I didn't have the traits of POL and LEI that faith might be a good replacement for both of them. (two birds with one stone)
Caterane 11-04-06, 11:47 AM	LEI and FAI have nothing in common. LEI is for regiments, FAI for conscripts.
McJarvis 11-04-06, 11:56 AM	LEI and FAI have nothing in common. LEI is for regiments, FAI for conscripts. Hum...perhaps I came to that conclusion before I understood the difference....
SauroGrenom 11-04-06, 12:50 PM	Cat, I'm trying to work the conversion of PSI over to the newest version of the guild rules. I keep hitting walls. Let me explain. PSI has the guildhall with 15SS and all filled up. This includes: 4x Cranes 4SS 1x Main Hall 3SS 2x Fancy Quarters 2SS 2x Laboratory 2SS 1x Training Hall 1SS 1x GuildMaster's Room 1SS 1x Trophy Room 1SS 1x Treasury 1SS Class A IND/NAT Class B IND/EDU I assume that guildlords allows me to switch things around as needed to accomodate the newest rules. Also let's assume for a moment that I want to expand into Gauterix, and that Gauterix already has an indifferent attitude toward PSI (very big assumption). So I need to have CON points and I need to have REC points and I need to be able to process CON points and I need to be able to process REC points. So I can choose my Class A to be a IND/NAT structure. This means that PSI gets +100 CON points. If I switch 2 cranes to be CON upgrades for the IND/NAT Structure, then I have 300 CON points/week and the ability to process 500 CON points with a GAP. Now PSI has +000 REC points, but we have a Training Hall, so we can process REC points if we can get them. Since the home district has IND, NAT and EDU, I cannot build a structure that has LEI as the home trait. I can only hope to ever build and staff a new structure if I conver the B structure to a XXX/LEI structure. If I choose a NAT/LEI then I can get +100 CON and +50 REC points out of the structure. Now I can also ask Guildlords to switch one of the Laboratories over to a REC upgrade for the NAT/LEI structure. The end position is that PSI generates +400CON and +150REC points. To build and staff a chapterhouse in a neighboring district will require 5000 CON points and 250 REC points. That will take 13 weeks to get the CON required. It will take 10 GAP to process the CON points. It will take only 3 weeks and 1 GAP to hire the staff. If I want to put a Class A structure in the district after that, then it will take 13 weeks to get the CON points and 10 GAP to process the CON points. Also it will take 7 weeks and 4 GAP to hire the staff for that structure. So the 1st structure in another district takes 26 weeks to build. That's only half a year...:( To complete the picture Gauterix is not a Nature District, and PSI is not a Nature Guild. So we cannot gain additional CON points in the district by any means. This snail pace of construction is what we are stuck with untill we can take over a Nature District. If we want to get into a NAT district we need NEG points since they are all hostile to us right now. So with the home district almost filled with structures, where do we get NEG points to improve relations with a NAT district? Even if we build a class D structure, then we are stuck at best with only 150 NEG points, and that's a long time to store up enough NEG points to do anything to the attitude of a district. This whole system has two major flaws. First the points are generated far too slowly and it;s far too hard to get points of all kinds that are needed. Second the requirement to have seperate processing and creation of points puts a serious strain on the things that can fit into a district and dramaticially slows the pace of the game about 3 times slower than before. These are serious problems.
MindWandererB 11-04-06, 01:00 PM	@Sauro: It's not that bad. Change your structures to XXX/CON and CON/LEI. You need those badly (and I recommend EDU for the XXX). Then you can put CON and LEI upgrades in them (I recommend about CON-generators and only 1 or 2 REC-generators), and easily build up enough to expand into a new district--I recommend Kelartus, since they won't be hostile. When you get there, start working on NEG. Design it that way, and you'll be surprised how quickly you'll be able to expand. I was wondering specifcly about overbuilding in a structure.As I said, you can do that in your headquarters as much as you like, at double cost at first, then triple and so on. Not in other structures... but I don't think you'll really need to.
Caterane 11-04-06, 01:18 PM	@Sauro: I always amazed how you find the most difficult way to expand your guild. Like last time, here's my suggestion to decrease the weeks of your plan: You keep all your stuff but change your structures to IND/NAT for your class A and NAT/LEI for your class C. This should give you 50 CON and 25 REC from your district. You fill these structures with Excavation Pits; you should have 4 Slots in your Class A structure and another 2 in your Class C structure. Once fully filled you generate 650 CON-PTS a week and process 1000 CON-PTS. Should be complete in 2-3 weeks during which you already generate CON. Meanwhile you constantly gain 25 REC which allows you after 10 weeks to hire 10 staff. Or just exceed your Guildhall for 2000 gold and get a Training hall up to generate REC.
SauroGrenom 11-04-06, 01:27 PM	Don't you see... If there is only one best way to do everything... Then it's not a game. It's a race. The whole D20 Rules are fun because there are lots of classes and lots of ways to play the game and be sucessfull. If there is just one way to play the game, then why bother with different guilds and different points and different districts? Everyone has just one best option. It's the same for every guild. Only now the investement of time and gold and SS is increased so that you meet the minimum required to grow. Before I could grow at a decent clip with 4 cranes and 1 traininhall. Now I need 4 cranes and 2 nature structures and 6 structure upgrades and I'm still only making 25 LEI points/week so it takes 10 weeks to hire 10 staff. And I still must spend 6 weeks building structure upgrades before I can even get to that point. And the guild cannot grow into a district unless it's already indifferent. Bah! All in the name of Balance!
Vathelokai 11-04-06, 01:40 PM	I generally try to stay out of rule change debates because of my trouble holding my tongue, but I have to agree with Sauro. There seems to be less and less viable ways of being successfull. Metaphoricly, I feel like my guild has been shunted into the bard class; works okay, but there are 3 harvester gishes out there, so why try to compete. Pardon my negative tone. I know everyone is working hard on this.
Caterane 11-04-06, 01:49 PM	It's just like that in the beginning when you need Construction Points to get a structure up. Later you can focus on research and improve all your stuff, or recruit elite regiments, or instead of cranes, you trade everything in. The thing is that you need CON-PTS to build structures and headquarters ...and structures and headquarters are a must-have. Any idea? Btw: I've removed the option to buy counter-measures with Trade Points. That makes PRO, REC, and RES more important. However, you have to pay gold in conjunction with producing these countermeasures now.
SauroGrenom 11-04-06, 02:09 PM	Before: PSI can build a class A structure in 5 weeks if they have the following: 4 Crane 1 Traininghall Mainhall Now: PSI can build a class A structure in 7 weeks if they have the following: 4 Crane 1 Traininghall 1 IND/NAT Class A structure 1 NAT/LEI Class B Structure 6 Nature Structure Upgrades 1 LEI/EDU Class D Structure 1 Leisure Structure Upgrade Mainhall That's assuming that I use every SS in the entire district and focus them on doing this one thing. The Before is where PSI is at now and we can get going on a structure whenever we want. The After will take several months to get to that state. I'm guessing about 2 months since we cannot use the same GAP twice in a week. This change is good how? We are trying for the same things as before, only now it's even harder to achieve them. That barrier serves us in what capacity? We are trying for the same things as before, only now it takes much more investment to get their, and the result is an even slower rate of growth.
Caterane 11-04-06, 03:16 PM	I just planned to build only Nature structures with CEF and I can see that every guild does the same. CON is too important. You can go without any other trait, or at least only with a minimum of it, if you like but no one can survive without CON, and you need a lot of it. So this should be fixed. The problem is that CON is necessary for structures and headquarters, the most important thing in the game. We should move CON away from that. By doing that we can let the guilds develop their own way instead of being forced to build Nature structures when they don't want them. Let's say every guild just uses a GAP and pays up to 1000 gp to build their structure. No CON is involved. It also has the great effect that growth speed is equal for all guilds. This takes away the major application of CON. There's Repair, Demolish, and Fortify left, all of which are of secondary importance. We should therefore find a new good option for CON.
TheMagister 11-04-06, 07:11 PM	CON uses: Sapper Company: Spend a GAP and send these demolition experts with a character on any operation that involves breaching walls or breaking into structures. The Sapper Company adds an additional x2 multiplier on any damage done by the attacking character. Hire Engineering Expert: Spend a 1000 CON-PTS as a Free Action and hire an expert to do the work on your next building project. When you hire an Engineering Expert, Building a Structure or a Structure Upgrade or a Headquarter Facility no longer costs a GAP. An Engineering Expert only sticks around for one job at a time. Emergency Defenses: Spend 1000 CON-PTS and an equal amount of gold to build a Fortification (wall, moat, turret, etc.) as a GAP reaction to a hostile operation. Some ideas, not well thought out (but possibly thought provoking). TM
Caterane 11-05-06, 07:44 AM	After a long chat with Sauro and Mindwanderer we found a good solution to our problem. What's the problem. The problem is (or was) that you cannot live without certain guild points. No guild can survive without Construction Points, infact, this type is so important that every guild, Nature or not, was forced to get up Nature structures or stay behind. But other points, like REC for staff and NEG for districts were necessary too. This has been changed: Construction of Structures and Headquarters requires no CON anymore! You just use the corresponding GAP (called Build) and pay 1000 gold for 1000 hitpoints on a structure or headquarter. You can only use this GAP once a week and never more than 1000 hp. This assures a constant and equal growth for all guilds. CON is still used for Repairs, Fortifications and Walls, Demolishing and reinforcing structures. Hiring Staff is now also possible without Recruitment Points. You use the GAP "Hire Staff" and pay 500 gold for 10 Staff per GAP. It is still possible to use REC points to hire Staff without gold cost and faster if you are able to process enough REC-PTS. Additionally, we added "Expert Staff" which has an additional function, depending on where you put them: in the HQ it increases your Defense Points, and in Structures they increase your generated Guild Points ratio. These Experts can only be hired with REC. Finally, drafting Conscripts and Militia regiments has been moved back from Faith to Recruitment where it belongs. Negotiations are also no must-have anymore because now every district begins with "Unfriendly" which only gives you a penalty to your defense points but no resistance that destroys your structures. These fixes make sure that every guild can now focus on what they like to do. You can go totally without a certain Guild Point if you feel like it. * * * * * As mentioned earlier, Faith is too weak, even moreso now that drafting conscripts has been moved back to REC. For that reason it needed new options, and here they are: [PREACH] - Process Faith Points (FAI-PTS) <|Agitate Citizen: Worsen attitude of a district towards a local rival guild. <|Convert Citizen: You gather believers that aid you in your cause. <|Convert Regiment: You decrease upkeep and improve morale of your troops. <|Convert Ruin: You convert a ruin to your guild with gold and faith. <|Summon Guardian: You request protection from your deity for your property. A detailed description of these effects can be found here. To improve PRO there'll soon be some new options but that should not affect guilds at this point. One I can announce right away is that the Simple Weapon Technologies have vanished; you need not research Simple Weapons first but can produce them right away with PRO. Same for Padded Armor, Bucklers, and Handrams.
SauroGrenom 11-05-06, 10:15 PM	Car, MWB and all other Guildmasters, I'm looking at the recent guild changes, and there is still one thing that realy sticks in my craw. This is the requirement on having processing rooms. The guilds already invest heavily in their structures and in the structure upgrades to get the various kinds of guild points. But that is not enough. You must have processing rooms cluttering up your guildhall in order to use the points for anything. Otherwise points simply pile up in the storage for months and end up being useless unless you have a half dozen processing rooms. Even if you invest the thousands of gp and months of GAP to build all the processing rooms for all the point types, you guildhall is filled up, and you have a limited capacity to use those points, and it takes an exceptionally long time to use your points. The only game effect of the processing rooms is to make it harder to use the guild points you've worked hard to acquire in the 1st place. That seams a bit... um... wrong to me. That's like saying that your sorcerer works hard to go up a level and get 2 new spells known, but sorry you must spend thousand of gp to have a special focus for every spell and you can only carry a limited number of them and oh don't forget that the number and cost of the special spell focuses limits the power of the spells you cast. It's a powerfull nerf on all kinds of guild points that the guilds have trouble acquiring in the 1st place. I suggested removing the whole processing rooms concept yesterday in the chat with MWB and Cat. The primary argument for the processing rooms is that it without them would be possible to hoard up lots of REC points and recrute a giant instant army with 10,000 saved REC points (2000 REC points/ regiment of regulars). There is nothing threatening about saving RES points and researching something quickly. There is noting threatening about saving PRO points and spending them at once to make new weapons. There is nothing threatening about saving NEG points and improving relations with a district or a guild. The only option that is threatening is with REC points and the possibility of building a sudden army of 4 or 5 regiments. This to me looks like an obvious case where use of all point types is being inhibited to prevent only one point type from being abused. That's not a very effective way to deal with the problem. It's like carpet bombing a villiage to get one guy. Effective but with lots of colatteral damage. I advocate a different approach. Allow everyone to use 1000 guild points of any kind with 1 GAP and no kinds of processing rooms required. Also require that points stored to be used as part of a GAP (detailed later). Provide special "processing rooms" to increase that limit if a guild chooses to invest in extra processing ability. So what this allows is that all guilds can have access to a basic amount of their guild points without being saddled with 14 processing rooms to use the first 500 guild points of every kind. If a guild wants to focus in REC and wants to hire regiments with only 1 GAP, then then must focus on that point type and invest in 4 processing rooms to augment their ability. That's 1 regiment of regulars/week. Not particularly threatening especially considering that you are required to house them in barracks as well. The guild must build 12 traininghalls to be able to hire 2 regiments in 1 GAP. That's only 2 Regiments/week. You still need to keep them in barracks. That's 12 traininghalls and 1 barracks for each 2 regiments. There isn't enough room to put all that into most guildhalls unless they are upgraded to a palace. Thus this threat is a very end game threat. I hope that by the time one guild has 12 traininghalls and multiple barracks in a palace, that the other guilds will be able to deal with a couple regiments of regulars. For Example: In the early game PSI has say 550 PRO points. If PSI works on a Good Vault, it takes 2000 PRO points. So that's 4 weeks and 4 GAP using 2200 PRO points. The extra 200 PRO points can be put into storage on the last week (old storage rules). If PSI has an extra GAP the next week they can spend 1 GAP and put 550 more PRO points into storage. The total is 750 PRO points. If PSI saves PRO points for another week, then they have 1300 PRO points in storage. Now PSI can start on an exceptional lock on the vault and spend 1000 PRO points in one week (550 from the guild and 450 from storage). Or they can build a Workshop and spend 1250 PRO points in one week (550 from guild and 700 from storage). In any case it takes a GAP to put points into a storage. Points that are being used also cost an extra GAP to use them on a particular project, and there is a limit on how many points can be used. The game effect is that there is a limit on points/gap that can be used, and only a guild focused in PRO will need Worshops. Only a guild focused in REC will need a traininghall. Every guild has an ability to use points of every kind to a reasonable extent. Only those who focus in a particular point type need the rooms to increase limits on points/GAP. The rooms become a mid game upgrade. As it is now no guild can function w/o these processing rooms. Any starting guild will build the rooms before they build anything else. Rather I think they should be augmentations that are used by those who focus in a point type. Like every character class can use a sling or a club or a daggar, every guild should have some basic ability to use all the basic point types. Those who choose to focus in a particular point type should have the option, but it shouldn't be required for all guilds to focus in all the point types to function at a basic level with any of them. I'm not asking to make the processing rooms totally evaporate, nor an I suggesting that there be no limits on the amount of guild points that can be used in a GAP. Rather give all the guilds a reasonably high baseline ability to use the points they generate of any kind. Then make it possible to expand that baseline if your guild specializes in a particular point type. As it is now, acquiring guild points requires serious investment of GAP and gold. Then using them requires additional investment of gold and GAP and guildhall SS. If you want to be able to use 500 guild points of every kind, it takes up 14 SS in your guildhall, and there is now no guildhall with enough space to accomodate all that. The minimum processing rooms puts a strain on the number of SS in the guildhalls, there is hardly any space for other things. This requirement is burdensome and provides little gain for the game. If any of the other guildmaster's agree then please voice that here, so that MWB and Cat can gauge the general opinions of all the guildmasters. TheMagister, Zevox, Vath and McJarvis please speak up in the debate. Thanks, Sauro
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-05-06, 11:02 PM	Herein lieth the opinion of a Guild-noob. You have been warned. I think that Cat's emphasis on lengthy processes to generate and use points is based on an unspoken background principle (if I might be so bold as to claim insight into Cat's train of thought) that has been permeating all of his suggestions and rulings in the Guild situation. Change here is painful. It's a LOT of work, mostly for him. If it takes two/three years for this to develop, and it remains interesting throughout that time period, then that is the way to go. The CoCo is bigger than any one of us, and changes need to be made for the long-term. What fun is it for everyone involved if the Guild-Wars (which currently has eaten about six months of time and uncountable man-hours) is over in less than a year? It took me longer than that to level Sdentch to 10! I think the slow pace is fine. No, I'm not kissing up. ;)
SauroGrenom 11-05-06, 11:24 PM	WIth respect to the processing rooms, I'm not so much thinking about the pace of things, but the inherent specialization and limitations that come with the processing rooms. If all guilds are required to build processing rooms to use any guild points, then your guild's ability to use points becomes highly specialized. For example, PSI uses 8 of 15 guildhall SS for basic guild needs (rooms for members, treasury, mainhall...). That leaves 7 SS to put other stuff. So I need atleast 1 storage. And there is 6SS remaining. That's 1500 points spread around all the various point types a guild can have. So if I want some NEG points, some RES points and some REC points and some PRO points, I'm spreading those processing rooms very thin. There is no way I can use CON points or FAI points or TRA points unless I over build in the guildhall. Even if I do that, I cannot use many points. The guild is trapped with focusing on one type of guild point with maybe 2 others with limited capacity to use them. Hiring one Regiment of Regulars for WAR will take 8 GAP if they have 2 processing rooms, and every barracks for the regiments further reduces your capacity to use guild points. There's no space left for countermeasures. The entire guild is crippled by the need for the processing rooms. If you want a slow pace, then I argue that the low number of guild points generated by the structures and the need to upgrade them to get points is the brakes on the system. That's what slows the pace of the game. It's all well and good to have a choke point that keeps things from spinning out of control, but I think the limits on sources of guild points are enough in the early game. Giving a base point usage of 1000 points/gap releases that early on, but limits it in the extreme as well (unless you invest in rooms to increase the limit). It's like the governor on a car that keeps you from driving too fast. The processing rooms are like cutting the fuel supply and end with 2 horse power resulting in a slower car. Rather use a governor and keep the horsepower at lower speeds and limit the max speed.
TheMagister 11-06-06, 12:24 AM	If all guilds are required to build processing rooms to use any guild points, then your guild's ability to use points becomes highly specialized. For example, PSI uses 8 of 15 guildhall SS for basic guild needs (rooms for members, treasury, mainhall...). That leaves 7 SS to put other stuff. So I need atleast 1 storage. And there is 6SS remaining. That's 1500 points spread around all the various point types a guild can have. So if I want some NEG points, some RES points and some REC points and some PRO points, I'm spreading those processing rooms very thin. There is no way I can use CON points or FAI points or TRA points unless I over build in the guildhall. Even if I do that, I cannot use many points. The guild is trapped with focusing on one type of guild point with maybe 2 others with limited capacity to use them. Hiring one Regiment of Regulars for WAR will take 8 GAP if they have 2 processing rooms, and every barracks for the regiments further reduces your capacity to use guild points. There's no space left for countermeasures. The entire guild is crippled by the need for the processing rooms. Trapped? I don't know...more like "encouraged" to expand into neighboring districts. Such limited space in your home district begs the necessity of expansion. Being able to "do everything we need to do to win" in your home district alone doesn't really reflect the process of a Guild "taking over Gladius". Expanding into neighboring districts, building new headquarters, and befriending districts and para-military groups; all while trying to prevent rival Guilds from doing the same...that (to me) signifies the way a Guild would rise to prominence.
SauroGrenom 11-06-06, 01:26 AM	You sent me the plann for launching into the next district. It doesn't bother you that the guildhall and entire district is basicially entirely filled with structures and you barely get enough to get into the next district. And all you're left with is the 250 REC/week you cannot process, 200 TRA/week you can process and 250 NEG/week you can process. If you put in some rooms to process those REC points, the guildhall is filled and there's barely room for the barracks that the troops can stay in (unless you pay double gp for the barracks). Hiring one regiment will take 8 weeks. This is WAR. The guild that should have the easiest time getting regiments. But apparently that's somehting you'd best put off till next district? I suppose you like that, but for me it seams dissatisfying that the guild that is most intended to have regiments cannot do it till they expand into the neighboring district. Simularly it is most dissatisfying that it takes many GAP to build a structure and then more GAP to upgrade it and generate points, then more GAP to process those points at a slow rate. Since WAR is a LEI guild they get a trickle of REC points w/o much effort, but they are useless unless you also spend GAP and gold and SS to put these processing rooms. It's like requiring a fighter to take weapon focus to have proficiency in a longsword. Just one more barrier to using a basic guild ability. Let's say you want to get a War Balista for your army... What will that take? First you need to get RES points. Since your home district is filled (using your plan), that's a structure with RES as the primary trait in the next district. Also you will need to put a library in that structure. Then you need to have processing rooms for the RES points (say 1 room), then you spend a minimum of 4 GAP researching the thing(getting lucky and completing research on 1st roll). Then you need PRO points to actually build it... So you need to build a structure with IND as the primary trait, and you need to put some upgrades into that, and you need to get some processing rooms for the PRO points... With a minimum of 1 processing room it takes 4 weeks to process the points and get the balista. So 1 war balista requires 2 structures, atleast 2 structure upgrades, atleast 2 processing rooms in the headquarters, a storage in the district headquarters and a minimum of 8 GAP after all that is completed (if you get lucky on the research roll). You are investing atleast 3 ss in the district headquarters, and you still take a minimum of 2 months to get 1 ballista. 3SS is the same as the space for a mainhall. It takes you far far longer to get to the place where you can even consider building a balista. Many months to build those structures and upgrades and processing rooms. Is a balista worth the same to the guild as a mainhall? Clearly not. I don't have a problem with the time involved so much as the number of hoops to jump through. Eachof those hoops consumes one more of the basic thing we have a very limited supply of. That's SS. At some point the districts run out of SS. If we all need dozens of processing rooms to use the guild points, then the SS supply is so limited that we never have space of interesting things like the Park or Monument. No guildmaster would ever think of putting in a park if that's a sacrifice of 5SS and 1250 points of guild point processing/week. +25attitude/week is nothing compared to that. I can understand that astronomical rates of point use can be a problem, but there realy should be a base line ability to use points of every kind w/o these processing rooms. We already grant it with respect to REC points and hiring staff for structures, we already grant it in a certian sense when we moved structure building away from CON. The trend is there and the reasons are sound for applying the same approach to all the guild point types.
MindWandererB 11-06-06, 01:43 AM	I do agree that SS are far too limited, especially in the guild hall, where mandatory structures take up ~10 out of 15 points. However, let me make some counterpoints: Overbuilding is not that bad. 15 more SS at double cost? 15 more at triple? That's manageable. Easily so. War Ballistae are far easier to get than you suggest. Every guild can have adequate production of four different resources right off the bat--Their Class A with a guild trait and a different trait, and a Class B with their other guild trait and a fourth. EDU should probably be one of those for everyone. If it's the synergy trait on the A, that's about 300 PTS/week, if they spend half the upgrades on it. Not bad. Then, assuming you have 6 SS left over after your mandatory stuff, that's enough for 500 processing of 3 traits, and you can easily exceed that by overbuilding. It is too bad that upgrading to a Palace is prohibitive for a long time, but overbuilding isn't so bad. And yes, it does take several rooms to get a ballista--but those same rooms will get you a ton of other things. In fact, they'll get you just about all the things you need to make war. 1 ballista = 1 mainhall isn't a fair comparison; it's more like 1 huge freaking army of everything you'd ever want = 1 grand hall. However--I do think it's odd that you can have PTS being generated and have no way of spending them. I wouldn't be averse to, say, 250 processing of all PTS for free. I also agree that the special structures are crap right now, except for the ones that cost no SS.
SauroGrenom 11-06-06, 02:08 AM	However--I do think it's odd that you can have PTS being generated and have no way of spending them. I wouldn't be averse to, say, 250 processing of all PTS for free. Perhaps a reasonable compromise is to allow all guilds to process 250 of all points and a bonus on the types for that specific guild. So TLT would process say 250 PRO points and 250+500=750 CON points and 250+250=500 FAI points. That at least allows the guilds to function within their own point types at a reasonable level before they are required to waste headquarter ss on these processing rooms of every kind.
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-06-06, 02:30 AM	You sent me the plann for launching into the next district. It doesn't bother you that the guildhall and entire district is basicially entirely filled with structures and you barely get enough to get into the next district. And all you're left with is the 250 REC/week you cannot process, 200 TRA/week you can process and 250 NEG/week you can process. If you put in some rooms to process those REC points, the guildhall is filled and there's barely room for the barracks that the troops can stay in (unless you pay double gp for the barracks). Hiring one regiment will take 8 weeks. This is WAR. The guild that should have the easiest time getting regiments. But apparently that's somehting you'd best put off till next district? I suppose you like that, but for me it seams dissatisfying that the guild that is most intended to have regiments cannot do it till they expand into the neighboring district. Hmm. I must have made a mistake when I sent you the plan. This is what I have: Old Headquarter Facilities: Winding Plant (Construction Crane) Winding Plant (Construction Crane) Research Facility (Laboratory) Research Facility (Laboratory) Old Structure: Festhall [LEI/COM] Old Structure Upgrade: Conscription Office **************** New Headquarter Facilities: Conscription Office Guild Office Embassy Conference Chamber New Structure: Theatre [LEI/POL] New Structure Upgrade: Embassy If my math is right, I should be able to generate +250 REC/+100 TRA/+250 NEG a week, and process +250 REC/+250 TRA/+250 NEG a week. With all this, I still have [2SS] in my Guildhall, [3SS] in my Theatre (the Battle Theatre), and [15SS] in my District. Still a pretty decent amount of room, and pre-overbuilding at that. Still, I see what you're getting at. I just feel that it's just a bit alarmist in tone, and not nearly as bad a picture as you paint it to be. I'd rather give it a few months to pan out. As it stands currently (I dunno about 12 hours from now :rolleyes:) it's workable. I say we see where it takes us.
Vathelokai 11-06-06, 02:36 AM	I think I like the new changes that came from the IM meeting. In general, I still agree with Sauro. Limited space is an issue, and the refinment substructures makes it more of an issue. If a solution comes to me I'll let you know. So will there be more changes before pairings? Is it safe to start upgrading my guild now? :P
Caterane 11-06-06, 07:06 AM	Sauro, it's really not as bad as you portray it and trying to sell us a comparison of a balista with a mainhall as proof for the problem doesn't anything but devaluate your credability in assessing the situation, including future statements you might have. No offense. The point is that... (a) we want a slow pace. That not only means that the whole game should last years till we have to end it (the way is the goal!), it more importantly means that you start slowly with few things you can do. You are not supposed to be able to do all 7 points and defense as 8th in this early phase of the game. You will be able to do all that later in the game. (b) we want diversity. If every guild can process every point then where's the difference again? What's TAO's flavor if every guild can just use as many RES-PTS as they can? This diversity is preserved by the fact that you have to focus on certain points at the cost of neglecting others. I remember that you're the prime supporter of diversity. (c) Another important point is that it's definately not as bad as you make it seem. Neither does WAR need 8 GAPs to hire a single regiment (???) nor do any other guilds have to take such awkward routes for a simple project. One single conscription office (1 SS) and either a LEI structure or a training hall in a structure (no headquarter SS used up) gets you 1 regular regiment with 1 GAP every 2-3 weeks. I don't see a reason to improve that rate unless we all share your opinion of being able to hire Level IV Irregulars right in the beginning every week between producing Trebuchets and researching Level V techs. You can overbuild at double cost if you really like to have all points (money is flowing freely) and you'd then have enough SS available, but you don't need all these points. You should expand into another district or two, get two ChapterHouses up for 10 SS of rooms which you can fill with all kinds of processing rooms you like. You'll now probably find an example on how to fill these 10 SS the worst way but I am sure you'll do much better over at PSI when the time comes. ;) I just want to mention that we can add new developments to improve SS, like "Extradimensional Construction" or something like that. PS: The increments to overbuild are now a flat 5, not the base SS. * * * * * The system is finished mostly. What we can add is a Guild-specific advantage. I think allowing a guild to process 250 PTS of their Home Trait by virtue of their Guildmaster Room would be a good idea. So CEF could process 250 FAI-PTS without any Conference Chambers. In addition to that we could give every guild ...the development <Trait> Organization I of their home trait. ...the development <Trait> Specialist I of their home trait. ...both? ...have the guildmaster room act like a free: CEF: Sickbay (Clerics heal) PSI: Screen Staff (Mindreading) LOY: City Watch (Patrols) TAO: Signal Fires (Fireballs in the air) TLT: Prison (snares and pits) EHT: Interrogation Chamber (Torturing) WAR: Guard Post (Militaristic organization) Although I don't like the bonus room idea very much. I think the two developments and a processing guildmaster room does much to add distinction between the guilds. * * * * * What can we do to make Special Structures more attractive? Perhaps we could remove the SS requirement. Instead of a weekly increase in attitude (which is just additional work for Guildlords) we could say that they give a flat bonus to attitude as long as they remain active. Example, a park improves the attitude by 500. If the park is destroyed or razed, you lose the 500 again.
SauroGrenom 11-06-06, 09:53 AM	Cat the point is that to accomplish any one simple goal requires so many steps along the way that it's prohibitive. I compare the balista to a Mainhall because it requires many more GAP many more months and many more gold to get to that point from where any guild is at right now. A mainhall is just 1 GAP and a few thousand gp from where we are all now at. No guild in their right mind would ever bother with RES and PRO and even REC points if they can just use TRA points to build everything and use TRA points to hire mercenaries. Sure the TRA points may be not quite as good as the points of each kind, but the number of processing rooms required to use points of 3 different kinds at a reasonable rate is so high that it's stupid to diversify, you can get everything done faster if you use one point type. Just focus on one point type with one kind of processing room and let it function for you in many ways. The entire goal of balance is defeated before it even begins. This idefeat is caused by the number of barriers in place to use guild points of various kinds. (a) we want a slow pace. That not only means that the whole game should last years till we have to end it (the way is the goal!), it more importantly means that you start slowly with few things you can do. You are not supposed to be able to do all 7 points and defense as 8th in this early phase of the game. You will be able to do all that later in the game.Fine you want a slow pace, but that is already ensured by the slow pace of getting points of each kind. A well planned home district makes about 1100 guild points spread around 4 kinds of points. You can increase this a bit by putting structure upgrades in the guildhall, but no guildmaster would realy want to do that unless they must. That alone is a serious limitation to the pace of the game. The inability to use those points is just a further frustration and it requires more time and GAP and gp to use guild points of any kind. It's like telling you that even though you've worked hard for your pay check, you cannot spend any money on your rent unless you also go out and buy some other special item that writes rent checks. Then the machine spends 4 days writing a check unless you buy two of them. It's just lunacy. It's another barrier that exists with no actual desirable game play effect. The pace of the game is decided by the rate of points you get from your structures. (b) we want diversity. If every guild can process every point then where's the difference again? What's TAO's flavor if every guild can just use as many RES-PTS as they can? This diversity is preserved by the fact that you have to focus on certain points at the cost of neglecting others. I remember that you're the prime supporter of diversity.Yes diveristy is great, and that diversity is ensured by the different guild traits, different district traits and the idea of guild special abilities. TAO's flavor is that they have RES points to begin with. The flavor of an archer is that he has a bow ad can use it very well. The swordsman can fire a bow also, but he focuses on other things instead. He has a basic ability to use a bow, while the archer has an advanced ability to use a bow. It's easy for TAO to get RES points. All other guilds must work hard to get RES points in the first place. Those decisions about what structures to build and what upgrades to place in the structures should be the limiting factor (and will be if there is a base ability to use guild points). (c) Another important point is that it's definately not as bad as you make it seem. Neither does WAR need 8 GAPs to hire a single regiment (???) nor do any other guilds have to take such awkward routes for a simple project. One single conscription office (1 SS) and either a LEI structure or a training hall in a structure (no headquarter SS used up) gets you 1 regular regiment with 1 GAP every 2-3 weeks. I don't see a reason to improve that rate unless we all share your opinion of being able to hire Level IV Irregulars right in the beginning every week between producing Trebuchets and researching Level V techs.I must not understand the rules then. As I see it, one 1st level regular takes 200 REC points to hire. There are 10 of them in a regiment. So a regiment of regulars takes 2000REC points to hire. If the guild has one Conscription Office and one Training Hall and waits long enough to store 2000 REC points (however long that takes). They are able to process only 250 REC points with 1 GAP. That's clearly 8 GAP to hire a regiment. The guil can overbuild in the guildhall and get more rooms if they choose, but this idea keeps comming up as basicially required. Why is that required? If a guild cannot function without overbuilding then that's a clear sign of an imbalance. You can overbuild at double cost if you really like to have all points (money is flowing freely) and you'd then have enough SS available, but you don't need all these points. You should expand into another district or two, get two ChapterHouses up for 10 SS of rooms which you can fill with all kinds of processing rooms you like.So to use the guild points that the guild acquires, I need to overbuild and fill the chapterhouses with processing rooms? There's no room left for barracks, or guardposts, or city watch or towers or anything else.... To me that looks like an obvious problem. The game becomes about choosing which of the points you generate are you willing to use. All the others go to waste. If you want to use those, you must sacrifice other things like rooms in the guildhall. Giving all guilds a base 250 processing power in all the point types with more in their guild point types is a step in the right direction, but it still places this emphasis on using points instead of getting them. Does you character have trouble spending their GP? Are you required to take feats or skills to have the chance to buy scrolls at normal market price? No and No. Why not? Because gold is a resource you work hard to get, and a secondary barrier to using that resource is not fun to deal with. It imbalances the game by making some classes unworkable and gold less valuable. What should realy be done is to drop the whole idea of point storage and point generation and point processing as being seperate. Use the old system we had before where the guild makes 400 CON points and you can them into a project with 1 GAP. That rate of getting points should be the limit. It's simple and direct, and has none of the balance issues associated with storing and using thousands of points in 1 GAP. Keep it simple if you can. This is simple. Just drop the processing rooms and storage, and use a GAP to put the points into projects that are ongoing. Think about it... No accounting 7 point types in the storage room. No building a dozen rooms to use the guild points. None of the problems of crazy numbers of guild points in 1 GAP. Realy if the structures are the only source of guild points, it's already a much slower growth rate than what we had a month ago. PSI could generate 2500 guild points of various kinds last month. Under the new rules with points from structure upgrades, the district maxes at 1100 unless I put some structure upgrades in the guilhall. That's already 1/2 the rate of before... Why complicate things with more accounting and more barriers to further slow what is already half the speed?
SauroGrenom 11-06-06, 10:33 AM	Let me put it this way: What happens if you remove processing rooms and guild storage? The processing rooms apparently only exist to keep storage from being abused. So it's a reasonable question. W/O processing rooms and storage, then guild points are not used unless you use a GAP that week to apply them to a project. We can say the unused guild points are sold to the public and are the source of the gp (RP explination). With our current rules for structures and structure upgrades, a filled district has about 1100 guild points with filled structures. This is spread around 3 or 4 point types. That means that you have at most 400 or 500 guild points that can be applied with 1 GAP in 1 week. That's not unbalanced in any way. That kind of rate of guild points is about half what the guilds were using a few weeks ago. The whole need for processing rooms is caused by the storage concept and the abuses that come from it. Instead of adding in new rules to fix storage and also inhibit all types of game play, simply remove the game options that are causing a problem. Simple fix, less complicated game. Win Win.
Caterane 11-06-06, 10:43 AM	Sauro, I've invested a hell of my free time into getting this into the guildhall. It's not only writing that stuff up but also sitting around and doing calculations and create one scenario after another in order to see if it's balanced. Now you suggest that we go back to where we started? No. There's a reason for the recent change. It makes the system more realistic and easy to regulate, and it's also easy to add stuff. Asides from the workload, I am not convinced that your request is a good one. If you're concerned about SS then we could say that a headquarter (chapter house or palace) from Fortress on always uses up 15 SS in the district. That way you can upgrade your home distict to a citadel, castle or palace if you need extra SS. I think that's more reasonable than having a 30 SS palace. PS: You indeed misunderstand the rules for recruiting regiments. The cost is for a whole regiment. A "Regiment" consists of 10 "Units".
MindWandererB 11-06-06, 01:09 PM	No guild in their right mind would ever bother with RES and PRO and even REC points if they can just use TRA points to build everything and use TRA points to hire mercenaries. Sure the TRA points may be not quite as good as the points of each kind, but the number of processing rooms required to use points of 3 different kinds at a reasonable rate is so high that it's stupid to diversify, you can get everything done faster if you use one point type. Just focus on one point type with one kind of processing room and let it function for you in many ways. The entire goal of balance is defeated before it even begins. This idefeat is caused by the number of barriers in place to use guild points of various kinds.TRA isn't nearly as good as it used to be. Besides, there are many things you can do with RES that you can't do with TRA. I like to think of myself as being in my right mind, and I fully intend to invest heavily in RES, which means that PRO is a good idea as well. The Expert Staff is well worth investing in REC, plus REC allows you to train existing units. It's like telling you that even though you've worked hard for your pay check, you cannot spend any money on your rent unless you also go out and buy some other special item that writes rent checks. Then the machine spends 4 days writing a check unless you buy two of them. It's just lunacy. It's another barrier that exists with no actual desirable game play effect. The pace of the game is decided by the rate of points you get from your structures.I really think that both factors are worthy of consideration. Early on, processing 500 PTS may be adequate; later on, you may get up to 2000 or more. At that point, being capped at 1000 permanently would be a bad thing. It's not really like the check example; it's more like if you bought a bunch of computer parts and had them sitting around your home. How quickly you can get the computer up and running is a function of how experienced you are at the task, and possibly if you have help (especially if you're assembling multiple computers). Don't think of it as money, think of it as raw materials. Yes diveristy is great, and that diversity is ensured by the different guild traits, different district traits and the idea of guild special abilities. TAO's flavor is that they have RES points to begin with. The flavor of an archer is that he has a bow ad can use it very well. The swordsman can fire a bow also, but he focuses on other things instead. He has a basic ability to use a bow, while the archer has an advanced ability to use a bow. It's easy for TAO to get RES points. All other guilds must work hard to get RES points in the first place. Those decisions about what structures to build and what upgrades to place in the structures should be the limiting factor (and will be if there is a base ability to use guild points).I thought that this was sort of a good point, although not the way you intended it. For instance, a wizard focuses on spell use, and if you hand him a bow or a sword, he can't do squat without investing resources into learning how. However, the archer is kind of funny: the current system is like an archer that has a lot of arrows, but no bow. A simple fix would be sort of what you described: just give each guild the ability to process 500 PTS of their main trait, and 250 of their secondary trait. If they want to process something else, it's like multiclassing: it'll cost you. Giving all guilds a base 250 processing power in all the point types with more in their guild point types is a step in the right direction, but it still places this emphasis on using points instead of getting them. Does you character have trouble spending their GP? Are you required to take feats or skills to have the chance to buy scrolls at normal market price? No and No. Why not? Because gold is a resource you work hard to get, and a secondary barrier to using that resource is not fun to deal with. It imbalances the game by making some classes unworkable and gold less valuable.Again, wrong analogy. To take an extreme example, do you think an archer should be able to shoot all the arrows in his possession at once? Or every archer, no matter how skilled, should be able to shoot arrows at the same rate? That's a little closer to what we're talking about. And finally, it seems like one of your main complaints is speed. With the current rules, it's about a 1000 gp:5 SS ratio for filling up districts. If we all take 3 districts, it will take 20 weeks to develop them fully, then about another 25 weeks or so to fill them with upgrades and rooms, and a little more once we can put more SS in a district. So about a year to get to full strength. I should point out that none of the rules changes make any difference to get to this point, and once there, it really won't matter very much. If you're concerned about SS then we could say that a headquarter (chapter house or palace) from Fortress on always uses up 15 SS in the district. That way you can upgrade your home distict to a citadel, castle or palace if you need extra SS. I think that's more reasonable than having a 30 SS palace.Yes, please. That will help immensely. Although I think it's odd that we have to research up to Fortress construction, when we clearly already know how to build one.
Caterane 11-06-06, 01:42 PM	But you didn't build it ;) The old dwarven ruins you took over or the Marble Castle that was built hundreds of years ago by celestials and paladins. As an alternative to the 15 SS from fortress on, we could say that Outpost: 0 SS Chapter/Keep: 5 SS Fortress/Citadel: 10 SS Castle/Palace: 15 SS That however means you'd currently have 5 SS more in your district than before which might be a bad thing to allow early money generation. I am sure few would save the space for a Castle. Anyway, which one do you like best, Ben? And tell me what you think about my Special Structure alternative. * * * * * I have another idea. As an alternative to research, we could add a second way to get one or the other trait specific development. For example: <Trait> Organization I-III: ...text... Cost: 500*Level RES or... 500*Level <Trait> & Gold That means trait specific developments can either be researched with RES, or with the appropriate trait plus gold. I almost think this should be exclusively done with the appropriate trait rather than with RES. After all, it would be strange if TAO would be closer to Leisure Organization than WAR.
MindWandererB 11-06-06, 02:28 PM	The special structures still wouldn't be attractive enough. 1000s of gp, a GAP, and an upkeep cost for 500 attitude? It's not all that hard to get 500 attitude for a single NEG GAP. I think that shrinking the Fortress at this point would be very messy. Several guilds would want a second class A structure instead of a B--and you're right, few would leave space for the Castle. I think Fortress+ = 15 works well. And yes, TLT did build their fortress, just a couple of months ago. I think your <Trait> research idea makes sense, but don't take that away from RES. That's their strength, after all. How about granting us a little bit of free processing power? My last proposal (a free 500/250 for guild traits) preserves the "flavor" while freeing up SS and some time, and makes it so that no guild should have points they can generate but not process. It's not as much as what Sauro wanted, but it's in that direction.
Caterane 11-06-06, 03:39 PM	A'right I make the changes. Let's find some fix for special structures. Perhaps some better effects than an altitude bonus?
MindWandererB 11-06-06, 03:47 PM	Ideas: 1) Something that continually attracts believers. 2) Something that generates a small amount of resource every week, but that resource can be anything you want, different every week if you want. 3) Something that adds processing to any one GAP, every week (or doubles the processing of any one facility in the district each week, or something like that). 4) Something that continually attracts soldiers (e.g. 1 individual soldier per week). Not the best ideas, but they're just some things to get started. I request a clarification on this: <Guild Point> Coordination I-III: Pick one guild point type, eg Industry. Whenever you process guild points, you may also process guild points of this type with the same GAP up to the amount of processed guild points, albeit at reduced efficiency which depends on the technology level. The levels are I-25%, II-50%, III-75% Efficiency. Example: CEF has Faith Coordination II. Anytime CEF processes guild points, eg CON, it may also process an equal amount of Faith Points at 50% efficiency. Let's say CEF processes 500 CON-PTS, then it may also process 500 FAI-PTS with the same GAP but gains the effect of only 250 FAI-PTS (50%). Each Guild Point type must be researched individually.This is unclear as to whether you need FAI processing. I could read this as saying that if you have 2 Cranes, you can process 500 FAI-PTS at half effectiveness even if you have no Chapels. I doubt that was what was intended, but I'm not sure.
SauroGrenom 11-06-06, 04:26 PM	Sauro, I've invested a hell of my free time into getting this into the guildhall.But for what purpose? This alone is not a particularly good reason to keep it their. Just because I may spend many housrs thinking about how my character is going to be the best doesn't make it the best character. It makes the system more realistic and easy to regulate, and it's also easy to add stuff. So I assume that's the purpose. I argue against the realism as being true or even if true it's not particularly compelling. The idea that having more barriers to using guild points is easier to regulate is only true from an administrators perspective. Clearly there is already a choke hold on the guilds with respect to the source of points. The new points rooms generate only 100points each when they once generated 250. That' more than 50% decrease in the number of points the guilds have. Any goal to regulate guilds can be achieved in that place. Why have two volume knobs on your stereo? One will do the trick just fine. If the purpose is to regulate guilds, you have already achieved it with adjusting how many points the guild have. The processing rooms only complicates things and make it harder to do anything. If you're concerned about SS then we could say that a headquarter (chapter house or palace) from Fortress on always uses up 15 SS in the district. That way you can upgrade your home distict to a citadel, castle or palace if you need extra SS. I think that's more reasonable than having a 30 SS palace. Yes I'm concerned about not having enough SS in the guildhall or districts. But this suggestion side stepps the issue. The point is that if you caompare a ssytem without processing rooms and storeage to the system with processing rooms and storage, you see that processing rooms provide no benifits. None! They only prevent guilds from using too much storage all at once. With processing rooms and storage the guild system accomplishes the same only with more rooms and more accounting and more requirements and more rules. If somehting gives you no new options and just makes playing the game harder, then I say get rid of it. PS: You indeed misunderstand the rules for recruiting regiments. The cost is for a whole regiment. A "Regiment" consists of 10 "Units".Nice to clear that up. However that doens't change the core of my argument at all. Infact it only suggests that REC points are perhaps a bit overpowered, and the price of hiring things may need to be adjusted. A regiment of regulars is far cheaper than any other thing you buy with guild points. Even the cheapest research takes 500 RES points.
Caterane 11-06-06, 05:29 PM	You still compare apples with pears. We did have processing rooms in the old version. We added generating rooms and we added slots for them (in structures) at the same time. There is no more or less space in the headquarter. Infact, with the new addition that the guildmaster room can process, and headquarter augmentations cost no more than 15 SS there's more space to build rooms. The generating rooms had not been added to slow down the game or have less SS or annoy SauroGrenom :P but to have an additional function, a "Balance Knob" next to the Volume knob. PS: The cheapest research is 200 PTS. And here again: you compare things that cannot be compared. Developments, once researched, cannot be lost again which cannot be said for a Level 1 Warrior regiment. Barracks still limit the amount of troops you can have, and you have to equip them all. Slight Modifications: TRA-PTS mercenaries do not gain XP Caravans have been renamed to Convoy
SauroGrenom 11-06-06, 06:22 PM	Look, This is not being very productive. I think that you understand my point agaisnt processing rooms. I also think that you agree to some extent (because both MWB and Cat have mentioned they would consider one of the criticisms I bring). However you refuse to be persuaded. So I turn the tables. I ask you to persuade me how it is vastly more balanced and realistict to use your vastly more complicated rules of storage and procesing rooms. To facilitate this I'll provide an example we can work with. Structures Generate Points that automaticially go into storage-> Excavation Pit: The Structure generates +100 Construction Points each week. Price: 1000 gold; +10 Upkeep; Size: 1 SS Primary Structure Trait: Nature Library: The Structure generates +100 Research Points each week. Price: 1000 gold; +10 Upkeep; Size: 1 SS Primary Structure Trait: Education ... and so on... Storage stores Points-> Storage: You can store proviant to resist sieges and famine, or you can store ressources (CON, PRO, RES, REC, FAI, NEG, TRA). A storage has 2500 Ressource Slots (RS). Price: 1000 gold; +10 Upkeep; Size: 1 SS GAP activates Processing Rooms and uses stored points on a particular project-> Process Construction Points (CON-PTS) Process Trade Points (TRA-PTS) ... and so on... Structures Generate Points that can be used with a GAP on a particular project-> Excavation Pit: The Structure generates +100 Construction Points each week. Price: 1000 gold; +10 Upkeep; Size: 1 SS Primary Structure Trait: Nature Library: The Structure generates +100 Research Points each week. Price: 1000 gold; +10 Upkeep; Size: 1 SS Primary Structure Trait: Education ... and so on... GAP applies 1 weeks' worth of points of one type to a particular project-> [1 GAP]: XXX FAI-PTS Agitate Citizen: Worsen attitude of a Gauterix towards TAO. (basicially coppied from PSI for simplicity sake) Traits: [+1 Industry, +1 Education] +7 Industry [+3 Guild, +1 District, +2 Papermill, +1 Goldsmith] [+350 Production] +3 Education [+1 Guild, +1 District, +1 Papermill] [+150 Research] +0 Nature [+0 Guild, +0 District] [Construction] +0 Commerce [+0 Guild, +0 District] [Trade] +0 Faith [+0 Guild, +0 District] [Faith] +0.5 Leisure [+0 Guild, +0 District, +.5 Goldsmith] [Recruitment] +0 Politics [+0 Guild, +0 District] [Negotiation] District Structures [45/50 SS] [Upkeep xxx] Guild Hall [15SS] [388] (Guildhall) [15000hp, Fortress (150), +2 Security, 30 Staff] [1SS]Guildmaster Quarter [10] (+1 Security) [1SS]Treasury [10] [1SS]Fancy Living Quarter [30] [1SS]Fancy Living Quarter [30] [3SS]Main hall [75] (+1 GAP) [1SS]Trophy Room [73] [1SS]Storage [10] [1SS]Storage [10] [1SS] [1SS] [1SS] [1SS] [1SS] Papermill [IND/EDU] [20SS] [90] [5000hp, +3 Security, 40 Staff] [1]Workshop [+100 PRO] [2]Library [+100 RES] [3]Library [+100 RES] [4]Library [+100 RES] Goldsmith [IND/LEI] [10SS] [50] [3000hp, +1 Security, 20 Staff] [1SS]Training Hall [+100 REC] [1SS]Trainining Hall [+100 REC] Total District Points Production: [+000 CON][+450 PRO][+450 RES][+225 REC][+000 TRA][+000 FAI][+000 NEG] So if PSI is going to use this as the starting point and do something, I can see is the differences between Cat's rules and my suggested rules. Cat's Rules: Spend a few weeks and 5 GAP and 5000gp and 5SS building processing rooms for PRO, RES and REC points. Fill the guildhall with 2 PRO procesing rooms, 2 RES processing rooms and 1 REC processing room. Track the accumulation of all the points in the storage over several weeks like an accountant. Store up weeks worth of points of a particular type. Spend them using GAP on a particular project. Apply to a project at most 500 PRO points/GAP or 500 RES points/GAP or 250 REC Points/GAP. Ben's suggestion: Structures make guild points available every week. Spend GAP to apply structure points for 1 week to 1 project. Apply to 1 project at most 450 PRO points/GAP or 450 RES points/GAP or 225 REC points/GAP. You're suggestion is so much more balanced how? The only difference I can see is that Cat's rules require the guild to spend 5000gp and 5 SS and 5 GAP to do the same thing. It's just 5 extra GAP 5 extra SS and a few weeks to get to the same place. And the guildhall is filled. If you want to have anything else in the guildhall you need to expand the guildhall or overbuild. Your system and my suggestion have exactially the same effect and are thus balanced in the same way (Cat's system involves a few more points/GAP not much). The only difference is that my suggestion is simpler. You yourself have criticized me for taking the long way to a solution. It clearly looks like this seperation of processing and generation of guild points is the long way to achieve precisely the same end. How am I wrong? Please tell me how building extra rooms to do precisely the same thing makes everything so perfectly balanced. In the old version processing sources were the same as the generation source of guild points. In the old version points were generated on demand into a particular project. What you've done is moved point generation into the structures (reasonable thing to do) and split point generation and point use into two things. This last step is unecessary, and has evil implications. Without storage it is impossible to build 3 balista in 1 GAP (the dreaded instant army). You would need to have 3000 PRO points/week if there was no storage. Even PSI totally focused on PRO points wouldn't be able to do that if they had 3 districts. If anything the ability to have independant PRO point generation and PRO point processing carries more potential for abuse. Splitting point production and point generation is not more balanced, it allows precisely the same thing, only it's more prone to abuse and more complicated to use and more complicated to audit and more complicated to track each week. A whole lot of bad for nothing gained.
SauroGrenom 11-06-06, 06:32 PM	What we can add is a Guild-specific advantage. I think allowing a guild to process 250 PTS of their Home Trait by virtue of their Guildmaster Room would be a good idea. So CEF could process 250 FAI-PTS without any Conference Chambers. In addition to that we could give every guild ...the development <Trait> Organization I of their home trait. ...the development <Trait> Specialist I of their home trait. ...both? ...have the guildmaster room act like a free: CEF: Sickbay (Clerics heal) PSI: Screen Staff (Mindreading) LOY: City Watch (Patrols) TAO: Signal Fires (Fireballs in the air) TLT: Prison (snares and pits) EHT: Interrogation Chamber (Torturing) WAR: Guard Post (Militaristic organization) Although I don't like the bonus room idea very much. I think the two developments and a processing guildmaster room does much to add distinction between the guilds.When I see this I feel sort of Meh. It's not very compelling if the special guild ability is something any guild can get by just building a room or researching a few technologies. The special abilities should be special or not exist at all. I suggested some more unique special guild abilities in an email. None of them made it here, so I assume you didn't like them. If PSI gets a free Screen Staff, I think *shrug* big deal. I could have built one if I wanted one anyway. So could TAO for that matter. besides the screen staff is only usefull in a highly situational moment in time. I'd choose a guard post over a screen staff any day of the week. Same goes for the research. Free research is just not compelling. I'll spend the GAP to research what's of value. Giving it to me for free doens't make me feal like I got anything special.
MindWandererB 11-06-06, 07:00 PM	Sauro: do you realize how massively your suggestion slows down progress? 1 GAP making, at most, 450 PTS? And after you've totally filled the district? The plans that I'm in the process of making use only 1-2 more HQ SS than you're using right now, and I'll be able to use 500 PTS/week for 3 resources (maybe more; I still have one room I haven't decided on yet). About the guild-specific thing: I agree with Sauro, it's not really a big deal. It's even a little unbalanced, since some of those rooms effectively give you 1 free SS. We could do this, but I don't think it makes a major impact.
SauroGrenom 11-06-06, 07:12 PM	Sauro: do you realize how massively your suggestion slows down progress? 1 GAP making, at most, 450 PTS? And after you've totally filled the district? The plans that I'm in the process of making use only 1-2 more HQ SS than you're using right now, and I'll be able to use 500 PTS/week for 3 resources (maybe more; I still have one room I haven't decided on yet).The pace of progress is probably identical or nearly so. As you were posting this I edited my post slightly to highlight the number of points used/GAP. Notice how the total number of points is almost precisely the same. Either way the points/GAP are almost exactially half what PSI was generating before the recent rules changes. With Cat's system I can use points a bit faster if I overbuild the guildhall and I allow points to pile up in the storage. With mine, if you realy want to use a point type rapidly, then get more points/week (move into the next district and build structures and upgrade them). Cat's system or mine, I see it as having no difference in the pace of guild development after everything is up and running. Cat's system slows you down with building tons of processing rooms and using GAP and gold and SS on them. My system is direct. With Cat's system you will have more points in the storage than you can use. With mine you have points being used at nearly the same rate as Cat's and a far simpler system. It satisfies the KISS rule. Simple and direct with almost precisely the same game effect on point use and less auditing and less accounting and more room in the guildhall for things that need to be put in the guildhall.
MindWandererB 11-06-06, 08:14 PM	The pace of progress is probably identical or nearly so. As you were posting this I edited my post slightly to highlight the number of points used/GAP. Notice how the total number of points is almost precisely the same. Either way the points/GAP are almost exactially half what PSI was generating before the recent rules changes. With Cat's system I can use points a bit faster if I overbuild the guildhall and I allow points to pile up in the storage. With mine, if you realy want to use a point type rapidly, then get more points/week (move into the next district and build structures and upgrade them). Cat's system or mine, I see it as having no difference in the pace of guild development after everything is up and running. Cat's system slows you down with building tons of processing rooms and using GAP and gold and SS on them. My system is direct. With Cat's system you will have more points in the storage than you can use. With mine you have points being used at nearly the same rate as Cat's and a far simpler system. It satisfies the KISS rule. Simple and direct with almost precisely the same game effect on point use and less auditing and less accounting and more room in the guildhall for things that need to be put in the guildhall.Only if you do a bad job optimizing your development. You're getting 450 in 2 traits and 225 in 1, with a maxed-out district. I think I'm done with TLT, and I'm getting 750 in one and 500 in two, with room for improvement. And with both systems, you can get more points by moving into the next district; you can build processing rooms there, too. Your proposal may be simpler, but it is slower.
SauroGrenom 11-07-06, 12:02 AM	Only if you do a bad job optimizing your development. You're getting 450 in 2 traits and 225 in 1, with a maxed-out district. I think I'm done with TLT, and I'm getting 750 in one and 500 in two, with room for improvement. And with both systems, you can get more points by moving into the next district; you can build processing rooms there, too. Your proposal may be simpler, but it is slower. It may be possible with fewer rooms of various kinds to get more processing packed into the district with Cat's proposal. PSI has a few unusual rooms. The trophy hall and 1 storage facility could be replaced with processing rooms. However even with Cat's proposal at some point you end up being limited by the rate of points comming into the guild unless you wait around for more to pile up in the storage. Once the storage is used up, you cannot burn CON points faster than they are created by your structures. In any case, the pace of development is not the issue. At least not realy the central issue for me (or apparently for Cat or MWB). For me the central issue is complexity and barriers. Cat's proposal has many barriers and vastly increased complexity with resources reuired to both get points and use them in two seperate tasks. Mine is much simpler. If there is realy a need to increase or slow the pace of the game, that can be easily achieved by changing the number of points that you get from structure upgrades. Make it 125 each or 75 each as needed to modify the pace of the game faster or slower. But that's a side point. The central issue is that the processing rooms and storage and split processing vs generation of points creates unnecessary complexity, additional accounting, lengthy auditing and opportunities to abuse small sources of guild points for sudden bursts of hiring regiments (or any guild point). All these problems and there is little or none in the way of improvement when considered adjacent to a much simpler system with none of those problems.
Caterane 11-07-06, 01:30 AM	@Sauro: Your suggestions didn't make it in here because I wasn't at home where my mails are ;) Here they are; I'll comment on them later. CEF: Headquarters generate DEF points (100pts/level=>100 chapterhouse, 200 keep, 300 Fortress...). WAR: The guild can keep 1 Regiment of troops w/o barracks or upkeep, officers do not require special quarters (they stay with the troops), and the guild has a +1000 Attitude points with all Para-Military Groups. EHTC: The when performing covert actions, the opperators of this guild always get an extra prebuff round. LOY: NEG points used by this guild have 2x effect and the guild has a base indifferent attitude toward all districts and friendly attitude toward all guilds. PSI: The Guildhall is "disguised" so that all opperations against the guilhall have a 50% miss chance. TAO: The GuildHall has +5 SS in an "extradimentional space" beyond the standard allowed by it's status as a headquarters. TLT: Fortifications (walls, moats, towers...) are built twice as fast at 1/2 cost for CON and gp and all damaged structures and fortifications are repaired at no gp cost.
MindWandererB 11-07-06, 01:45 AM	Those are interesting ideas, but grossly out of balance. CEF: Weak. Really weak. The equivalent of 2 guard posts at most? Forget it. WAR: Multiple very minor effects. The first is like 1/2 a room, the second like potentially several rooms, the third like a few GAPs and possibly resource allocation. Nothing fantastic, though. EHTC: An edge in combat is always a good thing. And probably unfair to the opponent, who is basically being treated as of they were 1 level too high. Getting volunteers to intercept these ops, when the interceptor is at a clear and unmitigated disadvantage, could be hard. LOY: Not sure. It's abuseable, but LOY would have to be very much on the ball to optimize it properly. Could be devastating if exploited fully. PSI: Are you crazy? That's insanely powerful. TAO: That's very, very powerful as well. Less so in the late game, but still very, very potent. TLT: Possibly the weakest ability of all. No thanks.
McJarvis 11-07-06, 04:23 PM	LOY: NEG points used by this guild have 2x effect and the guild has a base indifferent attitude toward all districts and friendly attitude toward all guilds. Is this only up for consideration for now, or is it official? Never can tell when you're enacting something or just suggesting it ;) Regardless, if I could use this this very week that'd be great. O:-) edit- I am sorry for suddenly being absent from these discussions...I'll be able to return to my "normal" activity level in a week or so.
SauroGrenom 11-07-06, 04:28 PM	Is it a hope against all odds that my comments here were considered valid? MWB's reply here earned my reply. A final comment from MWB recieved this reply with a summary of how my simpler suggestion for GAP use is infact immune to abuse of storage facilities like in Cat's system. The only lasting criticism of my suggestion is that the pace of point use is slightly slower in mine than in Cat's (but only in certian situations), and that can be easily and directly adjusted by slight modifications in the points made available by structure upgrades. A method for that modification is already present in the rules with hiring expert staff. I feel like my suggestion embodies all the strategy and balance elements that Cat's suggestion contains, but it does these things with a simpler mechanism. MWB has voiced several reasonable observations and criticisms, but I feel I've managed to answer them reasonably well. Are there other criticisms of my suggestion that have not yet been described and that apply to only my suggestion and not Cat's?
MindWandererB 11-07-06, 04:33 PM	Sauro: Most of the arguments came out to be a wash. The only significant difference is whether we want a simpler system or a more complicated one. Cat actually prefers more complexity. I could go either way--I don't think it's so immensely complicated as to necessitate simplification. There are other rules I'd like to simplify, but this one I can take or leave. Unless you can come up with a strong argument other than "this is simpler, and the results are comparable," you won't win Cat over, and I won't support you in trying (although I won't argue against you, either).
SauroGrenom 11-07-06, 06:12 PM	So when there are two ways to drive to St. Louis and one way takes 3 hours the other 3 days you're just fine taking the 3 day trip? Isn't simplicity for equivalent normal function a good reason to use a simpler method over a complicated one? Would you rather have a simple outpatient procedure to remove your wisdom teeth or fly to Australia where a tribal healer will hit you over the head and pull your teeth out which you must then eat before you are allowed to recover from the surgery? Doing something in a more complicated way "just because" is a totally asinine reason to do it. If you require a distinct reason to not go with Cat's suggestion, then it's clearly there in the insta-army effect that you so vehemently used as a reason to not drop processing rooms. Storage and processing rooms make it possible for a guild with a meager source of REC points to suddenly raise an army of 5 regiments in one week. The effects can be seen in other avenues as well not just REC points. PRO points can be used to suddenly have multiple siege engines in one week even though you have only 100 PRO points/week. NAT can be used to suddenly build a district gate in one week. It's totally unrealistic, and IMO it’s more imbalanced than what I suggest. With my suggestion it's impossible to do this. That is a clear balance reason to not use Cat’s suggestion. Cat's suggestion can clearly lead to totally unrealistic spastic extremes of guild actions.
MindWandererB 11-07-06, 06:21 PM	You're right: if a guild was stupid enough to build 2000 PTS' worth of processing rooms, and only a tiny bit of generation, they could indeed save up for many months and suddenly plop down something huge. Meanwhile, the guilds with more equitable distributions will have accumulated many times more stuff, pumped out at a slowed but more consistent rate. And no, I don't consider it unrealistic at all. Say you, as a general, build eighty gazillion shipyards in preparation for a war. However, you've spent so much of your resources building shipyards that you neglected to actually acquire lumber. If you slowly do generate lumber, then suddenly send your people to work at those shipyards, then yes, you will get a huge fleet in no time at all. Whereas your opponent, having split their resources into both generation and production, will have more ships, faster, and be attacking you while you're trying to accumulate resources. So if by "unbalanced" you mean "allows for greater stupidity," then yes, you're correct. And please forgive me if I don't consider that a problem. Oh, and BTW, any guild can slap up a gate in 1 week. It costs no CON-PTS, only gold (being a structure), and only 1000.
SauroGrenom 11-07-06, 06:40 PM	You're right: if a guild was stupid enough to build 2000 PTS' worth of processing rooms, and only a tiny bit of generation, they could indeed save up for many months and suddenly plop down something huge. Meanwhile, the guilds with more equitable distributions will have accumulated many times more stuff, pumped out at a slowed but more consistent rate.For example PSI has a moderate REC point accumulation (225). I could easily put 4 processing rooms for REC and 3-5 barracks in my guilhall by overbuilding a bit and changing a few rooms over to processing instead of storage or the trophy room. While I use my PRO points and RES points to develop great technologies and produce weapons for a non existant army (no upkeep), REC points just pile up in the storage and equipment piles up in the armory. About 2 months later (while all other guilds are still building in new districts) I have a few thousand REC points saved up, and I spend 1 GAP to recruit 5 fully equiped instantly ready regiments that I immediately send out to kill you and occupy every TLT district. Why should I care if the regiments all die? I have 5 more comming the next week... and the next week as well... Totally realistic...Somewhere I've been storing young men in my guilhall storage, and when I want them I've got them ready to go. Yep totally realistic... balanced too. :rolleyes: Oh, and BTW, any guild can slap up a gate in 1 week. It costs no CON-PTS, only gold (being a structure), and only 1000.Wasn't the gate one of the things that was a con only structure? I though that was the whole point of creating it, to give something interesting to CON when structures were no longer a part of CON.
MindWandererB 11-07-06, 06:57 PM	You'd need a few Storages to pull that off, but yes, you could. You'd have 2000 REC-PTS in 2 months, and could spend them all in 2 weeks for 10 regiments. And yes, you would probably annihilate any one guild if you did that, especially one with no REC or TRA. Whereupon multiple other guilds see you doing it, freak out, and band together to kill you. Since you take a month to get any more troops, you're living on borrowed time. Contrast that to what would happen if you turned one of those processing rooms into generating ones. That would get you 325 PTS/week and 750 processing. Alternate producing troops with R&D. You might not have quite as much equipment, but you have 15 regiments instead of 10. Costs you 2 additional GAPs. Plus, you can replenish your army a lot more easily. Either case assumes you have some money left, which may or may not be the case, since you've been channeling it all into your army, including at least 5 barracks. As for realism, the idea of REC-PTS is kind of silly anyway. You can think of it as many weeks of propaganda, encouraging foolish young people to join your army, and then suddenly opening the doors to your well-equipped training facilities. They rush in by the dozens to join up, and are out the door in no time. Of course, your propaganda campaign is too weak to keep up that kind of influence, and it takes many weeks to inspire more to join up. And yes, I thought you needed CON for the gate, too. But that's not what went into the current version.
SauroGrenom 11-07-06, 07:22 PM	This is the guild equivalent of "going nova" that was the whole reason to create the 1/3 rule. That tactic was something that seriously worried Cat with respect to the arena. That worry exists for a decent reason. It's just as valid to be worried about it here as in the Arena. Let's say I use this strategy and totally take out TLT. I'm sure EHTC would like that. Perhaps I can get EHTC to do something simular and help take out TLT, the two of us can easily gang up on TLT and then turn our attention to say destroy LOY. We protect eachother's backs, and perphaps recruit one other guild into the alliance, and it's like a sudden death guild game. No one guild can stand against our sudden army, and we just point it at the weakes one. After we wipe out two guilds, then hey we almost have a majority. Even if you all form an alliance of the remaining 2 or 3 guilds and wipe us out, the game is basicially over. What do you call it when there is a pathway that abruptly ends the game? The whole game sits on the edge of a cliff. Two guilds can join up and pull the whole game over the cliff. I don't call that balanced. I call that poor game design for a game that the designer wants to last for a very long time (years).
MindWandererB 11-07-06, 07:40 PM	<shrug> If you want to try that strategy, you're welcome to try it. It will probably result in you losing (I doubt you could destroy 2 guilds before folks wised up, which makes it 4:2 against you), but if you really want to try to kill someone before going down in a blaze of glory, you can go for it.
NiQil 11-07-06, 08:10 PM	Alright....I've been following this guild debate for awhile now, and generally keeping my nose out of it for reasons better left out of this for now. But I gotta say....the tones of the posts recently from all three parties (Cat, MWB, and Sauro) are going downhill really quickly. If I were seeing posts of this tone in another part of the D&D boards, I would be waiting for the flames to kick in. I think maybe everyone needs to take a big step away from the guilds for a day or two and let cooler heads prevail. I may be way off base here, and I am not saying anyone has done anything wrong or improper, but this "discussion" is on the fast track to blowing up in a big way. Take a deep breath. Relax. It's *supposed to be fun. If it isn't, then it's time to back away, as I did from the guilds so long ago. Just my two devalued electrum pieces.
Caterane 11-08-06, 05:18 AM	Sauro, I understand what you want but I disagree. Neither is your system easier (or at least that easier that it warrants a change) nor is it as flexible as the current one. It is balanced to SS and expansion growth and should we combine generating and processing into one type of room (again) as you suggest, we would also remove the Structure Slots. Thanks for your participation and involvement though; it's the reason why we have such a great guild system in the first place.
SauroGrenom 11-09-06, 12:51 AM	*Sigh* My first reaction was a bit of anger. With the most recent guild rules revision, I've sort of hit a wall. Much like when NiQil did in the last revision. I saw it coming for a while as the discussion progressed, I resisted as much as I could. The increasing complexity, the minutia, the accounting, the insincere competition (why resurrect a dead guild if it's really a competitive game?), the periodic revisions if one strategy was discovered to be too good, they all have been getting to me. I've come to realize that I'm not going to have fun playing the game in what is clearly the "best" way to play it, especially when that "best" strategy keeps changing but always there is a single strategy for each player that is "best". I never really liked tracking attitude changes with all the guilds districts and nearly every game element, (c’mon we know which guilds we do and don't get along with who really needs a game mechanic for it?). I certainly won't like accounting the ever-changing contents of a storage room. I never liked the idea of raising an army and building siege engines and marching around. None of this is my style of play, and doing some of these things in the past has always been a chore that I accept for the fun parts. I thought about "Going Nova" and using PSI to wipe out a weak guild and get wiped out as retaliation. But I realized that was a silly way to "show you" how broken some of the new rules are. I thought about giving up PSI, and I don't think I'm ready for that quite yet. I've refrained from posting and let my thoughts simmer all day as I calmed down and settled on my conclusion. I've decided that with PSI I'm just going to play the parts of the game that I'm interested in, and ignore as much of the rest as possible. PSI will have no storage room, because I don't think storing points is a reasonable thing to do. It's impossible to save up research and then suddenly apply it and have an instant breakthrough. Research must be directed at a single topic and takes time over weeks, months and years. It's the same with all other things. You cannot just suddenly change you mind and use the expert researcher recruitment program to get an army. I don't like the game mechanic, so I will not use it. Similarly I don't envision my guild or any member of it as leading an army which marches down the street. That's just not my flavor. So my guild will never build a barracks or hire regiments. My vision of the guild is an ivory tower sort of place where individuals of great personality and prowess gather. A place where the most skilled sages and craftsmen work together to advance understanding and craft marvels. A place where power is measured in skills, favors, knowledge and influence instead of Calvary and siege engines. That is the strategy I will have fun playing, and it is the one that I'll peruse with PSI. I understand that it leaves PSI open to being attacked by the armies of another guild. I understand that not using a storage room means that the guild will take more GAP to do anything. I understand that my approach is not competitive. I understand that what Cat wants to play is a competitive game like Masters of Orion 3. I understand that my approach will most likely mean that PSI is a "looser" in the guild wars. I'm fine with that, because it's what's necessary to have fun running the guild. So all I need is to make sure that I can transfer the new free storage into a free processing room instead. And I'll spend more time planning quests, dreaming up stories and building a good RP environment in the guild; and I'll spend less time planning how I'm going to dominate the guildwars and accounting a dozen details every week. Edit: BTW I also need some kind of CAP that I can send characters on that is a 1 fight mission w/o targeting another guild. PSI is trying to split from the old ways of attacking TLT or anyone. But there is no CAP that I can send the character on except missions (taking a full 3 week quest) that won't hurt relations with another guild. I have players asking for guild opperations or missions and I'm struggling to find questlords for all the missions. Some kind of other mechanism would be great.
MindWandererB 11-09-06, 01:32 AM	So all I need is to make sure that I can transfer the new free storage into a free processing room instead. And I'll spend more time planning quests, dreaming up stories and building a good RP environment in the guild; and I'll spend less time planning how I'm going to dominate the guildwars and accounting a dozen details every week. Edit: BTW I also need some kind of CAP that I can send characters on that is a 1 fight mission w/o targeting another guild. PSI is trying to split from the old ways of attacking TLT or anyone. But there is no CAP that I can send the character on except missions (taking a full 3 week quest) that won't hurt relations with another guild. I have players asking for guild opperations or missions and I'm struggling to find questlords for all the missions. Some kind of other mechanism would be great.Sauro, I do sympathize with the way you feel. You have a lot of valid frustrations, and I've had similar ones myself. Sometimes it's hard to roll with the punches. There have been times I've wanted to throw in the towel, too. I try to plan weeks and weeks in advance, and my plans are frequently blown out of the water before I get there. I do have a couple of important comments, though. One is that with the new rules, you need a storage to be functional. It's like a treasury; without it, you just can't do anything. In fact, you can do more without a treasury than without a storage. If you just want to forfeit the game, it's not fair to the rest of PSI's members, many of whom genuinely want to succeed. Second is that we retired EYE not because they were losing, but because there was no one interested in participating in it. Originally, we were just going to give it an RP change, and grant the "new" guild no advantages. We ultimately decided that it just wouldn't be any fun to pick up the pieces of a broken guild, so we granted LOY a subsidy. They still have a lot of catching up to do. Third: It's hard to come up with a CAP that would be light on the pitlord load. Miniquest-type CAPs eat up pitlords like crazy. Right now, your best option is to go for multiplayer missions (since those run at 1 QL/2 characters, same as a battle). See if EHTC, or possibly another guild (CEF? LOY? WAR?) would be interested in something like that. But if you can think up of some kind of CAP that would run like a Battle of Gladius, but not antagonize another guild, more power to you. Maybe some kind of "training" CAP that pits two members of your guild against each other, or something that results in a team vs. monster battle.
SauroGrenom 11-09-06, 02:08 AM	One is that with the new rules, you need a storage to be functional. It's like a treasury; without it, you just can't do anything. In fact, you can do more without a treasury than without a storage. If you just want to forfeit the game, it's not fair to the rest of PSI's members, many of whom genuinely want to succeed.I don't see the place in the rules where it says that a storage is required, but I could have easily missed it in the hundreds of thousands of charactes that makes up the guildhall thread rules. If that's true then you need a new guildmaster. That's the one thing I just won't do. I won't be an accountant for gp and 7 other kinds of guild points I need to weekly fit into a storage space just to have the guild function at a basic level. There are many different ways to measure success. In some sense we can already be considered a failure since we have hardly any RP posts in the PSI guild thread. I have simply decided that I want to measure success not by armies, or optimal accounting or seige engines or fastest expansion in the guild race. I want to measure success by knowlege, personal power, skill, story and a solid RP personality of the guild reflected in the guild's actions in the game. I think achieving that would be a success greater than "winning", and I think that my guild members would probably agree. Argument or points you make or discussion I reply with will not change how I feel. How I feel is that I'm not going to have fun playing this game in the way you and Cat and perhaps some other guildmasters want it to be played with the rules currently in place. I'm perfectly happy to play a more limited version of the game which can be fun to play. I just hope that's possible.
Caterane 11-09-06, 04:06 AM	Sauro I'm sorry that you didn't like it but I don't think it's because of the minor detail regarding the generating rooms we talked about lately. You never liked the regiment part of the game. I remember you saying that when I wrote up the rules for them. So what can you do? You can do what you always did: help us to improve the system. The recent overhaul is all a guildmaster can stomach and there won't be any more such overhauls. But we can add to the character system; your domain of interest. Perhaps you have new Operations and Missions, or perhaps a new function for PCs or the way they participate. Just keep in mind that 'roleplaying' is not possible to assess and thus no game mechanic. Anything else is fine. PS: Tracking ressources takes about 1 min a week.
Vathelokai 11-09-06, 05:15 AM	Again I break my vow of silence... @Sauro: The conclusion that you have reached, I reached a long time ago. I got into the guild thing when it was 100% RP, no mechanics, no nothing. Since then I've seen the rules for it change, what, 5 times now? I always liked my guild and didn't want to see it go the road of EYE so I made a decision. I decided not to try to win the game, but instead to keep TAO alive. And no matter what goes on in the game or with the game, there is only one thing that fuels TAO: questing and a continuous storyline. Right here is the TAO scorecard; no treasury, structures, etc. in that post. Hell, TAO even did a global event before there were global events. But I keep up on the guild rules to try to keep in the game as well; it's secondary, but nessicary. Why the heck would a wizard school need 4 cranes? I thought it didn't make sense, so I came up with a storyline about hiring a construction company to rebuild the campus. Now their contract is exipred and they are working for someone else. Why would the school stock regiments? Still havn't figured that out, but something might come to me. I can't image I'd use them for anything except defending the school, so they might just be security guards. What I'm getting at is that you can run your guild the way you want and ignore the rest of the game; your guild will come out ahead because the players in the guild respond to a guildmaster who's interested in what they do. That's my model and it's worked for a year now. I don't even keep up on what other guilds are doing, except to read the RP posts. Of course there's a price; I have to run all the quests. It eats up time, but I like doing it. @Everybody else: So now you see why I don't discuss the guild rules much (well, that and my tendancy to flame people when I'm annoyed). Don't take it the wrong way. It's a neat game; I love having multiple ways to win, methods of using PC quests to help the guild and RP at the same time, the districts and their quirks. I am very aware of how much effort goes into writing rules and making a game that really works. I just choose to play the part of the game that is my favorite; it's great that the game is large enough that I can focus on what's fun for me and other people can be playing a completely different part of the game that's fun for them, and we both end up interacting in one system. Overall, it has become a very complicated system. I can't say if that's good or bad, but it is a fact. Because the system involves numbers (of all things) there is always a best way to play to win. That can't be removed from the game without causing it to not be a game anymore, but that dosn't mean that the best number crucher is going to win. There are ways around it (they all require teamwork, but oh well). As long as there is a way to survive and thive without pounding other guilds to death, without having to play Axis and Allies D&D edition, then I think Sauro and I will be fine. So what to do? We need more types of CAPs. Here's a few -Training: basicly a free challenge match between 2 members of the same or allied guilds. costs 1 cap -competitions: basicly a challenge match between two guilds that increases or decreases the attitudes of the two guilds in question. either guild can pay the 2 nessicary caps to run it. -Exploration: a miniquest with a minimum of 2 PCs - could give any of the types of things missions give (with appropriate 1/3rd-ness of course) -Campaigns: These really need more goals. None of the current goals really work for my 'strategy'. Not really a cap, but I thought I'd hide it in the middle of the list. -Operations against NPC groups: Why not? there can be some easy mechanic based on the groups rating to determine how they react to intrigue and assaults. -Befriend: how about all these missions become miniquests. Make a flat 2 CAPs to have one, and allow as many PC's as you want to go -Braindead: I'm short on ideas. I'll post if I think of anything. @PSI: TAO is still interested in our mutual appreciation for education. Next couple weeks are busy, but after that we're open.
Caterane 11-09-06, 06:00 AM	Rules Change: ECL 3 and 4 Characters can join guilds without a miniquest. This is in line with the absence of quests at these levels and it doesn't eat up a QL if the player vanishes shortly thereafter. Guildmasters can still request an entry miniquest if they like. @Vath: I like training. But what does it do for your guild? Befriend should rather go than improved. It's still the only way to get around a GAP and it weakens NEG. Either we drop it or invent a way to do that for any point type.
Vathelokai 11-09-06, 10:57 AM	@Vath: I like training. But what does it do for your guild? Befriend should rather go than improved. It's still the only way to get around a GAP and it weakens NEG. Either we drop it or invent a way to do that for any point type. Training could strenghthen defense somehow. That makes the most sense RP wise. Or maybe it increases security for a short time. Wait; How do the befriend missions weaken NEG? You have to have NEG to use it now. I'd Much rather see a system to do this for all point types. That would bring things back to the 'PCs are not necissary to the guild but can make the guild flourish' philosophy that fueled this whole incarnation of guild rules. I see this as far more positive for the guilds; instead of just making a stock post about spending negotiation points and now Kailo likes us, you have a quest, with a story, with background, with a reason that Kailo likes us. Anyway, I'll try to come up with something while I'm at work and post it in the morning.
Abyssal Stalker 11-09-06, 01:28 PM	OK, here's the revised version of the ECL6 monster table. 1 1d3+1 Ankhegs [CR 3] 2 1 Annis Hag [CR 6] 3 1d2+1 Aranea [CR 4] 4 1 Average Salamander [CR 6] 5 1 Average Xorn [CR 6] 6 1 Babau [CR 6] 7 1d2+1 Barghests [CR 4] 8 1 Belker [CR 6] 9 1 Bralani [CR 6] 10 1 Celestial Basilisk [CR 6] 11 1 Celestial Polar Bear [CR 6] 12 1d2+1 Centipede Swarms [CR 4] 13 1 Chain Devil [CR 6] 14 1d3+1 Deinonychos [CR 3] 15 1 Digester [CR 6] 16 1d2+1 Dire Boars [CR 4] 17 1d2 Dire Lions [CR 5] 18 1d3+1 Dryads [CR 3] 19 1d3+1 Ettercaps [CR 6] 20 1 Ettin [CR 6] 21 1 Fiendish Gibbering Mouther [CR 6] 22 1 Fiendish Phrenic Owlbear [CR 6] 23 1 Fiendish Troll [CR 6] 24 1d3+1 Formian Warriors [CR 3] 25 1 Gargantuan Monstrous Centipede [CR 6] 26 1 Giant Constrictor Snake and 1d2 LargeVipers [CR 5] [CR 2] 27 1d2+1 Giant Crocodiles [CR 4] 28 1d2+1 Giant Stag Beetles [CR 4] 29 1d3+1 Giant Wasps [CR 3] 30 1 Girallon [CR 6] 31 1d2+1 Gray Oozes [CR 4] 32 1 Gray Render Zombie [CR 6] 33 1d2+1 Griffons [CR 4] 34 1 Half-Celestial Griffon [CR 6] 35 1 Half-Fiend Minotaur [CR 6] 36 1d3+1 Hell Hounds [CR 3] 37 1d3+1 Howlers [CR 3] 38 1d2 Huge Animated Objects [CR 5] 39 1d2 Huge Monstrous Spiders [CR 5] 40 1d3+1 Huge Vipers [CR 3] 41 1d3+1 Juvenile Arrowhawks [CR 3] 42 1 Lamia [CR 6] 43 1d3+1 Large Monstorus Scorpions [CR 3] 44 1d3+1 Magmins [CR 3] 45 1d2 Manticores [CR 5] 46 1d3+1 Medium Elementals 1d4 for type [CR 3] 47 1 Megaraptor [CR 6] 48 1d3+1 Mephits (1d10 for type) [CR 3] 49 1d2+1 Minotaur Zombies [CR 4] 50 1d2+1 Minotaurs [CR 4] 51 1d2 Nightmares [CR 5] 52 1d2+1 Otyughs [CR 4] 53 1d2+1 Owlbears [CR 4] 54 1d2 Phase Spiders [CR 5] 55 1d2+1 Rhinoceroses [CR 4] 56 1d3+1 Rust Monsters [CR 3] 57 1 Sea Hag Vampire [CR 6] 58 1 Seven-Headed Hydra [CR 6] 59 1 Shambling Mound [CR 6] 60 1 Tendriculous [CR 6] 61 1d2+1 Tigers [CR 4] 62 1d3+1 Troll Skeletons [CR 3] 63 1d2+1 Very Young Dragons (1d4 for Black, Blue, Brass, Green) [CR 4] 64 1 Wyvern [CR 6] 65 1 Xill [CR 6] 66 1 1st-level Centaur Ranger and 1d2 Deinonychus Dinosaurs [CR 4] [CR 3] 67 1 1st-level Wereboar Fighter and 1d2 Boars [CR 5] [CR 2] 68 1 2nd-level Werewolf Fighter and 1d3 Wolves [CR 5] [CR 1] 69 1 2nd-level Bugbear Rogue and 1d2 Mephits (1d10 for type) [CR 4] [CR 3] 70 1 2nd-level Ogre Barbarian and 1d2 Wyrmling White Dragons [CR 5] [CR 2] 71 1 3rd-level Azer Fighter and 1d2 Heavy Warhorses [CR 5] [CR 2] 72 1 Adult Arrowhawk and 1 Cockatrice [CR 5] [CR 3] 73 1 Advanced Megaraptor Skeleton [CR 6] 74 1 Celestial Stag Beetle and 1d2 Giant Bombardier Beetles [CR 5] [CR 2] 75 1 Chimera Skeleton and 1d2 Ogre Zombies [CR 4] [CR 3] 76 1 Ettin Skeleton and 1d2 Owlbear Skeletons [CR 5] [CR 2] 77 1 Fiendish Dire Ape and 1d2 Dire Apes [CR 4] [CR 3] 78 1 Five-Headed Cryohydra [CR 6] 79 1 Harpy and 1d2 Giant Praying Mantises [CR 4] [CR 3] 80 1 Hound Archon and 1d2 Griffons [CR 4] 81 1 Huge Monstrous Spider and 1 Ettercap [CR 5] [CR 3] 82 1 Janni and 1d2 Medium Air Elementals [CR 4] [CR 3] 83 1 Large Elemental and 1d3 Small Elementals (1d4 for type) [CR 5] [CR 1] 84 1 Mummy and 1d3 Ghouls [CR 5] [CR 1] 85 1 Sea Hag and 1 Wyrmling Black Dragon [CR 4] [CR 3] 86 1 Shadow Mastiff and 1d2 Imps [CR 5] [CR 2] 87 1 Troll and 1 Ogre [CR 5] [CR 3] 88 1 Vampire Spawn and 1d2 Ogre Zombies [CR 4] [CR 3] 89 1 Wraith and 1 Wight [CR 5] [CR 3] 90 1 Wyvern Zombie and 1d2 Troll Skeletons [CR 4] [CR 3] 91 1 Young Dragon (1d2 for Blue, Brass) [CR 6] 92 1 1st-level Fiendish Werewolf Fighter [CR 6] 93 1 1st-level Unbodied Psion [CR 6] 94 1 2nd-level Gargoyle Fighter [CR 6] 95 1 2nd-level Hound Archon Paladin [CR 6] 96 1 2nd-level Minotaur Barbarian [CR 6] 97 1 3rd-level Derro Rogue [CR 6] 98 1 3rd-level Ogre Barbarian [CR 6] 99 1 4th-level Astral Construct [CR 6] 100 1 5th-level Astral Construct [CR 6] Somebody could check if it's even close to balanced.
SauroGrenom 11-09-06, 01:35 PM	Sauro I'm sorry that you didn't like it but I don't think it's because of the minor detail regarding the generating rooms we talked about lately. You never liked the regiment part of the game. I remember you saying that when I wrote up the rules for them.There is no one detail that has settled my mind. I can easily accept one or two details that I don't like as long as the rules have room for me to work around them. I have always planned to avoid regiments as much as possible, that hasn't changed. The difference is that I could largely avoid that with forming alliances and using conscripts and building fortifications. With this new rule system I'd like to continue to avoid the aspects I don't like. I can accept building processing rooms, but I'm not going to have a storage and I'm not going to track what's in the storage every week and plann and strategize on that basis. So what can you do? You can do what you always did: help us to improve the system. The recent overhaul is all a guildmaster can stomach and there won't be any more such overhauls.With one statement you suggest we continue to improve the game, and the other you note that further change is not acceptable to many of the players. These two aims are in direct contradition. PS: Tracking ressources takes about 1 min a week.It's not so much the 5 minutes it takes to type out what's in a storage. It's the requirement to account every week to track it and that I must manage the storage optimally to play the game well. I just don't want to hinge my strategy on this, or what's in the storage of all the rival guilds. I'd rather not think about it. That is on top of all the other things I must consider like regiments, use of districe SS, attitudes, and research. I'd like to still play the game and ignore the whole storage thing. I will continue to plan on having only minimal involvement in the whole regiments thing. I think of it as like diplomacy allies or cohorts. Everyone knows that they are powerfull and you should probably use one of them to optimize your character. Lots of players don't use them, because it's not the direction they want to build the character. There is no requirement to have allies. I just need a direct answer to two questions: Can GAP be used to directly process points generated that week if there is no storage? Can the free storage given to all the guilds be replaced with a different room if I don't want a storage?
Caterane 11-09-06, 01:59 PM	No and no. You could theoretically do without a storage. You build structures for income only and headquarters for protection (need no ressources other than gold and time) and try to win by doing operations only. It's a valid strategy. You could also try the powercenter victory by getting the required trait values; three powercenters win the game. Maybe there'll be an artefact victory in the future. However, you'd be restricting the Psi Consortium to these two types to win. You have no defense against regiments; even conscripts need REC to be drafted. I don't see a bright future for PSI (one of the top candidates to win atm) if you go that route. A storage is almost no extra work so the reason for your resistance must lie somewhere else. Anyway. There's still a chance to improve the Character aspects of the system. So far, operations (ie miniquests) and missions (full quests) are the only options for PCs. Adding more options for operations and missions just increases the amount of questers and decreases the amount of active arena characters. That's not desirable. Maybe we could find a way to incorporate their Battles of Gladius into the system.
TheMagister 11-09-06, 04:55 PM	Sample Title Line: Active: November 15th (fight 2); Free Action: Guild Prestige (Fame) **************** Guild Prestige: A gladiator in the Gladius Arena is an influential public figure. The crowds love a winner, whether he's a champion for good or a gore-covered spawn of Hades. As a free action, a character can choose to be a sponsor for his Guild on the Arena's stage. A win can earn his guild respect, political favors, gifts, and other intangibles. These awards are detailed below. Guild Fame: Your win in the arena creates a buzz in the streets of Gladius, sparking interest in joining your Guild's staff. Earn your guild an amount of REC-PTS equal to 5*ECL. Guild Favor: Your win in the arena causes those who bet on your success to feel indebted to you...somewhat. Maybe they could talk to somebody for you? Earn your guild an amount of NEG-PTS equal to 5*ECL. Guild Grant: Your successful efforts in the arena inspires generosity from a devoted fan who just happened to bet on you and win. He donates an amount of CON-PTS equal to 5*ECL to your guild to help further their expansion and defense. Guild Intellectual: Your clever tactics in the arena draws scientists to your Guild's doors that seek to be on the winning side in this growing conflict. Earn your guild an amount of RES-PTS equal to 5*ECL. Guild Fervor: Your glorious win in the arena whips your Guild's staff into a zealous frenzy. Earn your guild an amount of FAI-PTS equal to 5*ECL. Guild Contacts: Fame of your success reaches beyond Gladius, carried by merchants who saw your bout. Earn your guild 5*ECL in TRA-PTS. Guild Efficiency: Your dogged resilience in the Arena inspires your guild staff to work longer hours in your honor. Earn your guild 5*ECL in PRO-PTS. I think that's all of 'em. TM
Caterane 11-09-06, 05:07 PM	Hm, asides from taking us back into the stoneage roleplaywise :P (where everyone was a gladiator fighting in the arena) the suggestions are a start. Would need to be checked though. Concerns: Increases bookkeeping for both guildmaster and guildlords. The character sacrifices his Free Activity for no gain. Difficult to balance. Hard to explain roleplaywise. Severe drawback for guilds with fewer members. A better mechanic would be to make it a CAP for the guild to gain ressources or other benefits if the character wins in a Battle of Gladius. Perhpaps the amount by which his powerrating increased in one ressource? Example: You win and gain +100 Powerrating which earns the guild 100 PTS of the ressource it used a CAP for. That makes it more lucrative to CAP on weaker characters (because they gain more Powerrating if the win) but is more risky sicne they don't win that often. The pitlord writes the increase into the fight summary. We can base the ressource on the map so the guild doesn't know what it gets. CAP: Gather Ressources CON - Forest (you gather wood for construction) NEG - City (you are on a diplomatic mission) FAI - Temple (speaks for itself) REC - Arena (find new recruits in the arena) TRA - Plains (travel to nearby villages to trade) RES - Cavern (explore dungeons and ruins to find new magic) PRO - Sewer (the old sewers still contain weapons and equipment from the Year of Hell) Or as a way to get gold we could reinstall the old tax system. CAP: Gather Taxes. A percentage of the characters rewards goes to the guild. Another idea: Anyone on the roster and not in a guild can send a PM to Guildlords and say he intercepts an operator or quester.
SauroGrenom 11-09-06, 06:29 PM	However, you'd be restricting the Psi Consortium to these two types to win. You have no defense against regiments; even conscripts need REC to be drafted. I don't see a bright future for PSI (one of the top candidates to win atm) if you go that route. A storage is almost no extra work so the reason for your resistance must lie somewhere else. The reason for my resistance is simple. I don't do my own taxes. I'm not an accountant. I don't think that tracking a myriad of numbers that change on a weekly basis and using those numbers as the center of my strategy is going to be fun. I'd rather not do it. With these most recent rules, the competition of the game is a resource management competition. The winner is whomever can eek the most out of their processing rooms and storage facilities that are all crammed into the overfilled guildhall. *Shrug* Not my kind of game. You like details, and you think it's tons of fun to consider all the details and use them all together. The more details the better. You are a fan of Masters of Orion 3. Guildwars of Gladius 5 is looking a lot like MoO3. When I play MoO3, I always play as the research race (Psilons?). I expand till I hit the other races in competition, and then place a few key fortifications at the choke points. Then I always defend those fortifications while I outbuild the rivals. I win with a technological victory. Same general strategy for playing Civ. I guess it looks like I'm going to be required to hire an accountant. Is there anyone who wants to earn the PSI guildmaster's credit every week and do our books? I'll do all the other stuff. I just need someone to do the tracking of all the guild points in storage, and I'd like to off load the duty of tracking attitude changes after every opperation or mission. I'll strategise on a larger level, and plan the construction and GAP and CAP and keep players involved. I'm just sick of being an accountant of points in a dozen places, and I'm willing to "pay" a credit each week for someone else to do it.
Caterane 11-10-06, 04:05 AM	The last time I played a computer game was when Diablo 2 was released. I used to play MoO2. MoO3 was totally boring. So the accountant logs in, uses no more than 5 minutes at worst to do 7 simple additions and gains a credit? This is probably the easiest credits earned ever but it's your choice. It's definately better than letting PSI fall behind. Let's focus on the new player character aspects. I added Errands (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7668673) to the Guildrules. Let's try to find some more errand goals. What do you think about the option that non-guild members on the roster can intercept guild characters on operations and missions? They send a PM to Guildlords and he posts it with the next CAP Reactions. Should there be more interceptors for one PC, the first one gets it. This would connect the guild system with the regular system somewhat.
McJarvis 11-10-06, 09:32 AM	What do you think about the option that non-guild members on the roster can intercept guild characters on operations and missions? They send a PM to Guildlords and he posts it with the next CAP Reactions. Should there be more interceptors for one PC, the first one gets it. This would connect the guild system with the regular system somewhat. Don't interceptions normally cost a CAP?(I could be wrong here) If regular PC's could do it, you'd have to make them free to do :-) At the very least, there would have to be some sort of reaction to such an action that a guild could take on a normal gladiator. If a common citizen keeps thwarting the local theives guild, the thieves guild is going to come after that citizen!
Caterane 11-10-06, 09:42 AM	It costs a CAP for the guild but non-guild PCs have no CAPs. There must be a reward for success but also a penalty for failure for the PC. The same could be done vice versa for the guild.
Guildmaster_LOY 11-10-06, 10:12 AM	It costs a CAP for the guild but non-guild PCs have no CAPs. There must be a reward for success but also a penalty for failure for the PC. The same could be done vice versa for the guild. My hesitation regarding this might be my not-understanding the rules... For a guild member to go on a counter-CAP it costs the guild a CAP, but for a non-guild member it doesn't cost a CAP? Technically a guild would be "better off" just having three members who are merely fans of the guild doing all the counter-caps, no? Off topic- How many points get thrown into our storages to start again?
MindWandererB 11-10-06, 02:20 PM	Starting storage: 100 PTS per trait point (or 25 per .25) 250 PTS per structure upgrade However this non-guild/guild interaction plays out, I announce Sunstroke's willingness to engage in any anti-PSI activities, assuming I can spare the activation.
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-10-06, 02:47 PM	Starting storage: 100 PTS per trait point (or 25 per .25) 250 PTS per structure upgrade 250 PTS per old (pre Nov. 15th) structure upgrade, or per new (effective Nov. 15th) structure upgrade?
MindWandererB 11-10-06, 02:48 PM	250 PTS per old (pre Nov. 15th) structure upgrade, or per new (effective Nov. 15th) structure upgrade? There are no old structure upgrades. That's a new rule. Whatever you have after the Changes have been applied (including new traits) is what the starting resources are based on.
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-10-06, 02:54 PM	Final question for the day: When (exactly) would be an acceptable time to update our Guild threads with the new Structures/Upgrades/Facilities, etc.? They're effective on the 15th, so should be they be in place by then (between now and the 15th)?
MindWandererB 11-10-06, 02:59 PM	Yes! Do all updates ASAP! If they're not up by the 15th, Cat and I start plopping down Violations.
Zevox 11-10-06, 03:03 PM	Final question for the day: When (exactly) would be an acceptable time to update our Guild threads with the new Structures/Upgrades/Facilities, etc.? They're effective on the 15th, so should be they be in place by then (between now and the 15th)? Anytime. I had the EHTC ready before this week's actions were posted. Zevox
MindWandererB 11-10-06, 03:05 PM	...and if they are ready, let me know so I can look it over. I'll take a look at EHTC now.
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-10-06, 06:01 PM	@Guildlords - check out WAR and tell me where I stand! Thanks, TM
SauroGrenom 11-10-06, 06:47 PM	Let's focus on the new player character aspects. I added Errands (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7668673) to the Guildrules. Let's try to find some more errand goals.The errands are good. It's a simple mechanic, and it creates some more options for guildmembers to participate in the guild without requiring a MQ or full quest. What do you think about the option that non-guild members on the roster can intercept guild characters on operations and missions? They send a PM to Guildlords and he posts it with the next CAP Reactions. Should there be more interceptors for one PC, the first one gets it. This would connect the guild system with the regular system somewhat.That is an interesting idea. It could create a free for all kind of effect. It has the problem of being inhibitory to a guild without having a detrimental effect on the lone character. So I could decide that I'll work against XXX guild and just creat a few characters that are well equiped to counter them. Say that I get a few characters with spell resistance and use them against TAO. I could be a real thorn in the side of TAO with no repercussion. Also it allows the character to basicially pick their enemy. There is a bit of an advantage about that. It would be kind of like having challange matches ever week. That could throw the arena balance off somewhat.
MindWandererB 11-10-06, 07:08 PM	@EHTC and WAR: Audits sent via PM.
Caterane 11-11-06, 05:31 AM	I just threw out an idea on how to connect the guild system with the rest. I am aware of the problem but if we can fix that we have a cool connection to non-guild PCs. One regulator could be to tie a benefit for success and a penalty for failure to the non-guild PC. That way there's a risk involved. Additionally, we have to make sure there's a way for retribution from the guild's side. Perhaps a 'loot' value; a monetary bonus/malus like an Earn Money Free Activity? If you succeed, you gain twice that amount, if you fail your Free Activity is lost. Could be something more interesting though; something more unique. Any brainstorm ideas?
SauroGrenom 11-11-06, 02:54 PM	Loss of a free activity isn't much of a penalty. Instead of trying to make the idea work by adding extra rules and limitation, perhaps it's better to work up a few ideas that could achieve the needed balance w/o limitations. I'll try to post below and see what I can come up in a brainstorm. Allow PC's to found or somehow influince para-miitary groups. (Become or slay the leader or leutenant of the group and effect the ECL or alignment of the group.) Allow PC's to "buy" buildings (Simple house, grand mansion, tower... ) these houses are treated as equipment and are located in a district of the city. The number and size of the houses effects the district in some way (security, attitude). The houses can give some kind of benefit to the player as well (as a piece of equipment with appropreat cost). Allow PC's to complete a quest to decide next week's random event.
TheMagister 11-11-06, 06:10 PM	Loss of a free activity isn't much of a penalty. Depends on the character, I'd think. For most, it's the difference between a sure thing (usually 60+ gp) and a maybe. For some, it's putting off crafting that 1000gp of items (so max of 500gp) For everyone else, it's leaving your home unguarded, which can really bite you in the butt. A pretty serious choice, if you ask me. Not game-shattering, but worthy of some thought.
Zevox 11-12-06, 12:39 AM	@ Guildlords - So, I noticed that the trade system got an overhaul along with the rest of the rules. Given that its now totally different, what do we do with the existing trade routes (EHTC has 1, TLT has 2)? Do they finish as normal? Do now-invalid ones get canceled? Do they all get canceled? If any are finishing, do they affect our ability to form new routes with those regions? Zevox
Caterane 11-12-06, 11:59 AM	You can basically change them. Sicne TLT won't buy any Tradeposts ETHC is free to pick any route. @Sauro: Perhaps it's time for LivingCharacters? ;)
Zelck 11-12-06, 06:03 PM	By the way, since we're busy implementing new Guild things, what about making all arena fights actually matter without spending GAPs? A while ago, we thought about implementing something small that while it would have limited impact, it would give us an excuse to RP over victories. Someone suggested morale: for every victory that week, a guild gets to add or subtract 1 to d100 roll they make that week (or would it be the next week?). Small effect, but good for RP.
Caterane 11-12-06, 06:17 PM	Actually I think the current version with Errands furthers roleplay more than your suggestion. We know from the old guild system that the collected taxes from guild members were nothing but a number in the Battlelog. If a PC is actively sent with a CAP it's something special and encourages more RP than a routine. Asides from that, there're also two drawbacks involved with your proposal. It makes those guilds with few members less compatible than those with many members. We've already changed the number of CAPs from ECL-based to a flat 2 CAP/week for that reason. The second drawback is that guildpoint generation would to some extend be dependant on the number of members and this is difficult to balance; a guild with 3-4 active members gains little from that while the CEF with their 14 members would earn plenty of ressources. It's even more difficult to balance with a d100 roll.
Guildmaster (TAO) 11-12-06, 06:49 PM	Question about the random event ; political strike Does this apply to all structures with pol as a trait, or only to structures with the primary trait pol? What happens if the striking workers are left to strike? The description says that they leave in 3 weeks. Any other implied problems with that? Strike: 10 Staff of all structures of <random> trait stop working unless the guild permanently doubles the upkeep for each affected structure (announce as Free Action). After three weeks of a strike, these 10 staff leave the guild and the strike ends. Note that inactive staff reduces the efficiency of a structure!The wording of this makes me think that if one structure refuses to pay extra, then the strike ends for all structures. Since I doubt that's the case, could someone write it more specificly? I would, but I'm not sure of how it is supposed to work exactly. *EDIT* PM sent to guildlords about rebuilding TAO. Please respond.
McJarvis 11-12-06, 07:36 PM	Question about the random event ; political strike Does this apply to all structures with pol as a trait, or only to structures with the primary trait pol? What happens if the striking workers are left to strike? The description says that they leave in 3 weeks. Any other implied problems with that? The wording of this makes me think that if one structure refuses to pay extra, then the strike ends for all structures. Since I doubt that's the case, could someone write it more specificly? I would, but I'm not sure of how it is supposed to work exactly. *EDIT* PM sent to guildlords about rebuilding TAO. Please respond. I assumed it meant any building with POL as a trait-> but I could be wrong on that. If the strikers are not paid then the building does not generate income for that week. So the payoff is double upkeep now or 3 weeks of income gone.
Caterane 11-12-06, 07:43 PM	It's always the home trait. If the synergy trait is involved it's specifically written in the text. If you lose staff, the income for this structure decreases. It's always calculated seperately for each guild and structure so it might happen that there are still people striking at TAO when others are back to normal.
Guildmaster (TAO) 11-12-06, 07:44 PM	I assumed it meant any building with POL as a trait-> but I could be wrong on that. If the strikers are not paid then the building does not generate income for that week. So the payoff is double upkeep now or 3 weeks of income gone. Actually it's only 10 of the staff; if you have a staff of 40 in your class a structure, you only loose 25% of the income. It's always the home trait. If the synergy trait is involved it's specifically written in the text.Good to know. If a note could be put somewhere that would be great.
McJarvis 11-12-06, 07:53 PM	Actually it's only 10 of the staff; if you have a staff of 40 in your class a structure, you only loose 25% of the income.. Right you are! Accidently left some of the old rules in my head... :-)
TheMagister 11-12-06, 09:59 PM	Actually it's only 10 of the staff; if you have a staff of 40 in your class a structure, you only loose 25% of the income. And you could just hire 10 more with REC-PTS, right?
McJarvis 11-12-06, 10:28 PM	And you could just hire 10 more with REC-PTS, right? I don't think your other staff would react well to that. I suppose this delves more into the laws regarding Labor Unions in Gladius.
Zevox 11-12-06, 10:43 PM	You can basically change them. Sicne TLT won't buy any Tradeposts ETHC is free to pick any route. Erm, I'm afraid I need a tad bit more detail than that. How do I go about a conversion? Pick from any route? Take a route that gives the same resource I'm currently getting only? Do I get as much as I have still to recieve, or some other number? Do I get to rework how much comes weekly? Do TLT's agreements just vanish without a trace? Zevox
SauroGrenom 11-13-06, 08:32 AM	I've updated PSI. I also reformatted the records of CAP, GAP and finances accounting into a simpler format that requires only a single link, and puts all the info together in one place. Also I noticed a bunch of minor changes in the rules that will effect things PSI is doing. 1st is that the Chapterhouse now requires an outpost to build it. I think that is different from before. So we cannot build a chapter house in Gauterix, and it needs to be changed to an outpost (immediately followed by a chapterhouse). Also the rule about increasing size and upkeep of the Trophy room is a bit excessive. I don't mind the increasing upkeep so much, but the size is a problem. With the requirement to have storage and processing rooms, the SS in the guildhall are far more precious. The guildhall cannot expand untill a bunch of research is performed, and that increasing size of the trophy room is going to be a problem quickly. Please reconsider the increasing size of this room. Lastly with the change in rules about upgrading the guildhall headquarters there is a small problem. I decided to build a class C structure with the Witches Kitchen because I was planning ahead to when the fortress would be expanded saving 5ss for an expansion. Since that expansion does not require additional district SS, this planning is no longer valid. Had this been the rule throughout, I'd have researched architectural tech and build a Class A (much like TAO did). So I need to know if there is anything I can do. I'd be willing to pay the extra money to upgrade the structure now. I could re-arrange the GAP of the guild to accomodate the research and increased construction time. Or it could be allowed that we pay the difference in price and GAP to upgrade the structure at a later time (when the architectural research is complete).
Caterane 11-13-06, 09:57 AM	@Zevox: Just pick the route with the ressource you need. Then you look how long your old agreement wuold have last and calculate the new duration from that. Unless TLT builds a tradepost their agreements vanish. @Sauro: It makes no difference if you build an Outpost and a Chapter House or a Chapter House right away. We can remove the SS requirement for Trophyhalls. You can turn your Witches Kitchen into a Class A construction side with this conversion. What you cannot do is getting income from the Witches Kitchen while you upgrade it to A or realign previous GAPs. It's either a Witchen Kitchen and stays one or becomes a Class A construction site.
MindWandererB 11-13-06, 02:03 PM	@Zevox: Just pick the route with the ressource you need. Then you look how long your old agreement wuold have last and calculate the new duration from that. Unless TLT builds a tradepost their agreements vanish.Aw, that sucks. That's PTS spend in the past, after all. Oh, well, it's only a few hundred GP.
Caterane 11-13-06, 02:15 PM	You're right. We should keep up the trade agreements since it's a spent GAP. Just let the agreement run out normally. Use the same ressource in that case.
SauroGrenom 11-13-06, 05:35 PM	@Sauro: Perhaps it's time for LivingCharacters? ;) Probably not quite yet. It should be discussed in more detail for several months before anything is finalized.
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-15-06, 07:15 PM	Warfare Alliance GAPs sent. Board reset threw me for a loop. I didn't get to internet access until ~30 min ago. TM
Guildmaster (TAO) 11-15-06, 07:22 PM	TAO info sent; all in one PM -Vath
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-15-06, 08:45 PM	My heartfelt apologies to MindWandererB for all the PMs from WAR's guildmaster. Please keep in mind how new he is. It's hard for iron golems to look sheepish, but I'm sure I'll pull it off.
McJarvis 11-16-06, 12:01 PM	Has that idea for specific "guild traits" been implimented, or thought about again? I liked it alot.
MindWandererB 11-16-06, 12:12 PM	Aside from processing in your guildmaster quarters, no. We're still working on balance.
SauroGrenom 11-16-06, 12:36 PM	I'd like for any guild special abilities to actually be special. Things that are just like rooms or technologies or countermeasures are not very special. However new special abilities are going to be a challange to ballance. Infact it may be impossible to balance them because we are playing a game that has never been played to competion before. So the balancing or imbalancing effects of an ability must be guessed based on possibly incorrect prediction.
MindWandererB 11-17-06, 05:10 PM	Continued from the FoTW thread: The multi-interleague-team-guild fight, involving 2 ECL 6 PCs, 1 ECL 5 PC, and a pair of Giant Eagles against 1 ECL 10, was originally rewarded with each participant getting 1/6 of the reward. I'm really not sure about those rewards. Then again, I don't think we even have a rule for this. My logic would be this: 1) The monsters should only count as one ally, since they're one roll. That would mean a 4-person team, not 5. 2) I'm really not sure whether they should apply to everyone, or just Celia. The idea is that they'd augment her to an effective ECL of 7, while the ECL 6 characters need a surprise round to be considered ECL 7. 3) I would think that technically, the surprise rounds or handicap are supposed to make the character effectively 1 or 2 ECLs higher than normal. I should think their rewards should reflect that, although there's no rule for this.Valid points all around. We should bring this up in the council to be discussed. In my opinion the rewards should be weighted by ECL, like quest rewards are/were (don't know if they still are or not) - so in this fight: Valek and M. Hood would receive 6/23 of the total exp; Ceilia would receive 5/23 and each of the eagles would receive 3/23. If we adjust the rewards according to the two ECL6 being ECL7 for their surprise round and the ECL 5 and the two ECL3 as being a single ECL7 share - then the exp would be divvied 3 ways at that level, and then split in half for Ceilia and the two eagles (who would receive half of that...). Still - I'll defer to a greater decision on this one. At least internally the ratio of gp:xp is kept consistent. Making them higher ECL for Leif's rewards is a moot point - since he's frozen anyway.Telin's suggestion is more industrious, but perhaps more fair. The simplest solution would be to grant the two ECL 6 characters 1/3 of the rewards, and split the remaining 1/3 between the ECL 5 and the eagles (which are ECL 3 each). The surprise round--which wasn't actually granted in this case--should be worth something, though.
SauroGrenom 11-17-06, 05:58 PM	I'd say to just keep the whole thing simple. Give everyone rewards for a battle at their ECL. The Core ECL rules don't take into account the things we use to adjust the ECL of a battle (such as the surprise round). Allies don't recieve rewards as a character in any way. Not even mercenaries. They should only play a role in the decision about who gets how much rewards by using ally penalties if at all. CoCo encounters are not equal to normal Core encounters. It's all contrived and balanced so that all characters have fare fights at their ECL. Rewards should reflect that. K.I.S.S.
McJarvis 11-17-06, 06:03 PM	Rewards should reflect that. K.I.S.S. Ohhhhh....Sauro called MW stupid. *hides for inevitible elder fight* ;)
Zevox 11-17-06, 06:38 PM	I'm no elder, but if I may be allowed to reiterate my opinion: For Guild fights like this where monster allies are supposed to be a bonus to the player to even an uneven fight, I'd be of the opinion that they shouldn't impact rewards (just like the free merc a handicapped player gets). In normal fights with monster allies my vote would go to them being based on CR/ECL or EL - much like Telin's suggestion, but simply treating the monster/group of monsters as another participant (so in this case [if it weren't a Guild fight], the two CR 3 eagles are EL 5 (right?), so the ECL 6s get 6/22 of the rewards each, and the ECL 5 gets 5/22 of the rewards). What I don't think is that every monster should get treated as an equal participant, the way Telin originally did it - that would end up with it being a huge disadvantage for players to get large numbers of monster allies, since they'd siphon off most of the reward even though they're likely weaker and of less help than a single more powerful ally would be. Zevox
MindWandererB 11-17-06, 06:43 PM	I'm no elder, but if I may be allowed to reiterate my opinion: For Guild fights like this where monster allies are supposed to be a bonus to the player to even an uneven fight, I'd be of the opinion that they shouldn't impact rewards (just like the free merc a handicapped player gets).Well, handicapped players get monsters now, not mercs. But you think a handicalled player should get the full reward for beating a higher-level character, even though they have the help of an ally of their own strength? That doesn't make much sense. I think going with 6/22 and 5/22 reward would be appropriate. However, Sauro's idea (i.e. rewards are as if you beat one opponent of your own El by yourself) is also fine, and would usually work out to be in the same ballpark. I would back either solution.
Zevox 11-17-06, 06:52 PM	Well, handicapped players get monsters now, not mercs. But you think a handicalled player should get the full reward for beating a higher-level character, even though they have the help of an ally of their own strength? That doesn't make much sense. Thats the way its been thus far. Though its news to me that we're changing the free merc to a monster - why're we doing that? I think going with 6/22 and 5/22 reward would be appropriate. However, Sauro's idea (i.e. rewards are as if you beat one opponent of your own El by yourself) is also fine, and would usually work out to be in the same ballpark. I would back either solution. Eh, I know Sauro's idea is simpler, but I prefer the possibility of getting higher rewards from a harder fight like that, which the former allows. I suppose either would do though. Zevox
MindWandererB 11-17-06, 07:10 PM	Thats the way its been thus far. Though its news to me that we're changing the free merc to a monster - why're we doing that?Beats me. It appeared in the rules when I wasn't looking. However, I'd guess it's because we have so few mercs. Eh, I know Sauro's idea is simpler, but I prefer the possibility of getting higher rewards from a harder fight like that, which the former allows. I suppose either would do though.Here's an example: ECL 5 character beating ECL 5 opponent: 1500 XP. ECL 6 character beating ECL 6 opponent: 1800 XP. ECL 5 character getting 5/22 share from beating ECL 10 opponent: 2045 XP. ECL 6 character getting 6/22 share from beating ECL 10 opponent: 1963 XP. So, yeah, it's something. Not a whole lot except for the really low-level character. Also, I should point out that I still don't know how team WAR got an ally for this fight, since it brought them up to 5 combatants total (counting the monsters as 1). That shouldn't ever happen again.
Zevox 11-17-06, 07:28 PM	So, yeah, it's something. Not a whole lot except for the really low-level character. I'm not necessarily looking for a whole lot - something works for me. :) Also, I should point out that I still don't know how team WAR got an ally for this fight, since it brought them up to 5 combatants total (counting the monsters as 1). That shouldn't ever happen again. *shrugs* Telin PMed Cat, Cat said "Hood and Valek get surprise round, Ceilia gets an EL 5 monster." Why'd he decide that? Beats me - maybe he'll explain when he notices these posts. Zevox
Caterane 11-18-06, 05:55 AM	Normally, this interception shouldn't even be possible. 1xECL 10 vs 3x ECL 7 would match 1xECL 10 vs 3x ECL 6 would grant surprise rounds Since Ceilia is ECL 5, she's 2 levels below a match (ECL 7) which means monster ally. There's however the rule that there can be only 4 main combatants on the battlefield so by the rules, Ceilia should get a surprise round rather than a monster for team WAR.
Zevox 11-18-06, 10:34 AM	Normally, this interception shouldn't even be possible. The interception ECL matchup lists 1x ECL vs 3x ECL-4 and 1x ECL vs 3x ECL-5 as viable options. A match in between those two wouldn't be? Why? Since Ceilia is ECL 5, she's 2 levels below a match (ECL 7) which means monster ally. There's however the rule that there can be only 4 main combatants on the battlefield so by the rules, Ceilia should get a surprise round rather than a monster for team WAR. Which is what MWB had originally told us we'd get (and, truth be told, I'd have prefered that in this particular match up). At any rate, we still need to decide on how monster allies impact rewards, particularly since we have a fight for which this matters waiting on the ruling. Elders? Cat? Zevox
Caterane 11-18-06, 10:47 AM	I think we can begin to plan the Iron Man Tournament now. I want it to take place after the Special Mission which is January/February. Late fights might happen which causes the tournament to sit out a week until all fights are ressolved but we're in no hurry. During the Iron Man characters could potentially level up but we say that any reward is assigned only after you drop out of the tournament else it doesn't work. Once the Iron Man is complete, we can open the leagues till 15 which will be merged as discussed. There are currently 20 characters in the ECL 10 league and all belong to active members. We'll allow ECL 9 with a surprise round and teams from lower leagues. That might be enough to give us 32 participants. Missing slots can be filled with Unknown Monsters. Round 1: 16 pairings Round 2: 8 pairings Round 3: 4 pairings Semifinal: 2 pairings Final/3rd place: 1 pairing each Question is how we do the 3FC. We could reset all participants when the tournament starts. We could just ignore the week and say the 3FC continues normally. Another question is how we handle the progression of the tournament. I'd say we roll anew every round to prevent characters from the same player to meet. The winner gets a Custom Avatar and the title Core Coliseum Iron Man. If you have ideas or comments, now's the time.
McJarvis 11-18-06, 10:56 AM	Another question is how we handle the progression of the tournament. I'd say we roll anew every round to prevent characters from the same player to meet. Ultimately there is a high chance of the same player meeting himself eventually anyway-> especially if he makes multiple characters to the end. (with 32 character participants and...what? maybe 20 real-life people if we're lucky? Most people will have 2-3 chars, if not more...?) Why not just make a bracket and then if a character meets himself, he just decides which character he'll progress? It seems to me that if you're assured you'll never face yourself that just gives a slight advantage to people with more characters. Take what I say with a grain of salt though, I guess. I'm not gonna be in it. (Nothing resembling the power required to participate) PS/Edit-> Brackets are more fun to watch for non-participants, too ;) Double Edit/Double PS-> If you need any help doing brackets/pairings during the tourny, I could probably help since I'm not going to be involved....or posting results of fights?
Zevox 11-18-06, 11:07 AM	McJarvis is right - we may have 20 ECL 10s at the moment, but they only amount to 12 different players. Toss in the ECL 9s and you get to 19 players, and only one of the ECL 8s belongs to someone who doesn't have an ECL 9 or 10 (and hes not been around much recently). Teams from ECL 7 might give us two more if we're lucky. Considering I doubt we want this to wind up with fights between the same player's characters (come now Cat, can you honestly say that if you were allowed to enter all of your ECL 10s it would be highly unlikely for the finals to be between two of them? Maybe even one or both of the semifinals?), you might want to drop the expected number of participants a bit. As for the 3FC, I seem to recall it being put forward in the past (one of KU's suggestions from last time this was dicsused maybe?) that everyone start off fresh, but not get a chance to rest the entire tournament. I rather like that thought personally. Zevox
Erithmu 11-18-06, 11:10 AM	PS/Edit-> Brackets are more fun to watch for non-participants, too ;) The Iron Man Bracket 2-5 credit buy in. First place takes 50% Second 30% Third takes 20% Feels like March is going to be a little more maddening ... I would like to see a bracket as well. Brackets can allow for spliting up chars by the same player into something very easy to manage. If you wanted too you could pair based on power ratings as well, but then we are getting a little more technical than normal.
McJarvis 11-18-06, 11:13 AM	The Iron Man Bracket 2-5 credit buy in. First place takes 50% Second 30% Third takes 20% Feels like March is going to be a little more maddening ... Strangely I wasn't thinking on those lines, but I like where they are going :-) It might increase the new players attention to the Iron-Man as well.
MindWandererB 11-18-06, 02:44 PM	I agree that the pairings should be re-rolled every time, so that someone can't face themselves unless absolutely necessary. If they do, the player can just choose who wins--or they can pitlord their own fight, if they really want. Either way, there's a 3FC problem--a forfeit isn't fair to other participants. I think that when and if we get to the point where someone fights themselves, we toss the 3FC out the window and just use the 1/3 rule. And yes, I expect Cat to monopolize the finalists, and perhaps the semifinalists' brackets all by himself. But his builds deserve it. Although it would be neat if the custom avvy went to the highest-ranking player that doesn't already have one.
McJarvis 11-18-06, 02:55 PM	And yes, I expect Cat to monopolize the finalists, and perhaps the semifinalists' brackets all by himself. But his builds deserve it. Although it would be neat if the custom avvy went to the highest-ranking player that doesn't already have one. My point was not that we should penalize those that have multiple good characters, but rather that in an elimination-style tournament they will be facing each other eventually anyway, so there is no reason to "restrict" it from happening earlier. In normal CoCo(non-elimination) it makes sense that someone should never be able to face themself, but in an elimination style play it isn't necessary at all. On a different angle-> Assuming Cat(or Pittbull or whoever) is the best tactician ever, forcing his characters never to face each other is an advantage to them. Those characters never have to worry about facing the other "bests" of the tournament...
MindWandererB 11-18-06, 03:02 PM	But then, what if they get paired with themselves in the first round? Then they're at an even stronger advantage, because they skip a fight in their cycle.
Caterane 11-18-06, 03:51 PM	The Iron Man tournament could just aswell be held at ECL 3 but we don't do that because we want to reward those who played a character up to ECL 10 and to repay them for the long time they were frozen. From that point of view, it shouldn't matter how many characters you enter in a tournament. The next thing to keep in mind is that we want it to be a big event and 32 characters sounds much better than having only 8 or even 4 pairings so we cannot restrict the tournament to 1 PC per player. What's left is to decide how we adress having multiple characters in the game. Fixed brackets or not, it can happen that two PCs from one player meet up. Option 1: If we reroll we can make sure that they meet only when no other characters are in the tournament. Option 2: If we let them 'fight', the player decides who he wants to advance and saves ressources for one fight. Applying the 1/3 rule artificially... I don't know. Doesn't sound too elegant. I'd prefer option 1 (rerolls) and if we keep in mind what I said at the top of this post it doesn't seem to be unfair to others either.
McJarvis 11-18-06, 05:03 PM	I didn't mean to imply that I wanted everyone to only have 1 character in the event, or even have lower ECL's in the event :) I would really like for some way to have a fixed bracket set up. Does anyone have more than 4 ECL 9+ characters that will enter the tourny? The bracket suggested would have 4 "branches" until the semi-finals, we could just make sure no character has more than 1 character in each "pool" & roll to divide the combatents into four different branches of the bracket.
Vathelokai 11-18-06, 05:32 PM	How about having brackets, and if someone advances two characters to fight each other, then there is a roll to randomly switch them with someone else on a different 'branch' of the bracket.
Vathelokai 11-18-06, 05:35 PM	Sunwolf, Sauro, Pittbull, Caterane, Vath, Telin, Zevox, and MindWandererB all have a shot at multiple iron men. No one has more than 4 (unless Cat sneaks the Harester in), so McJarvis' proposal does work (if we think it's okay to have cat fill all 4 simi final slots :D ) LEVEL 8 CHARACTERS (MID) 1. The Harvester (3rd Avatar) (Caterane) [Power: 11650 (2044); 15 won, 0 lost] [Q:4] [Great Renown] 2. Uilo (Dracazar) [Power: 5973 (1048); 8 won, 7 lost] [Q:2] 3. Loddick Saffrion (Erithmu) [Power: 5392 (946); 10 won, 8 lost] [Q:3] 4. Besthirah Lafali (MindWandererB) [Power: 6441 (1130); 1 won, 0 lost] [Q:1] 5. [M] Eraca Moralta (Zevox) [Power: 7603 (1334); 12 won, 3 lost] [Q:2][M:1] LEVEL 9 CHARACTERS (MID) 1. Dronnar Darkjof Reborn (DSugui) [Power: 7312 (914); 2 won, 3 lost] [Q:1] 2. Little Daisy (DSugui) [Power: 9408 (1176); 15 won, 7 lost] [Q:4] 3. [c] Ignatius, Vicar of Bahamut (Erithmu) [Power: 9112 (1139); 7 won, 4 lost] [Q:3] [Special Power] 4. Anixx the Warbringer (Iced) [Power: 6384 (798); 1 won, 3 lost] 5. Aerryl Nalladar (MindWandererB) [Power: 9808 (1226); 17 won, 9 lost] [Q:2] 6. Sunstroke (MindWandererB) [Power: 7464 (933); 14 won, 12 lost] [Q:2] 7. Morathor (Pittbull) [Power: 10024 (1253); 4 won, 2 lost] [Q:2][M:1] 8. Perius (Ravashack) [Power: 7096 (887); 13 won, 32 lost] 9. Kraegin (TelinArtho) [Power: 7616 (952); 7 won, 14 lost] [Q:3] 10. [Å] Sir Valkin (TelinArtho) [Power: 8080 (1010); 13 won, 9 lost] [Q:3][C:1] 11. Auburn (Vathelokai) [Power: 9312 (1164); 10 won, 9 lost] [Q:5] 12. Denshi (Vathelokai) [Power: 5208 (651); 0 won, 5 lost] [Q:3][C:2] [Failure] 13. Walden the Unseen (Zelck) [Power: 10256 (1282); 3 won, 0 lost] LEVEL 10 CHARACTERS (MID) [FROZEN] 1. Archangel Ixenthor (Caterane) [Power: 17673 (1564); 6 won, 1 lost] [Q:6][C:1] [Great Renown] [Special Power] 2. Uhmentarymster the Old (Caterane) [Power: 24351 (2155); 20 won, 3 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] 3. Indri'ynar Per'Elereth (Caterane) [Power: 21594 (1911); 16 won, 5 lost] [Q:5] [Great Renown] 4. Mer-Man (Caterane) [Power: 27583 (2441); 19 won, 2 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] 5. [c] Luken Leonne (Huan) [Power: 10441 (924); 0 won, 1 lost] [Q:1][C:1] 6. Lord Frost (Macbrea) [Power: 7695 (681); 3 won, 6 lost] [Q:2] [Special Power] [Failure] 7. Noko (Maraxus) [Power: 17017 (1506); 14 won, 5 lost] [Great Renown] [Special Power] 8. Laph Jeirehneen (Pittbull) [Power: 15062 (1333); 7 won, 5 lost] [Q:1][C:1] [Special Power] 9. [c] Barthleby (Pittbull) [Power: 22893 (2026); 19 won, 3 lost] [Great Renown] 10. Hagrid II (Pittbull) [Power: 17831 (1578); 17 won, 11 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] 11. Raskos the Jade Father (SauroGrenom) [Power: 12904 (1142); 6 won, 5 lost] [Q:4] 12. [c] Kracknol (SauroGrenom) [Power: 16644 (1473); 20 won, 10 lost] 13. [P] Vandelar the Red (SoulLord) [Power: 14656 (1297); 17 won, 9 lost] [Q:3] 14. Brilf Zephyr (Sunwolf) [Power: 11831 (1047); 16 won, 18 lost] 15. Leif Goldeneye (Sunwolf) [Power:22080 (1954); 21 won, 4 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] 16. [c] Telveran Trueblade (Sunwolf) [Power: 13006 (1151); 12 won, 9 lost] 17. Sdentch (TheMagister) [Power: 9401 (832); 10 won, 12 lost] [Q:6] 18. Saffron Brass (Vathelokai) [Power: 11446 (1013); 4 won, 7 lost] [Q:6] [Special Power] 19. [M] Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) [Power: 19311 (1709); 20 won, 7 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] 20. Archdevil Asran (Zevox) [Power: 12949 (1146); 7 won, 6 lost] [Q:5] [Special Power]
Zevox 11-18-06, 05:38 PM	Hey now Vath, you forgot me in that ;) . Eraca's going to hit ECL 9 after this week, after all :) . ... and technically, if the Harvester took a partner from the ECL 8 league or leveled to ECL 9 in time, Cat could have 5. Just to note. Zevox
SauroGrenom 11-18-06, 05:38 PM	So wait a sec. This is a tournament right? Single elimination. 32 participants. That's 5 rounds of battles. I think we should build the entire bracket at the beginning. If a player has multiple characters in the tournament, it's easy to position them far from each other in the brackets, that minimizes the chance of them being paired with each other. We can use the power rankings as "seeds" for building the bracket. Also if we use this strategy, then we have losts of recent fight tactics to use for an elder surrogate to write tactics for a character in the case of 2 characters from the same player being paired against eachother. So if Mer-Man is against Ixenthore, we can have Telin write tactics for Mer-Man while Cat writes them for the angel. I suggest that for the sake of keeping it interesting, we group the characters into general build types that converge at the higher stages of the bracket. So spell casters will fight mostly other spell casters in the 1st and 2nd fight. That way the final stages won't be just spellcasters, or all the warriors won't be defeated in the 1st stage by invisibility snipers. This way we can have the grapple builds fight it out and the best grappler will make it farthest, and get paired against the best sneaky sniper. I'd say no resting or restoration of pp or scrolls of any kind (Ironman tournament after all). Clearly no characters can level untill they fall out of the competition. If we allow leveling in the middle, then we end up with mismatched ECL in the late battles depending on how far into ECL10 you are in the beginning (Mer-Man with a clear advantage). All the rewards can be accumulated, but not used to increase level untill the end. If there is no resting the whole tournament, then we should probably kill the 1/3 rule and replace the 3FC with a 5FC untill you drop out of the tournament. The Nova effect isn't so much of a problem if we pair full casters with other full casters in the beginning levels. If we can get a list of the 32 participants, then Cat, MWB, and I can chat and see if we can work out a decent bracket. If any other elders want to have input, we can have more participants in that chat as well.
Vathelokai 11-18-06, 05:51 PM	Hey now Vath, you forgot me in that ;) . Eraca's going to hit ECL 9 after this week, after all :) . ... and technically, if the Harvester took a partner from the ECL 8 league or leveled to ECL 9 in time, Cat could have 5. Just to note. Zevox No I didn't. See, look at the post, its all there....:angelhide Over all I like Sauro's option... if he's willing to do the work :rolleyes: .
SauroGrenom 11-18-06, 06:19 PM	I'll have no problem with making a bracket. I'll put in the work, so long as the final product isn't replaced with a "improved" one after I'm done.
Zevox 11-18-06, 06:22 PM	I've got to agree with Vath - Sauro's idea sounds good. I'm a tad concerned about things not being randomly generated, but that seems like the way to do it. Zevox
MindWandererB 11-18-06, 06:30 PM	It should be quasi-randomly generated in any event. For instance, filling one slot per quarterfinal bracket with Cat's characters, but leaving it random which one they'll be. Or the other way around, rerolling if two characters of the same player are unacceptably close to each other. For instance, if I have two characters in the tourney, and neither have been placed by the time the halfway mark is reached, it will definitely be one of them.
SauroGrenom 11-18-06, 07:02 PM	Well with Cat for example I'd put Uhmentarymster in the bracket with most of the other full casters. Like Raskos, Leif, Auburn, Vandelar, Gaston and Barthleby. Mer-Man would be in the bracket with other warrior types like Kracknol, Hagrid, Saffron, Telveran, Sdentch, Lord Frost and Dronnar. Indri'ynar and Ixenthor are both builds that straddle various rolls so they would be in the other quarters of the brackets that I can best fit them into. Generally I'll try to do the same thing that the people who make athletic tournament brackets do. Place the highest "seeds" far apart in the brackets, so they meet each other in the final games. The highest seeds match up with the lowest seeds. This way the 2 top teams (characters) don't meet in the 1st round. That helps make the final games more interesting when it's all the best teams who have made it that far. So in the above example, Uhmentarymster has the highest power rating of the full casters listed, and Raskos has the lowest. So those would be paired in the 1st round.
MindWandererB 11-18-06, 07:42 PM	Ugh... I'd really rather not see it that way. Nothing but caster vs. caster and warrior vs. warrior fights until the semifinals at best? Please, no. However, the powerrating-based "seeds" is a reasonable way of doing it. I don't think it should be highest vs. lowest, per se--that's just grossly unfair. A typical way of doing it is like this, I think: 1 _ ___ 17/ 9 _ ___ 18/ 5 _ ___ 19/ 10_ ___ 20/ 3 _ ___ 21/ 11_ ___ 22/ 6 _ ___ 23/ 12_ ___ 24/ 2 _ ___ 25/ 13_ ___ 26/ 7 _ ___ 27/ 14_ ___ 28/ 4 _ ___ 29/ 15_ ___ 30/ 8 _ ___ 31/ 16_ ___ 32/
SauroGrenom 11-18-06, 08:13 PM	The advantage of grouping characters by build type is that we can ditch the 1/3 rule for the tournament. It's no big deal if a wizard throws 2/3 of his spells in the 1st battle against another wizard who does the same. Also grouping like this ensures that the semi finals have members of all class types. Warriors may totally kick butt in the 5th fight of the day, but if all the warriors die in the 1st and 2nd fight against casters, we never get to see that fact. If the sneaks go up against people who can defeat sneaks in the 1st and 2nd round, then we see no sneaks in the finals. It's booring if all the final characters are full casters who have spend most of their spells. If we group the characters by type, then we have a chance to have final battles that involve excelent characters of various kinds all at the point where they have survived 3 or 4 battles this day. Yes grouping by type results in a few first battles that are caster vs caster and warrior vs warrior. But I don't see how that's unfare. Also there isn't a big deal about grouping the top seed against the last seed. I don't think it's possible to be fare totally. Why should the 4 worst character get paired against the top character when he could have a chance against the 5th ranked character?
MindWandererB 11-18-06, 08:49 PM	Also there isn't a big deal about grouping the top seed against the last seed. I don't think it's possible to be fare totally. Why should the 4 worst character get paired against the top character when he could have a chance against the 5th ranked character?It's not possible to be totally fair, but the problem is that if you match #1 to #32, and #2 to #31, then you end up matching #16 with #17. The format I have above helps the strongest characters to last as long as possible, as it should be. Although I have a hunch there's a slightly better pattern still... anyone know what it is?
Vathelokai 11-18-06, 09:59 PM	How about this then... (cut/paste is my friend :) ) This way all fights are close, but there's room for upset. Also, I can't imagine for the life of the having Cat remove the 1/3rd rule on the tourney, so a 'type' based bracket system isn't really nessicary. __1_______ __2_______ \__#_______ __#_______/ __5_______/ | | \__6_______ |__#_______ __#_______| __9_______ | | | | __10______ \__#_______| | | |__#_______/ __13______/ | | \__14______ |__#_______ __#_______| __17______ | | | | __18______ \__#_______ | | | | __#_______/ __21______/ | | | | | | \__22______ |__#_______| | | |__#_______| __25______ | | | | __26______ \__#_______| | | |__#_______/ __29______/ | | \__30______ | | |__#_______*__#_______| __4_______ | | __3_______ \__#_______ | | __#_______/ __8_______/ | | | | \__7_______ |__#_______ | | __#_______| __12______ | | | | | | __11______ \__#_______| | | | | |__#_______/ __16______/ | | | | \__15______ |__#_______| |__#_______| __20______ | | __19______ \__#_______ | | __#_______/ __24______/ | | | | \__23______ |__#_______| |__#_______| __28______ | | __27______ \__#_______| |__#_______/ __32______/ \__31______ Lets pretent all the 9th lv characters got to ten for a second and look at this... Mer-Man (Caterane) [Power: 27583 (2441); 19 won, 2 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] Uhmentarymster the Old (Caterane) [Power: 24351 (2155); 20 won, 3 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] Barthleby (Pittbull) [Power: 22893 (2026); 19 won, 3 lost] [Great Renown] Indri'ynar Per'Elereth (Caterane) [Power: 21594 (1911); 16 won, 5 lost] [Q:5] [Great Renown] Leif Goldeneye (Sunwolf) [Power:22080 (1954); 21 won, 4 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) [Power: 19311 (1709); 20 won, 7 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] Hagrid II (Pittbull) [Power: 17831 (1578); 17 won, 11 lost] [Q:1] [Great Renown] Archangel Ixenthor (Caterane) [Power: 17673 (1564); 6 won, 1 lost] [Q:6][C:1] [Great Renown] [Special Power] Noko (Maraxus) [Power: 17017 (1506); 14 won, 5 lost] [Great Renown] [Special Power] Kracknol (SauroGrenom) [Power: 16644 (1473); 20 won, 10 lost] Laph Jeirehneen (Pittbull) [Power: 15062 (1333); 7 won, 5 lost] [Q:1][C:1] [Special Power] Vandelar the Red (SoulLord) [Power: 14656 (1297); 17 won, 9 lost] [Q:3] Walden the Unseen (Zelck) [Power: 10256 (1282); 3 won, 0 lost] Morathor (Pittbull) [Power: 10024 (1253); 4 won, 2 lost] [Q:2][M:1] Aerryl Nalladar (MindWandererB) [Power: 9808 (1226); 17 won, 9 lost] [Q:2] Little Daisy (DSugui) [Power: 9408 (1176); 15 won, 7 lost] [Q:4] Auburn (Vathelokai) [Power: 9312 (1164); 10 won, 9 lost] [Q:5] Telveran Trueblade (Sunwolf) [Power: 13006 (1151); 12 won, 9 lost] Archdevil Asran (Zevox) [Power: 12949 (1146); 7 won, 6 lost] [Q:5] [Special Power] Raskos the Jade Father (SauroGrenom) [Power: 12904 (1142); 6 won, 5 lost] [Q:4] Ignatius, Vicar of Bahamut (Erithmu) [Power: 9112 (1139); 7 won, 4 lost] [Q:3] [Special Power] Brilf Zephyr (Sunwolf) [Power: 11831 (1047); 16 won, 18 lost] Saffron Brass (Vathelokai) [Power: 11446 (1013); 4 won, 7 lost] [Q:6] [Special Power] Sir Valkin (TelinArtho) [Power: 8080 (1010); 13 won, 9 lost] [Q:3][C:1] Kraegin (TelinArtho) [Power: 7616 (952); 7 won, 14 lost] [Q:3] Sunstroke (MindWandererB) [Power: 7464 (933); 14 won, 12 lost] [Q:2] Luken Leonne (Huan) [Power: 10441 (924); 0 won, 1 lost] [Q:1][C:1] Dronnar Darkjof Reborn (DSugui) [Power: 7312 (914); 2 won, 3 lost] [Q:1] Perius (Ravashack) [Power: 7096 (887); 13 won, 32 lost] Sdentch (TheMagister) [Power: 9401 (832); 10 won, 12 lost] [Q:6] Anixx the Warbringer (Iced) [Power: 6384 (798); 1 won, 3 lost] Lord Frost (Macbrea) [Power: 7695 (681); 3 won, 6 lost] [Q:2] [Special Power] [Failure] Denshi (Vathelokai) [Power: 5208 (651); 0 won, 5 lost] [Q:3][C:2] [Failure]
MindWandererB 11-18-06, 10:14 PM	Only a gap of 4 ranks? I dunno... I think there should be a larger gap than that. Let's see.... __1_______ __2_______ \__#_______ __#_______/ __17______/ | | \__18______ |__#_______ __#_______| __9_______ | | | | __10______ \__#_______| | | |__#_______/ __25______/ | | \__26______ |__#_______ __#_______| __5_______ | | | | __6_______ \__#_______ | | | | __#_______/ __21______/ | | | | | | \__22______ |__#_______| | | |__#_______| __13______ | | | | __14______ \__#_______| | | |__#_______/ __29______/ | | \__30______ | | |__#_______*__#_______| __3_______ | | __4_______ \__#_______ | | __#_______/ __19______/ | | | | \__20______ |__#_______ | | __#_______| __11______ | | | | | | __12______ \__#_______| | | | | |__#_______/ __27______/ | | | | \__28______ |__#_______| |__#_______| __7_______ | | __8_______ \__#_______ | | __#_______/ __23______/ | | | | \__24______ |__#_______| |__#_______| __15______ | | __16______ \__#_______| |__#_______/ __31______/ \__32______There, that's what I was going for. Messed it up the first time. This way, every player is matched with someone 16 seed-rankings away, and if the higher-ranked character wins every time, it drops to a gap of 8, then 4, then 2, then 1. This is the traditional way of doing it, if I'm not mistaken.
Abyssal Stalker 11-19-06, 02:30 AM	I thought that resource use was a major issue of the Iron Man tournament. It is after all Iron Man-tournament. Who can stand in the battle field the longest time. Yes, it might be boring to see some burnt-out characters in the final fight, but isn't that what Iron Man games are all about? It should be all about beating opponents with minimum effort so that you still have strength to beat the reamining competitors. Just my two cents.
NiQil 11-19-06, 03:25 AM	Only a gap of 4 ranks? I dunno... I think there should be a larger gap than that. Let's see.... __1_______ __2_______ \__#_______ __#_______/ __17______/ | | \__18______ |__#_______ __#_______| __9_______ | | | | __10______ \__#_______| | | |__#_______/ __25______/ | | \__26______ |__#_______ __#_______| __5_______ | | | | __6_______ \__#_______ | | | | __#_______/ __21______/ | | | | | | \__22______ |__#_______| | | |__#_______| __13______ | | | | __14______ \__#_______| | | |__#_______/ __29______/ | | \__30______ | | |__#_______*__#_______| __3_______ | | __4_______ \__#_______ | | __#_______/ __19______/ | | | | \__20______ |__#_______ | | __#_______| __11______ | | | | | | __12______ \__#_______| | | | | |__#_______/ __27______/ | | | | \__28______ |__#_______| |__#_______| __7_______ | | __8_______ \__#_______ | | __#_______/ __23______/ | | | | \__24______ |__#_______| |__#_______| __15______ | | __16______ \__#_______| |__#_______/ __31______/ \__32______There, that's what I was going for. Messed it up the first time. This way, every player is matched with someone 16 seed-rankings away, and if the higher-ranked character wins every time, it drops to a gap of 8, then 4, then 2, then 1. This is the traditional way of doing it, if I'm not mistaken. Not quite. The traditional way is for the higher seed to always face the lowest seed possible at every level. If you are trying to use the common form or brackets, such as those used by the NCAA basketball tournament, you always pair the highest seed with the lowest seed. That's part of what being the highest seed earns you...getting to face off against weaker opponents. You've earned that right by being given that higher seed. That's the whole point of seedings in the first place. All of the other options you guys are tossing around sorta defeats the purpose of seedings in the first place. If we are going to have a 32 man/team field, then the bracket should be as follows: 01__________ 01_________ 16__________ _________ _________ 16_________ 08__________ _________ _________ 08_________ 09__________ _________ _________ 09_________ 05__________ _________ _________ 05_________ 12__________ _________ _________ 12_________ 04__________ _________ _________ 04_________ 13__________ _________ _________ 13_________ 03__________ _________ _________ _________ _________ 03_________ 14__________ _________ _________ 14_________ 06__________ _________ _________ _________ 06_________ 11__________ _________ _________ 11_________ 07__________ _________ _________ 07_________ 10__________ _________ _________ 10_________ 02__________ _________ _________ 02_________ 15__________ 15_________ This is the traditional bracket used by most sports. If we want to adapt it to have all 32 entries on one side, this would allow us to seed by power level all 32 entries, but does not allow the flexibility of changing around same player entries. If we leave it as is, this would give us the flexibility to move entries owned by the same player to the other side of the bracket after seedings by power rating. Alternately, this bracket can be broken down further into 4 divisions of 8, which would allow us to further break apart same player entries. I can easily adapt this bracket to any of these designs...just a question of what we want. But this is the traditional bracket design.
MindWandererB 11-19-06, 04:26 AM	Some investigation reveals you are correct, for everything except tennis tournaments (and since tennis is what I'm most familiar with, it explains my confusion). With tennis, you first place the #1 and #2 seeds in different brackets, but then assign #3 and #4 randomly to either #1's or #2's bracket, then repeat with #5-8, then again with #9-16, and yet again with #17-32. Really, any of these methods works. Some of them favor the middle-ranking characters more than others, but it doesn't affect the quarterfinals and up very much.
Vathelokai 11-19-06, 09:54 AM	Well, I actually was looking for a way to favor the middle characters more. My thought is that if you have Merman fight Denshi, then Lord Frost, Then Anixx to get to the simifinal... that just seems boring to me. Whereas if Merman fights Lief, Vandalar and Little Daisy to get to the semifinal, I'll actually check every fight that happens. Secondly, closer brackets means more upsets, closer fights, and more fun overall (based on the general consensus that fights w/ obvious outcomes (i.e. Walden) are not as interesting to watch). Third, I know I would be very tempted to try to waste as many of my opponents rescources as possible if the outcome was obvious (I'f I can't take out #1, I can foul as many people on his team as possible and maybe take one of them out).
SauroGrenom 11-19-06, 11:33 AM	I still think we should group the characters generally into types. This gives us more flexibility to ensure that the final battles aren't all spell casters. Everyone knows that there is an advantage to spell casters early in the fight cycle. If we ignore that, we may end with the final stages of the tournament consisting of mostly spent spellcasters and no warrior types.
TheMagister 11-20-06, 11:44 AM	I like Sauro's idea, b/c it gives vanilla-type fighter characters (like Sdentch) the opportunity to shine at least a little bit. Sdentch vs. Uhme in Week 1? That's just an opportunity for an orc arse-whippin'. Sdentch vs. Uhme in Week 4? Not much of a chance, but at least there IS one. Sdentch vs. Mer-man? Still tough (it should be!), but good dice could really affect the outcome. My two copper. TM
waywreth 11-20-06, 01:41 PM	I don't think there should be any grouping of types or whatnot. I say let the poweranks determine the seeds and use the traditional best vs. worst! It's an Ironman tournament dangit! If the finals are all casters - well then I suppose we know what the best classes are. As a note - if we want it true Ironman, it should be a 5FC.
Macbrea 11-20-06, 02:36 PM	Humorously using MindwanderB's bracket Denshi and Lord Frost don't get to fight in the tournament. _Mer-man__ _Uhmentarymster_ \__#_______ __#_______/ Lit Daisy_/ | | \_Aerryl__ |__#_______ __#_______| _Ixenthor_ | | | | _Noko_____ \__#_______| | | |__#_______/ _Uilo_____/ | | \__Briff___ |__#_______ __#_______| _Leif_____ | | | | _Indri'ynar_ \__#_______ | | | | __#_______/ _Asran____/ | | | | | | \_Raskos___ |__#_______| | | |__#_______| _Laph_____ | | | | _Vandelar_ \__#_______| | | |__#_______/ _L. Leone_/ | | \_Dronnar_ | | |__#_______*__#_______| Harvester_ | | _Barthleby \__#_______ | | __#_______/ _Auburn___/ | | | | \_Telveran_ |__#_______ | | __#_______| _Kracknol_ | | | | | | _Eraca____ \__#_______| | | | | |__#_______/ _Saffron__/ | | | | \_Sir Valkin_ |__#_______| |__#_______| _Gaston___ | | _Hagrid II_ \__#_______ | | __#_______/ _Ignatius_/ | | | | \_Besthirah_ |__#_______| |__#_______| _Walden___ | | _Morathor_ \__#_______| |__#_______/ _Sdentch__/ \_Anixx___ That being ranked by ECL 8 - ECL 10s power ratings.
TheMagister 11-20-06, 02:38 PM	Yeah. Walden vs. Sdentch. :rolleye2: Denshi and Lord Frost can have her spot. :hides:
Zevox 11-20-06, 02:50 PM	@ Macbrea - You forgot that ECL 8s can only participate as a team. So folks like Little Daisy, The Harvester, etc wouldn't be seperate fighters. Not to mention that one of those characters (Uilo) is of a player who isn't currently active here anyway, and whether Huan would be available for Luken is questionable. And yeah, I must say, I'm not fond of that bracket. It looks like most of the warriors would be lucky to survive to round 2. Walden vs Sdentch, Leif vs Asran, Eraca vs Valkin, Gaston vs Ignatius... its ugly. Even those lucky enough to survive would likely be staring at easy defeats in round 2 (Ignatius vs Walden, Valkin vs Barthleby or Telveran, Asran vs Laph or Luken... ouch). Makes me agree with Sauro - if we don't want the finals to be spellcasters with few spells left trying to chip at each other with backup weapons or allies, groupings may well be a good idea. Zevox
Macbrea 11-20-06, 02:55 PM	Well, that might happen anyways.. those with the highest power rating have that rating for a reason. They are horridly deadly fighters in an arena competition. Yes, I didn't bother to drop the players that aren't playing anymore because I just wanted to show what the bracket looks like. Harverter has a higher rating then most of those people 2 ECL higher then him.
SauroGrenom 11-20-06, 02:59 PM	I don't think there should be any grouping of types or whatnot. I say let the poweranks determine the seeds and use the traditional best vs. worst! It's an Ironman tournament dangit! If the finals are all casters - well then I suppose we know what the best classes are. As a note - if we want it true Ironman, it should be a 5FC.I think we are all in agreement that we should use a 5FC. As such we should also do what we can to ensure that members of all the major character types are able to participate in most or all of the stages in the 5FC. Grouping characters by type is the only way we can do this. If we do not group characters by type, we will certianly see that full casters will be over represented in Round 2 and Round 3, but they will "crash" in round 4 and 5 where they have run out of spells. This means that the semi-finals and finals will likely consist of mostly only full casters who are running out of spells. Talk about booring. If we do group characters by type, then we can ensure that at least one warrior, 1 full caster and 2 others make it to round 4 semi-finals. This helps ensure that our last battles are interesting, and that we allow all types of characters to participate at the end of the 5FC where the Ironman tournament is realy decided.
Macbrea 11-20-06, 03:18 PM	I am not particularly in agreement that the spell casters are going to be be the only ones in the final stages. Example: if the bracket I had above was the bracket. You would end up with the following probably: Bracket 1: Mer-man vs Laph Bracket 2: Harvester vs Walden Bracket 3: Uhmentarymster vs Vandelar Bracket 4: Telveran? vs Hagrid II? Not sure that favored the casters at all. But my guesses are as good as anyone elses.
DSugui 11-20-06, 03:24 PM	@ Macbrea - You forgot that ECL 8s can only participate as a team. So folks like Little Daisy, The Harvester, etc wouldn't be seperate fighters.Just want to point out that those characters can easily reach ECL by the time the tournament will take place. Any ECL 8 character can go on 2 quests (6 weeks) and reach ECL 10. So it's not unappropriate to take those characters into account.
MindWandererB 11-20-06, 08:41 PM	I, for one, fully intend to squeeze Sunstroke and Aerryl into the tournament. Not that I expect either to do that well--it'll probably be Sunstroke's last act before retirement--but they're there, after all.
waywreth 11-20-06, 09:31 PM	I think we are all in agreement that we should use a 5FC. If we do not group characters by type, we will certianly see that full casters will be over represented in Round 2 and Round 3, but they will "crash" in round 4 and 5 where they have run out of spells. This means that the semi-finals and finals will likely consist of mostly only full casters who are running out of spells. Talk about booring. The reverse is true as well... if the casters face each other they'll be out of spells by round 4/5 and be easy pickings for the melee. My personal theory is that in its pure state it's an Iron man - if you're luck enough to get to the 4th or 5th round, then so be it. If you want to modify go ahead - my suggestion would be teams of two, one melee, one caster.
McJarvis 11-20-06, 09:35 PM	The reverse is true as well... if the casters face each other they'll be out of spells by round 4/5 and be easy pickings for the melee. He's going under the assumtion that every single melee build will be taken out by a caster by round 4/5, but all the casters will use up all their spells by that point too...making the last battle a battle of the crossbows. Or gishes.
Guildmaster (WAR) 11-21-06, 12:17 PM	I'm unable to locate rules on this: What exactly is the drawback to having a district's attitude as Hostile toward your guild? I seem to remember seeing a "your structures take damage every week" or "you can't build there unless the attitude is (insert value)". Where would I find this info (if there is any)? TM
Zevox 11-21-06, 12:35 PM	I'm unable to locate rules on this: What exactly is the drawback to having a district's attitude as Hostile toward your guild? I seem to remember seeing a "your structures take damage every week" or "you can't build there unless the attitude is (insert value)". Where would I find this info (if there is any)? TM Guild Points => Negotiation Points: District Attitude Effects * Hostile: The citizen see the guild as a threat that must be eliminated in their district. An underground resistance forms which has a strength of (100 minus Units Stationed). Note that a regiment might be wounded and not have its full number of units. The Resistance Strength is abrevated with [RES-STR]. The following effects happen each week and will be resolved by Guildlords when he logs the GAPs. o [RES-STR] % Chance per week for Act of Terrorism against Headquarter: Damage = [RES-STR] o [RES-STR] % Chance per week for Act of Terrorism against one Regiment: Damage = [RES-STR] o Defense Points are reduced by -500. This can result in negative defense points. o District Traits are not applied to the guild. o If you are attacked, attacking guild can draft Militia regiments: Available are [RES-STR] /10, rounded up. * Unfriendly: Defense Points are reduced by -250 (replaces Hostile). This can result in negative defense points. * Indifferent: There are no positive or negative effects. * Friendly: Defense Points for this district rise by +250. * Helpful: If the guild is attacked by a rival, the guild can draft Conscript regiments equal to its highest trait in that district but each such draft drains the attitude equal to the Faith Points spent. Defense Points for this district rise by +500 (replaces Friendly). * Fanatic: If the guild is attacked by a rival, the guild can draft Conscript regiments equal to all traits combined in that district. Additionally, the guild can draft an equal amount of Conscript regiments for offensive warfare but each such draft drains the attitude equal to the Faith Points spent. Defense Points for this district rise by +750 (replaces Helpful). Zevox
SauroGrenom 11-21-06, 12:47 PM	I'm unable to locate rules on this: What exactly is the drawback to having a district's attitude as Hostile toward your guild? I seem to remember seeing a "your structures take damage every week" or "you can't build there unless the attitude is (insert value)". Where would I find this info (if there is any)? TMI noticed that that rule has dissapeared or moved to a place in the thread that I cannot find it anymore. MWB, Cat, is the district attitude still in the rules?
TheMagister 11-21-06, 01:04 PM	Guild Points => Negotiation Points: Zevox Thanks, man. TM
MindWandererB 11-21-06, 02:20 PM	I noticed that that rule has dissapeared or moved to a place in the thread that I cannot find it anymore. MWB, Cat, is the district attitude still in the rules?It's in the Negotiation Points section.
SauroGrenom 11-21-06, 05:53 PM	Is it reasonable to assume that participation in the guild event will require CAP and sending a guild member on a mission? Who can go? Can there be a team of multiple guild representatives that go on a joint mission? What are the ideas about a format for that. I've discussed it with Cat a bit, but we haven't talked about it recently. Lastly, the Guild Event starting on the 20th? Is that a good idea? Being around the christmas holidays, there are going to be many players traveling. I know for one that I won't be home at that time, and my internet access will be highly uncertian between Christmas and The New Year Holiday as my wife and I travel to visit extended family durring that time. It may be hard to coordinate the activities of 7 guildmasters and their guildmembers to participate in the guild event if a fraction of the people are gone on vacation away from regular internet access.
MindWandererB 11-21-06, 06:04 PM	Is it reasonable to assume that participation in the guild event will require CAP and sending a guild member on a mission? Who can go? Can there be a team of multiple guild representatives that go on a joint mission? What are the ideas about a format for that. I've discussed it with Cat a bit, but we haven't talked about it recently.As written, 1 CAP per team, up to 3 characters. There will be a fixed EL of the mission. Up to three characters can go, as long as they meet the EL. So if the EL is 8, you can send 1 ECL 8, or 2 6's, or 3 5's, or middle-ECL's with a surprise round (I would assume). Each mission consists of 3 random monster encounters of the fixed EL. Each week, it can be intercepted (though not twice in a row). I also presume that characters can be sent after the first week, in case they all fail. Lastly, the Guild Event starting on the 20th? Is that a good idea? Being around the christmas holidays, there are going to be many players traveling. I know for one that I won't be home at that time, and my internet access will be highly uncertian between Christmas and The New Year Holiday as my wife and I travel to visit extended family durring that time. It may be hard to coordinate the activities of 7 guildmasters and their guildmembers to participate in the guild event if a fraction of the people are gone on vacation away from regular internet access.A valid concern, but we wanted to get it done ASAP so that the Ironman could start afterwards, while Cat has time.
SauroGrenom 11-21-06, 06:18 PM	What happens if multiple guilds succeed?
MindWandererB 11-21-06, 06:32 PM	Multiple Completions: The first characters to complete their mission, gain the reward. It might happen, though, that more than one quester completes the mission in the same week. In this case, the winner is determined in a Battle of Gladius between all who succeeded in this week. All other questers abort their mission because there's nothing to gain anymore.There.
McJarvis 11-28-06, 10:57 PM	Are guild attitudes 2-way streets? Ie-> If I use POL connections to improve the attitude of a guild towards LOY, do I automatically have an improved attitude towards that guild as well?
MindWandererB 11-28-06, 11:03 PM	Are guild attitudes 2-way streets? Ie-> If I use POL connections to improve the attitude of a guild towards LOY, do I automatically have an improved attitude towards that guild as well? Nope. They're unidirectional. A guild could love you which you hate.
McJarvis 11-29-06, 12:07 PM	Is there anything currently preventing guildmembers from hitting each other in the arena? For tax collection purposes it's important since I don't want to send Poe out for taxes in the same week Tatyana is going, if they're the only active ECL 7's.
McJarvis 11-29-06, 12:27 PM	Also-> Is anyone taking care of contacting retired players from ECL 10->15 to inform them of Iron Man tourny? It'd be neat to see Jinhdl around the boards again-> though I suppose I don't really know why he left.....
Gonbow 11-29-06, 01:49 PM	Is there anything currently preventing guildmembers from hitting each other in the arena? For tax collection purposes it's important since I don't want to send Poe out for taxes in the same week Tatyana is going, if they're the only active ECL 7's. Nope, guild-members fight each-other in the arena all the time. EDIT: On the plus side, Tatyana will be leaving ECL 7 very shortly.
hogarth 11-29-06, 01:52 PM	Nope, guild-members fight each-other in the arena all the time. On the other hand, guild members rarely oppose each other while performing guild activities. (At least I think that's what McJ's point was.) Look on the bright side: if Tatyana fights Poe, you're guaranteed to get some taxes, at least.
MindWandererB 11-29-06, 01:54 PM	Nope, guild-members fight each-other in the arena all the time. EDIT: On the plus side, Tatyana will be leaving ECL 7 very shortly. In fact, TLT's two tax-collecting members (Kervan and Torel) clashed this past week. The good news when that happens is, hey, you definitely get something. The bad news is you definitely don't get everything. (Unless it's an FFA, like what happened to us, in which case it's either the best-case or worst-case scenario.)
McJarvis 11-29-06, 02:02 PM	(Unless it's an FFA, like what happened to us, in which case it's either the best-case or worst-case scenario.) Doesn't FFA situations encourage the guild-mates to gang up & make sure each is a "winner"?
SauroGrenom 11-29-06, 04:34 PM	Also-> Is anyone taking care of contacting retired players from ECL 10->15 to inform them of Iron Man tourny? It'd be neat to see Jinhdl around the boards again-> though I suppose I don't really know why he left..... I'm told that it was not on good terms that Jindl left. It revolved around some well founded accusations of ethical miss conduct.
hogarth 11-29-06, 04:35 PM	I'm told that it was not on good terms that Jindl left. It revolved around some well founded accusations of ethical miss conduct. Who was the ethical miss in question? And how did she conduct herself? ;)
Vathelokai 11-29-06, 06:44 PM	I remember that Cat and Jindl used to fight quite a bit back in the day, and hints of misconduct went both ways. It was nearly 2 years ago, so I don't remember the details so well.
NiQil 11-29-06, 06:48 PM	I remember that Cat and Jindl used to fight quite a bit back in the day, and hints of misconduct went both ways. It was nearly 2 years ago, so I don't remember the details so well. I remember the same....I do remember that the event that caused Jindl to leave (the straw for his camel, so to speak) was a bunch of rulings at the time that were specifically aimed at nerfing the power of his character Anna the Ghost....oh she of the TK colossus sianghams, if memory serves. I remember one that was to eliminate Anna having the sianghams in the arena without having to carry them herself...Anna was just having them placed in her starting box with no way to get them there. Shortly after that ruling, Jindl decided to leave.
McJarvis 11-29-06, 07:20 PM	I remember the same....I do remember that the event that caused Jindl to leave (the straw for his camel, so to speak) was a bunch of rulings at the time that were specifically aimed at nerfing the power of his character Anna the Ghost....oh she of the TK colossus sianghams, if memory serves. I remember one that was to eliminate Anna having the sianghams in the arena without having to carry them herself...Anna was just having them placed in her starting box with no way to get them there. Shortly after that ruling, Jindl decided to leave. I remember that...Jindl must have left around the same time that I did.
Vathelokai 11-29-06, 10:17 PM	I remember the same....I do remember that the event that caused Jindl to leave (the straw for his camel, so to speak) was a bunch of rulings at the time that were specifically aimed at nerfing the power of his character Anna the Ghost....oh she of the TK colossus sianghams, if memory serves. I remember one that was to eliminate Anna having the sianghams in the arena without having to carry them herself...Anna was just having them placed in her starting box with no way to get them there. Shortly after that ruling, Jindl decided to leave. Oh yeah! I remember trying to argue that throwing a bucket of spears was more of an area attack than 20 attack rolls; but there are no volley rules in core. What a long time back that was; Denshi was 3rd level and my only character. But back to the origional topic; I think One_winged_angel and some others might pop back in for the iron man. Let me check the graveyard... *EDIT* KerlanRayne, Ashenai, Zerone, Myrridin, MysticMonk2005, Ethendril, Arstimis, Magagumo, Malither76, Stormwind... They've all been active in the last month or so.
SauroGrenom 11-30-06, 12:14 AM	I'd be realy excited if we got Stormwind back, but I kind of doubt it. Stormwind was a great PSI supporter, and we miss loss of all the support we got.
SauroGrenom 11-30-06, 12:18 AM	It may be worthwhile to seriously consider running a smaller version of the ironman. With 16 characters instead of 32. We need to have a hard number of participants at some point. Then depending on how many we will get who are willing to participate, we can design the tournament. If there are only 16 fighters, then some players could choose to send a few of their characters. For example I would send Kracknol, but not Raskos if I had to choose.
MindWandererB 11-30-06, 12:37 AM	It may be worthwhile to seriously consider running a smaller version of the ironman. With 16 characters instead of 32. We need to have a hard number of participants at some point. Then depending on how many we will get who are willing to participate, we can design the tournament. If there are only 16 fighters, then some players could choose to send a few of their characters. For example I would send Kracknol, but not Raskos if I had to choose.I was actually thinking we may need more than 32. I mean, this is like the Olympics--everyone should be able to try out, at least, and the worst-case scenario is that we take an extra week to run this. At the moment, we could theoretically have 37 participants (counting ECLs 9 and 10, and teams of 2 at ECL 8). A few more will level up to that point in time. At least five would have to bow out, assuming folks who haven't been around in a while show up. But I'd hope everyone has a chance to enter, even if they don't think they'll do well.
Gonbow 11-30-06, 12:39 AM	A 16-man would mean no teams from ECL 8 right? S'kind of why I have Tatyana active so much... I'm pushing to get into ECL 8 in time for the Ironman... (Which should happen this week, win or lose)
MindWandererB 11-30-06, 12:43 AM	A 16-man would mean no teams from ECL 8 right? S'kind of why I have Tatyana active so much... I'm pushing to get into ECL 8 in time for the Ironman... (Which should happen this week, win or lose) I find it ironic that none of the UnCon characters, despite supposedly being some of the mightiest characters in the CoCo, haven't made any progress toward ECL 8 at all. If I were playing one of them, I'd sure like to see how they do in the big leagues.
McJarvis 11-30-06, 12:47 AM	I find it ironic that none of the UnCon characters, despite supposedly being some of the mightiest characters in the CoCo, haven't made any progress toward ECL 8 at all. If I were playing one of them, I'd sure like to see how they do in the big leagues. I have not had time to think about Poe in detail. You'll probably see him start running in a week or two...I don't want to start his 3FC without making some purchases to counterbalance his weaknesses. On top of that, I'm not super-motivated when activating him means possibly going up against Tatyana, who is winning some nice bread for LOY's coffers :)
Sutro 11-30-06, 01:15 AM	There's a lot of nasty you could do with Poe; I'd think about stuff like stinking cloud and an Eversmoking bottle since you're not affected by them yet they can hide you. Makes it real risky for someone to chase after you. :)
McJarvis 11-30-06, 09:59 AM	There's a lot of nasty you could do with Poe; I'd think about stuff like stinking cloud and an Eversmoking bottle since you're not affected by them yet they can hide you. Makes it real risky for someone to chase after you. :) :-O omg I could kiss you. I always forget about smoke effects.... :)
TelinArtho 11-30-06, 10:25 AM	I find it ironic that none of the UnCon characters, despite supposedly being some of the mightiest characters in the CoCo, haven't made any progress toward ECL 8 at all. If I were playing one of them, I'd sure like to see how they do in the big leagues. Well, I'm on a self imposed diet of CoCo characters. If I let myself run rampant I add 10 active characters - and that could single-handedly stick us back into a SoE again... That being said, I do have plans to activate Jar-red, but I'm trying to get Kraegin and Sir Valkin to ECL10 in time for the tournament all the while having a lower level character active as well... @McJarvis - stinking cloud might be very good for your character - given that my own relies on scent to eviscerate you...
McJarvis 11-30-06, 10:31 AM	@McJarvis - stinking cloud might be very good for your character - given that my own relies on scent to eviscerate you... The eversmoking bottle does the same thing-> without a save :) Amazing that I added the breathless thing to poe last second just "for flavor"
hogarth 11-30-06, 10:42 AM	The eversmoking bottle does the same thing-> without a save :) Amazing that I added the breathless thing to poe last second just "for flavor" I'm not totally clear how being completely blind benefits Poe, however. Does he have some method of seeing through smoke that I'm not aware of?
McJarvis 11-30-06, 10:45 AM	I'm not totally clear how being completely blind benefits Poe, however. Does he have some method of seeing through smoke that I'm not aware of? The benefit is that opponents can't safely come into the smoke. (at least the breathing ones can't) Smoke Effects A character who breathes heavy smoke must make a fortitude save each round (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or spend that round choking & coughing. A character who chokes for 2 consequtive rounds takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage Ergo it's safe to assume that Poe's enemies will not be in the smoke, but he's safe inside it. ....? edit-> At the very least, you can't use scent to find him in there & he can out wait you until you exit the smoke. (In the case of you holding your breath)
hogarth 11-30-06, 10:50 AM	At the very least, you can't use scent to find him in there & he can out wait you until you exit the smoke. (In the case of you holding your breath) That sounds like a thrilling battle -- two people standing around doing nothing, waiting for one of them to exit a cloud of smoke. Sheer genius! :rolleyes:
McJarvis 11-30-06, 10:51 AM	That sounds like a thrilling battle -- two people standing around doing nothing, waiting for one of them to exit a cloud of smoke. Sheer genius! :rolleyes: It'd be like the end of a highlander movie where the main bad guy is in the huge warehouse & they have to find each other :) suspense! Regardless, I'd blame the person who chose to write in their tactics that they'd try to out wait the breathless goblin on the "who chokes first" contest.
hogarth 11-30-06, 10:54 AM	It'd be like the end of a highlander movie where the main bad guy is in the huge warehouse & they have to find each other :) suspense! I think it would be more like the exciting Noko the pixie vs. Varjo the shadow battle: Noko - "I'll fly around invisibly so Varjo can't hit me!" Varjo - "I'll hide underground so Noko can't hit me!" Audience - "Zzzzzz...." There's a reason that movies usually feature two guys with automatic weapons shooting at each other, not two guys sitting behind layers of armor plating waiting for the other guy to do something. ;)
McJarvis 11-30-06, 10:59 AM	I think it would be more like the exciting Noko the pixie vs. Varjo the shadow battle: Noko - "I'll fly around invisibly so Varjo can't hit me!" Varjo - "I'll hide underground so Noko can't hit me!" Audience - "Zzzzzz...." There's a reason that movies usually feature two guys with automatic weapons shooting at each other, not two guys sitting behind layers of armor plating waiting for the other guy to do something. ;) yeah...it is boring when the gladiators don't have plans to find the other gladiator. Fortunately, Poe has lots of ways to find opponents :)
hogarth 11-30-06, 11:04 AM	yeah...it is boring when the gladiators don't have plans to find the other gladiator. Fortunately, Poe has lots of ways to find opponents :) Hence, why I asked "Does [Poe] have some method of seeing through smoke that I'm not aware of?" I might just be not seeing a tattoo of Touchsight or something.
McJarvis 11-30-06, 11:07 AM	Hence, why I asked "Does [Poe] have some method of seeing through smoke that I'm not aware of?" I might just be not seeing a tattoo of Touchsight or something. I thought my response of "opponents can't afford to stay in the smoke" was satisfactory. He can snipe from the edge & run back inside afterwards. Or maybe even not be in the smoke at all & just be faking them out.
hogarth 11-30-06, 11:09 AM	I thought my response of "opponents can't afford to stay in the smoke" was satisfactory. He can snipe from the edge & run back inside afterwards. Or maybe even not be in the smoke at all & just be faking them out. The description says it "totally obscur[es] vision across a 50-foot spread". I don't see anything about being able to see if you're near the edge (like Obscuring Cloud/Fog Cloud allows). So I don't think you can be in the smoke and still see. YMMV.
McJarvis 11-30-06, 11:11 AM	The description says it "totally obscur[es] vision across a 50-foot spread". I don't see anything about being able to see if you're near the edge (like Obscuring Cloud/Fog Cloud allows). So I don't think you can be in the smoke and still see. YMMV. I can if deeper darkness is there. On outer edge: unveil darkness pendant(free action) 5' step out of smoke (hiding in darkness.) snipe. next round-> move into smoke. wait until opponent is appropriate distance away. repeat. or some variation like that, or I could use other spells. I firmly believe Poe was chosen for UnCon because of his versatility...he doesn't have to rely on any one strategy.
hogarth 11-30-06, 11:13 AM	I can if deeper darkness is there. On outer edge: hide in darkness. snipe. move into smoke. wait until opponent is appropriate distance away. How do you know if your opponent is an appropriate distance away? I guess you can make Listen rolls or something. I agree that the smoke is a great way to delay the game, but that's basically all it does.
McJarvis 11-30-06, 11:14 AM	How do you know if your opponent is an appropriate distance away? I guess you can make Listen rolls or something. I agree that the smoke is a great way to delay the game, but that's basically all it does. you can use smoke to re-position & then come out of it hiding in the darkness again. The combination of deeper darkness+smoke should keep my opponent from having any idea of where I am. Regardless, all of this is pretty hypothetical. For every opponent I write up different tactics to deal with that opponent's abilities. The eversmoking bottle is INCREDIBLY useful against massive beasts like Jar-Red who have scent. edit-> Or if I eventually got multiple ones and could fill certain arenas with smoke completely. O_O
McJarvis 11-30-06, 11:24 AM	Illustration: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,M,0,63;b=N ame,M,63,0;n=Smoke,20,43,20;o=Effect,43, 20,20 Just imagine 4 bottles positioned well. For ~20,000 gp(10k crafted) you could fill the entire colliseum with smoke. Smoke that can't be dissipated(wind only does so after the bottle is corked again) edit-> For that matter, just 1 bottle will almost completely fill the temple, cavarn, and sewer with smoke.
Abyssal Stalker 11-30-06, 11:45 AM	I think it would be more like the exciting Noko the pixie vs. Varjo the shadow battle: Noko - "I'll fly around invisibly so Varjo can't hit me!" Varjo - "I'll hide underground so Noko can't hit me!" Audience - "Zzzzzz...." There's a reason that movies usually feature two guys with automatic weapons shooting at each other, not two guys sitting behind layers of armor plating waiting for the other guy to do something. ;) Don't underestimate the power of the "Who gets bored to death first"-tactic!
Vathelokai 11-30-06, 11:47 AM	Illustration: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,M,0,63;b=N ame,M,63,0;n=Smoke,20,43,20;o=Effect,43, 20,20 Just imagine 4 bottles positioned well. For ~20,000 gp(10k crafted) you could fill the entire colliseum with smoke. Smoke that can't be dissipated(wind only does so after the bottle is corked again) edit-> For that matter, just 1 bottle will almost completely fill the temple, cavarn, and sewer with smoke. just snag up some 1hd air elementals to carry them out for you :)
McJarvis 11-30-06, 11:52 AM	Hogarth: Smoke is defined(from the dmg pg 304) as obscuring vision: this grants conceilment only, not total blocking of sight. The language in the item eversmoking bottle does not redefine it as total LOS breaking-> thus it is a bit more useful to Poe. This is completely unlike the item Smokesticks, which specifically says it emulates the Fog Cloud spell. (which does block LOS completely)
Zevox 11-30-06, 12:13 PM	I find it ironic that none of the UnCon characters, despite supposedly being some of the mightiest characters in the CoCo, haven't made any progress toward ECL 8 at all. If I were playing one of them, I'd sure like to see how they do in the big leagues. Mindrel's just sitting inactive until I can decide on someone to retire or drop inactive for a while - at the moment, I have too many characters to activate him too. I've been thinking about making it Destra, but I do so want to see her become a Werewolf... *sigh* Zevox
SauroGrenom 11-30-06, 01:12 PM	moved
Hirumajoe 12-01-06, 10:42 AM	Illustration: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,M,0,63;b=N ame,M,63,0;n=Smoke,20,43,20;o=Effect,43, 20,20 Just imagine 4 bottles positioned well. For ~20,000 gp(10k crafted) you could fill the entire colliseum with smoke. Smoke that can't be dissipated(wind only does so after the bottle is corked again) edit-> For that matter, just 1 bottle will almost completely fill the temple, cavarn, and sewer with smoke. Dumb question, whats preventing someone from just walking up to the bottle and smashing it if its unattended on the ground? I mean, its just a bottle, right? And its fairly obvious where its located. (Smoke doesn't block LOS and a bottle can't take a move action to hide, so its auto-spotted, yes?) I admit I was thinking of doing something similar with Valen once he hits around ECL 11 (when he gets Hide in Plain Sight). Although I have to spend the cash on a Necklace of Adaptation in addition to the eversmoking bottle. Poe has a nice perk in that regard.
McJarvis 12-01-06, 10:51 AM	Dumb question, whats preventing someone from just walking up to the bottle and smashing it if its unattended on the ground? I mean, its just a bottle, right? And its fairly obvious where its located. (Smoke doesn't block LOS and a bottle can't take a move action to hide, so its auto-spotted, yes?) I admit I was thinking of doing something similar with Valen once he hits around ECL 11 (when he gets Hide in Plain Sight). Although I have to spend the cash on a Necklace of Adaptation in addition to the eversmoking bottle. Poe has a nice perk in that regard. Well, the person in question would have to *find* the bottles, which would be very difficult given the radius they have on them. On top of that, if the person was caught up in the smoke then s/he might not even know if I'm filling the whole arena, so it's either "look frantically for the bottle" or "try to get the hell outa dodge. And then there's the matter of just getting 3 breathless allies to carry the other four bottles & have poe carry the last one himself. Hide & wait for dead opponent.
SauroGrenom 12-01-06, 11:42 AM	Hirumajoe is right. The smoke doesn't block LOS, it only grants 20% concealment. The bottles are autospotted if left unattended. Any character could smash it, or damage it with an area effect. Furthermore I read up on this item. It is a full round action for the bottle to fill any area with smoke. So you cannot move the bottle durring that time. Doing so resets the area it effects. A decent wind will disperse the effect in one round even if the bottle is still open. Then you need to restart the smoke effects. Lastly your opponents get the same concealment that you have within the smoke, so the miss chance applies to your attacks as well.
McJarvis 12-01-06, 11:48 AM	This area remains smoke-filled until the eversmoking bottle is stoppered. The bottle must be resealed by a command word, after which the smoke dissipates normally. A moderate wind (11+ mph) disperses the smoke in 4 rounds; a strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the smoke in 1 round. Unless there is some sort of FAQ about this, the item says the smoke will not dissipate until after the bottle is re-corked. It then goes on to say you can make it dissipate more quickly with wind.
SauroGrenom 12-01-06, 11:59 AM	I dissagree with your reading of the rules, obviously. I think that your bolded sentence indicates that if left undisturbed, the area of smoke remains filled and there is no limited durration to the effect. The bolded sentence does immediately follow the description of the area of the effect. There is nothing that says that it is impossible to dissipate the smoke untill the bottle is stoppered. That would clearly be a very important game effect, and it would be mentioned if it were intended. Infact there is a suggested game mechanic for dissipating the effect.
McJarvis 12-01-06, 12:07 PM	There is nothing that says that it is impossible to dissipate the smoke untill the bottle is stoppered. That would clearly be a very important game effect, and it would be mentioned if it were intended. Infact there is a suggested game mechanic for dissipating the effect. That last part is the important part, though. You have to take each sentance in context with all the sentances before it: 1) How long to smoke remains(until the bottle is stoppered) 2) How the bottle can stoppered(command word) Further definition that the smoke dissipates normally after this. 3) Definition of what "normally" means in windy conditions.(this isn't covered under wind effects or smoke effects section of the DMG, I believe) edit-> I'll just wait for another elder to comment on this...not worth disputing since I think we both understand each others arguments.
SauroGrenom 12-01-06, 12:20 PM	The wind speeds described are exactially the same as those in the wind effects section. There is nothing in the smoke effects section about how rapidly smoke dissipates. Typicially every instance of a smoke effect describes how the effect can be dissipated by a wind to end the effect. Look at the Fog Cloud spell. That's what's going on here as well. All these spells describe as a last sentence how the effect can be "cancled" by a wind (much like specific spells for counterspelling). The same format is followed here. The last sentence describes an alternative way to end the smoke effect. Only here it doesn't realy end, it is just restarted after it dissipates. This interpretation also appeals to a sense of what's a reasonable in game effect. If a wind blows through a room filled with "normal" smoke, then clearly it will dissipate that smoke. We've already ruled in an old elder ruling that the smoke from this item is "normal" smoke. The smoke cannot be dispelled, the smoke will penetrate an anti magic area. As normal smoke it will have no persistant magical effect to protect it from interacting in a normal way.
SauroGrenom 12-01-06, 12:51 PM	edit-> I'll just wait for another elder to comment on this...not worth disputing since I think we both understand each others arguments.You and I appear to have diametricially opposed ways of interpreting the rules. Whenever I read something and it looks like there is nothing that can defeat it or that it's a combination that's too good, then I know I must be using the wrong interpretation. The game is not fun at all to play if there are ways to be undefeatable. It's like playing Doom on God mode. Fun for a bit while you stomp opponents who were challanging before, but the game becomes quickly booring. There is no sense of accomplishment when you beat the end boss by punching him in the face while you are immune to all his attacks. There needs to be checks and balances in the game. If required, I'll argue into the ground to preserve some checks and balances for all strategies. I will always strife to ensure that it is always impossible for Poe or any character to use a single strategy and be immune to all other characters. What you suggest with the smoking bottle is to automaticially defeat everyone who is not also breathless. That's too good. Clearly that must be the wrong way to interpret the rules.
McJarvis 12-01-06, 12:53 PM	Something being too good doesn't mean it's the wrong way to interpret the rules, it just means that something is pretty powerful. The only thing I ever argue for is consistant interpretation of the rules so that I might formulate my strategies accordingly. (thus why the concept of whether flavor text is binding or not is far more important to me than psicrystals-> which I don't even use in a way that that argument could have been beneficial to me) [just to bring back an old argument for sentiments sake ;) ] Yes-> I try to immobilize my opponents//make them more or less useless to fight. I don't believe in trusting "luck" & try to eliminate randomness in the outcomes of my characters. Regardless of interpretation of the text of eversmoking bottle-> The bottle can fill a 50 ft radius with smoke in 1 round. Wind can, at most, dissipate the smoke in 1 round. That leaves a 50 ft radius of smoke that can not be dissipated by wind because it is constantly being replentished. If anything is broken here, it's that Air Golbins have +0 LA and are breathless.
hogarth 12-01-06, 12:57 PM	What you suggest with the smoking bottle is to automaticially defeat everyone who is not also breathless. That's too good. Clearly that must be the wrong way to interpret the rules. My comment is that filling the room with smoke from Eversmoking Bottles has got to be the most inefficient, expensive, and slow way to kill your opponent that I can think of. Not only do you have to have multiple bottles set up in different locations, you have to make sure that they don't get moved or destroyed, and once the trick gets working it only does a piddly 1d6 nonlethal damage per round -- IF you start failing the saves. It's Just Not That Uber (tm). You might as well try to drown your enemies by flooding the area with a Decanter of Endless Water. I think I'll stick with Dust of Sneezing and Choking, thanks.
SauroGrenom 12-01-06, 12:58 PM	Wind effects could be used to reduce the radius of the smoke to 50 ft, but that is all. It takes one round for wind to dissipate the smoke & 1 round for the bottle to fill a 50 ft radius. Now your backpedalling. I thought you argued that the smoke effect could not be dissipated at all by any means untill the bottle was stoppered.
McJarvis 12-01-06, 01:03 PM	Now your backpedalling. I thought you argued that the smoke effect could not be dissipated at all by any means untill the bottle was stoppered. I do believe that the smoke isn't dissipatable, but if the elders believe I am wrong(which has happened before), you can NOT argue that the wind will ever dissipate all the smoke. It's not like this is an arguement of ideals or anything. edit-> As hogarth mentioned, I'm not sure why you think this strategy is any more powerful than uber-hiding or mages with save or die spells. It takes a ton to set up.
SauroGrenom 12-01-06, 01:06 PM	I do believe that the smoke isn't dissipatable, but if the elders believe I am wrong(which has happened before), you can NOT argue that the wind will ever dissipate all the smoke.Quite the contraty, I can and I do argue such. It is a full round action for the bottle to fill any volume with smoke. That means the wind must stop for a full round for the bottle to fill that area.
McJarvis 12-01-06, 01:08 PM	Quite the contraty, I can and I do argue such. It is a full round action for the bottle to fill any volume with smoke. That means the wind must stop for a full round for the bottle to fill that area. It's not a full round action-> it takes one round. There is a very pronounced difference there. It also takes the wind a full round to dissipate the smoke. Thus: Smoke filled area with ever smoking bottle blowing smoke out. Wind starts-> dissipates existing smoke in 1 round Bottle is blowing smoke-> out at the exact same rate wind is blowing smoke out. Thus no change in smoke. Simple...calculus?(if that) And yes, regardless: the text of the eversmoking bottle clearly says the smoke does not dissipate at all until the bottle is corked, so the wind doesn't really matter anyway. :)
hogarth 12-01-06, 01:13 PM	And yes, regardless: the text of the eversmoking bottle clearly says the smoke does not dissipate at all until the bottle is corked, so the wind doesn't really matter anyway. :) Of course, it also says that it "totally obscures vision", too and that got ignored pretty fast. ;) Guys, why don't you move this to the Tavern thread?
McJarvis 12-01-06, 01:17 PM	Of course, it also says that it "totally obscures vision", too and that got ignored pretty fast. ;) Guys, why don't you move this to the Tavern thread? "Totally obscures vision" was a matter of something that was well-defined else where :). The smoke that comes out of that bottle isn't magical, after all, and follows normal rules for smoke. However, the thing producing smoke is very magical and obviously is spurting it out at such a fast rate that they felt it important to say that the smoke doesn't dissipate until that thing is stoppered. You see, totally different circumstances. Now why don't we talk about why that dust of sneezing and coughing is too powerful? :-)
SauroGrenom 12-01-06, 01:17 PM	As hogarth mentioned, I'm not sure why you think this strategy is any more powerful than uber-hiding or mages with save or die spells. It takes a ton to set up. There are a great many immunities to various save or die spells. These spells always have a "chance" to fail. The save DC's can be pushed only so far. For example if the save or die spell is Phantasmal Killer, then a high will or fort save has a good chance of saving you. Characters of all kinds can prepare themselves against this kind of thing with a cloak of resistance that also benifits them against other foes. Uber-Hiding I don't particularly like, but there are ways to defeat that as well. A high movement speed allows you to defeat cover and reveal most foes. Magical darkness can be pierced by various items or spells. Listen checks, scent, blindsight, touchsight and a few others are game abilities that can be had through various ways. But smoke cannot be defeated except with wind. The save DC climbs every round. Eventually everyone even with astronomical fort saves will fail fort saves and start to choke. If the smoking bottles are attended by breathless allies and there is no way to dissipate the smoke, then everyone except breathless people will eventually die from the smoke. That's not something that we should allow in CoCo. I think that's not something the rules realy allow either. Situations like that are actively prevented by the rules. We shouldn't read the rules so that we creat an impossible situation for all characters except a select few.
McJarvis 12-01-06, 01:21 PM	*puts on black-hat to appease Sauro* Technically they could just hold their breath every other round and never have two rounds of fort saves back-to-back. Also-> the rules don't account for CoCo's confined atmopsheres. Normally creatures can fairly easily just move out of the smoke cloud, even if it is inconvenient. *Takes off black-hat*
SauroGrenom 12-01-06, 01:23 PM	Technically they could just hold their breath every other round and never have two rounds of fort saves back-to-back. Doesn't matter. The fort save is DC 15+1 per previous check. The count of previous checks is not reset by holding your breath.
McJarvis 12-01-06, 01:24 PM	Doesn't matter. The fort save is DC 15+1 per previous check. The count of previous checks is not reset by holding your breath. It isn't reset, but you only take damage if you've choked for two consecutive rounds.
MindWandererB 12-01-06, 02:03 PM	Been busy with life and admin, but here's my take on the Eversmoking Bottle. It does clearly say "totally obscuring vision." We have a house rule that nerfs this. Now, we have this: "This area remains smoke-filled until the eversmoking bottle is stoppered. The bottle must be resealed by a command word, after which the smoke dissipates normally." This implies that the smoke does not dissipate normally until the bottle is stoppered (or, presumably, destroyed or moved). We can nerf it if necessary, but without a house rule, I have to support McJarvis' interpretation.
SauroGrenom 12-01-06, 02:55 PM	It does clearly say "totally obscuring vision." We have a house rule that nerfs this.Precisely the same language is used in the description of smoke effects. That language is then translated into game terms by saying that it grants 20% concealment. So this is not realy a house rule on our part. Now, we have this: "This area remains smoke-filled until the eversmoking bottle is stoppered. The bottle must be resealed by a command word, after which the smoke dissipates normally." This implies that the smoke does not dissipate normally until the bottle is stoppered (or, presumably, destroyed or moved). We can nerf it if necessary, but without a house rule, I have to support McJarvis' interpretation.If you open an eversmoking bottle inside of a tornado does it cause a perfectly spherical cloud of smoke that's 50' wide? Clearly not. I think that the "normal" conditions being described here are those where no wind is in play. If you open a eversmoking bottle inside of a football stadium, OK, then you get a big spherical cloud of smoke that will not dissipate untill you close the bottle. I believe that this item description considers "normal" dissipation to be that which happens in a windless environment. The item description then goes on to describe abnormal conditions that will dissipate the smoke more rapidly. There is nothing in this item descriptin that tells us wind is unable to dissipate the nonmagical smoke produced by this bottle. Infact we have specific game mechanics to allow wind to do just that. We cannot ignore the last sentence, and to claim that it doens't apply untill the bottle is stoppered, is to put a new unwritten clause into the rules.
McJarvis 12-01-06, 02:59 PM	If you open an eversmoking bottle inside of a tornado does it cause a perfectly spherical cloud of smoke that's 50' wide? Actually, by what the item description says any winds over 20 mph are treated the same. "a strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the smoke in 1 round." A house rule would need to be established if you are going to judge that Severe strength winds and up would just dissipate the smoke immediately. (Which I would support, since a strong wind is defined as 21->30mph in the wind effects section of the DMG, which is definately a prime source over the definition of strong wind in eversmoking bottle) Regardless, the language is still what it is. The house rule would only apply to stoppered eversmoking bottles. Precisely the same language is used in the description of smoke effects. Actually, regular smoke effects doesn't have the word "totally" in there...though I agree with your sentiment.
hogarth 12-01-06, 03:08 PM	Precisely the same language is used in the description of smoke effects. That language is then translated into game terms by saying that it grants 20% concealment. So this is not realy a house rule on our part. Actually, in the description of smoke effects, it says "smoke obscures vision", not "totally obscur[es] vision". Note that there is such a thing as non-magical smoke which provides more than just 20% concealment (cf. smokestick).
MindWandererB 12-01-06, 03:21 PM	Precisely the same language is used in the description of smoke effects. That language is then translated into game terms by saying that it grants 20% concealment. So this is not realy a house rule on our part.No, this is not precisely the same. The absence of the word "totally" changes everything. If you open an eversmoking bottle inside of a tornado does it cause a perfectly spherical cloud of smoke that's 50' wide? Clearly not. I think that the "normal" conditions being described here are those where no wind is in play. If you open a eversmoking bottle inside of a football stadium, OK, then you get a big spherical cloud of smoke that will not dissipate untill you close the bottle. I believe that this item description considers "normal" dissipation to be that which happens in a windless environment. The item description then goes on to describe abnormal conditions that will dissipate the smoke more rapidly. There is nothing in this item descriptin that tells us wind is unable to dissipate the nonmagical smoke produced by this bottle. Infact we have specific game mechanics to allow wind to do just that. We cannot ignore the last sentence, and to claim that it doens't apply untill the bottle is stoppered, is to put a new unwritten clause into the rules.I interpret "normal" differently. However, it also appears that "normally," smoke is dispersed by a moderate wind in 1 round. "Abnormally," the eversmoke is dispersed by a moderate wind in 4 rounds, or a strong wind in 1 round. So that appears to be the distinction, although it's a minor one. Of course, in the case where a wind starts and then stops again, the bottle will re-form the 50' radius smoke in only 1 round.
MindWandererB 12-01-06, 08:07 PM	On a more CoCo-related note: The issue of allies and the 3FC has come up. As written, allies use the same cycle as their associated PC. However, if the PC chooses not to bring the ally in their first and/or second fight, the ally has a greater reserve of spells and pre-day abilities than usual for the remaining fight(s). The obvious solution would be to force allies with per-day abilities to use a seperate 3FC. It's a bit heavy in the bookkeeping, but it looks like it may be necessary to prevent abuse. Thoughts?
DSugui 12-01-06, 08:27 PM	I don't think a entirely new 3FC for allies is necessary, only keep track of the fights he goes on the character's cycle. For example, if the ally shows up only in the third fight, it's like his first fight in a cycle. If he goes in the first and the third, the last it's like his second... In the end of the character's cycle the ally is refreshed as well. [OK, this is more complicated than I first thought, but I think it's simplier than keep a whole 3FC for the ally(ies).]
MindWandererB 12-01-06, 08:31 PM	I don't think a entirely new 3FC for allies is necessary, only keep track of the fights he goes on the character's cycle. For example, if the ally shows up only in the third fight, it's like his first fight in a cycle. If he goes in the first and the third, the last it's like his second... In the end of the character's cycle the ally is refreshed as well. [OK, this is more complicated than I first thought, but I think it's simplier than keep a whole 3FC for the ally(ies).] This is exactly what's under consideration for abuse. Say a PC has a Leadership ally, a Diplomacy ally, and a Thrall. If they start the cycle with the Diplomacy ally, then use the other two on fights 2 and 3, they get 2/3 of the second's per-day abilities, and all of the third's. That's 167% of what one ally used three times would get.
hogarth 12-01-06, 08:32 PM	This is exactly what's under consideration for abuse. Say a PC has a Leadership ally, a Diplomacy ally, and a Thrall. If they start the cycle with the Diplomacy ally, then use the other two on fights 2 and 3, they get 2/3 of the second's per-day abilities, and all of the third's. You can't have a cohort and a thrall -- they're mutually exclusive. But that's the general idea (you might throw in some purchased allies/handle animal allies, too).
McJarvis 12-01-06, 08:43 PM	You can't have a cohort and a thrall -- they're mutually exclusive. But that's the general idea (you might throw in some purchased allies/handle animal allies, too). You could have two thralls eventually. Also-> A character I'm cooking up right now will have a regular cohort, and then because of an insanely high charisma will have the full 2 6th level followers & so on that are associated with leadership scores of 25+. Hell, level 15 Psion/Thrallherd: 1st fight: bring 1st thrall 2nd fight: bring 2nd thrall 3rd fight: bring 3 level 5 followers. (or 2 level 6 followers) Of course, it takes alot of time and resources to accumulate that many spellcasting followers....and if the thrallherd really wanted to, s/he could make them all fighters and never care about whether they die.(there is no penalty for class allies dying in the arena itself, just on miniquests) Overall, however, I would say this is no more abusable than a primary spellcaster using beefy allies as meat shields/expendible tokens in an effort to save up spells for their last fight.
Abyssal Stalker 12-02-06, 02:56 AM	This is exactly what's under consideration for abuse. Say a PC has a Leadership ally, a Diplomacy ally, and a Thrall. If they start the cycle with the Diplomacy ally, then use the other two on fights 2 and 3, they get 2/3 of the second's per-day abilities, and all of the third's. That's 167% of what one ally used three times would get. I think you misread DSugui's suggestion. That seems to be exactly the same thing I suggested in the tavern. The key idea is to track the number of the fights for every ally separately, so they won't get anything more than the 3FC normally allows. Say, Reiska has two allies: Jamppa and Tomppa. Reiska starts his cycle. He brings Jamppa to the first fight. Jamppa can use 1/3 of his spells in that fight. Reiska enters the second fight of his cycle. This time he takes Tomppa with him. Tomppa can use 1/3 of his spells, because it's his first fight of the cycle. Reiska goes to the third fight, once again with Jamppa. Jamppa can use up 1/3 of his spells plus anything that is left from the first fight. Reiska's 3FC ends and so does his allies, allthough neither of them ever reached the 3rd fight. The only advantage the allies get here is a little more choice of freedom, but what they don't get is more spells per fight. This is much more simple to track than separate cycles for every ally.
Guildmaster (WAR) 12-04-06, 01:32 AM	How (and when) did CEF raise the attitude of Gawane to 1000 (Unfriendly)? I know for certain that it was 0000 (Hostile) just two weeks ago (which is why their outpost has been taking damage for two weeks). What am I missing? TM
MindWandererB 12-04-06, 02:46 AM	How (and when) did CEF raise the attitude of Gawane to 1000 (Unfriendly)? I know for certain that it was 0000 (Hostile) just two weeks ago (which is why their outpost has been taking damage for two weeks). What am I missing? TM All districts start off at 1000 now, and has been that way since the last rules change. They're taking damage from the Rioters.
MitzaVolchenko 12-04-06, 11:00 AM	I think you misread DSugui's suggestion. That seems to be exactly the same thing I suggested in the tavern. The key idea is to track the number of the fights for every ally separately, so they won't get anything more than the 3FC normally allows. Say, Reiska has two allies: Jamppa and Tomppa. Reiska starts his cycle. He brings Jamppa to the first fight. Jamppa can use 1/3 of his spells in that fight. Reiska enters the second fight of his cycle. This time he takes Tomppa with him. Tomppa can use 1/3 of his spells, because it's his first fight of the cycle. Reiska goes to the third fight, once again with Jamppa. Jamppa can use up 1/3 of his spells plus anything that is left from the first fight. Reiska's 3FC ends and so does his allies, allthough neither of them ever reached the 3rd fight. The only advantage the allies get here is a little more choice of freedom, but what they don't get is more spells per fight. This is much more simple to track than separate cycles for every ally. Funny thing, I complained about allies before we ever implemented this madness...I was told they wouldnt be a problem because they would always be subject to the 1/3rd rule no matter what week you were in during the cycle. Macbrea and I discussed the huge edge to multiple allies and swapping them out between fights...fresh pool of resources, more diversity, less predictability. He doesn't seem to care much. I on the other hand, noting the number of purchased and trained pre-entrance pegasi in play now, maintain that allies which have always been problematic (they take up two whole rules' addenda and get further mentions in other places) are getting worse and more ripe for abuse. Call me a radical, but just like before, allies must be pre-buffed, make 'em pre-buff for the full day (3FC). No swapping for the cleric because the wizard is out of useful spells. No looking at your bracket and realizing that the likelihood of your next two opponents in your bracket being *fill in the blank style* so grab the *fill in the blank ally* to counter them. That is allowing in essence planning that was never intended to exist. Don't think people will do that? I went through and examined all of the lvl 7-8 active characters and determined that Sliver has a 95% chance of winning against any one of them...I then retired and refunded her because the once per day rule makes her LA stupidly and uselessly expensive...
SauroGrenom 12-04-06, 12:10 PM	I think the allies resource management issue has a simple solution. Limit the number of allies you can list on your character sheet to be equal to your MaxCA and force the ally to share the same 3FC with the main character. We've often discussed having this kind of limit on the max number of allies listed on your sheet. If a character reserves the SL or PP of his ally, then he is making a resource management decision in the early fights of the 3FC. This is identical to having a character reserve his own SL and PP for fights later in the week. I don't see it as being a problem. I think it's rediculious to have characters followed by a managerie of various support personel. Our game in CoCo is about making a great build, not building a great army.
McJarvis 12-04-06, 12:22 PM	I think the allies resource management issue has a simple solution. Limit the number of allies you can list on your character sheet to be equal to your MaxCA and force the ally to share the same 3FC with the main character. We've often discussed having this kind of limit on the max number of allies listed on your sheet. If a character reserves the SL or PP of his ally, then he is making a resource management decision in the early fights of the 3FC. This is identical to having a character reserve his own SL and PP for fights later in the week. I don't see it as being a problem. I think it's rediculious to have characters followed by a managerie of various support personel. Our game in CoCo is about making a great build, not building a great army. So the leadership feat no longer gives followers if you bother to take a cohort(of max ECL)?
McJarvis 12-05-06, 01:38 PM	More "pressing" concern: TheMagister and I have been discussing creating a team-up of characters together, so naturally I'd like more discussion of the "Official Co-Co teams". Is this something that requires Cat's attention to create, or can Elder's vote on it? NiQil is interested in it too-> and I can't think of a reason this wouldn't help bolster the upper-ranked divisions of CoCo. ~McJarvis~ edit-> Specific issues to be addressed: 1) Nature of teams 2) Nature of collective team wealth 3) Starting spaces 4) Coordination 5) Nature of rewards for teams 6) Seperatability My answers: 1) As discussed before, I believe two gladiators of a certain ECL should fight in the brackets for ECL+2. 2) I think that each character should have well-defined things that belong to him, but it is possible to "lend" items to another character on the team...so long as they are well defined on the lend-ee's character sheet as belonging to his teammate.(For instance-> If I wanted to give an animal companion to a warrior ally as a mount, the mount can be listed on the teammate's sheet and denoted as belonging to me) 3) I think teams should start in the same starting space. I'm open to them not as well, though...but we still need to know if they are aware of each other to begin with. 4) During the fight, are they telepathic or do they have to shout to each other? Naturally I'd say shout to each other. If they are telepathic they should be able to share each others stats as far as knowledge goes-> how many hp each has, etc. 5) I'm unsure on this one. Perhaps teams should split evenly whatever reward an ECL 5 character would normally have? 6) To enforce that this is a true "team-up" I would suggest that when two characters "merge" the higher xp one loses an appropriate amount of xp/gp to make him/her equal to the lower xp one, and then they can not "un-merge" until a level up occurs.
MindWandererB 12-05-06, 02:48 PM	McJarvis: Teams are already in the rules! You can put one together whenever you like. It's at the bottom of Rules of Gladius: Battles of Gladius I. Most of your questions are addressed there: 1) As you say. Up to ECL*3=ECL+3, or ECL*4=ECL+4. 2) As you say. 3) As you say. 4) Telepathy isn't specifically addressed, but I agree with you. 5) As a normal inter-league battle. 6) They can split up at any time, for a 10-credit cost. There are two mechanics described for matching up XP totals.
McJarvis 12-05-06, 02:52 PM	Oh that's tizzight. Thanks MWB :)
SauroGrenom 12-05-06, 03:22 PM	So the leadership feat no longer gives followers if you bother to take a cohort(of max ECL)? At this point we are discussing options not actualities yet. But I'd favor that interpretation. Recently my thoughts on allies of the skill or leadership kind have been focused on how they twist the balance of the arena. I've been thinking that it may be worthwhile to ditch allies in favor of teams.
McJarvis 12-05-06, 03:24 PM	At this point we are discussing options not actualities yet. But I'd favor that interpretation. Recently my thoughts on allies of the skill or leadership kind have been focused on how they twist the balance of the arena. I've been thinking that it may be worthwhile to ditch allies in favor of teams. I'd be in favor of ditching non-class associated allies. No more leadership, helloooo thrall herd :-) Except for PhB-certified buyable ones, of course...
MindWandererB 12-05-06, 03:31 PM	I'd be in favor of ditching non-class associated allies. No more leadership, helloooo thrall herd :-) Except for PhB-certified buyable ones, of course... Which would include Leadership, incidentally. And there are several beasties with purchase prices in the MM, as well.
McJarvis 12-05-06, 03:34 PM	Which would include Leadership, incidentally. And there are several beasties with purchase prices in the MM, as well. No it wouldn't...you can't BUY leadership, silly. ;) :P
MindWandererB 12-05-06, 04:02 PM	No it wouldn't...you can't BUY leadership, silly. ;) :P Sure you do. You buy it with a feat slot.
McJarvis 12-05-06, 04:07 PM	Sure you do. You buy it with a feat slot. I'm afraid I'll have to argue that point. You may learn it by using a feat slot, but it certainly isn't buying. I would even go so far as to challenge you to find the word "buy" in this context anywhere in the texts. ;)
SauroGrenom 12-05-06, 07:33 PM	The whole concept of ally builds doesn't fit well with the concept of single combat that is the core of CoCo. If we are allowing teams, then we can intorduce team combat w/o using these clunky and imbalanced house rules for HA and diplomacy allies. For example let me describe the difference between a Cohort and a Diplomacy ally Griffon. At ECL 12 you can get a griffon with 25point buy and full ability to choose feats and skills as a Cohort. At ECL9 you can buy a combat trained elite griffon for 12,000gp. And at ECL 9 you can get an elite griffon as a dilpomacy ally with a diplomacy of +18. So by spending cash or by investing in a cheap +5 diplomacy item and a few skill points, you can get a non core very powerfull ally that is likely to be way more powerfull than anything you can get with the core rules leadership feat. Diplomacy is an easy skill to move into astronomical heights. All skill boosting items are cheap, and diplomay has 3 synergy bonuses, and Cha is an ability that's maxed by many character classes anyway. Clearly with diplomacy you get an elite griffon 3 levels earlier than with leadership. Nominal investment of gold and skill points allows you to have a powerfull ally 3 levels earlier than the core equivalent. Our diplomacy allies are clearly way out of wack, and I think they should go all together. This whole system is poorly balanced and it's not Core. What is it doing in CoCo anyway? Then consider what happens when you move higher in levels and start using advanced allies either purchased or gained by diplomacy (or HA). By the time your ECL16 your Griffon Cohort has advanced 4 HD (total 11HD now). This creature is now CR 7. With diplomacy at ECL16 you can have a CR 10 elite griffon (max it can go). That beast would have 21 HD. Clearly this ally is nearly twice as powerfull as the Leadership Cohort. The ability to advance diplomacy or purchased allies is seriously imbalanced, and it only gets worse as ECL and CR increase. Because at ECL16, you can have a second ally who is CR 4 in addition to the CR10 maxed advanced griffon. We need to rethink our allies rules, and we need to rethink our advanced purchased allies as well. There is nothing Core about buying advanced allies. There is nothing Core about buying customized allies either. Both of these have caused and continue to cause balance problems, and I think we should consider retooling these sections of the rules. I suggest cutting out things that are not working and making the allies options fewer and simpler. I suggest that you can gain allies by the following mechanisms only: Class features Leadership Cohorts (not followers) Purchased Core Rules Allies (not advanced or customized) Animate Undead (or simular class features and spells) If the diplomacy and handle animals skills need new uses, we can make them, but right now they are better than spot and listen in the arena just because of the allies gained. Those allies create all sorts of complaints about broaken house rules, those allies are clearly imbalanced, those allies complicate battles, those allies are not Core and those allies create imbalanced types of character builds that defeat the purpose of CoCo.
MindWandererB 12-05-06, 07:48 PM	I've agreed with this before. I don't hesitate to do so again.
TheMagister 12-05-06, 07:55 PM	[chimes in with his 'lil opinion] I don't like the ally rules as they stand either, for basically the same reasons Sauro stated. I hate losing because I'm outnumbered in a 1vs1 contest.
Vathelokai 12-05-06, 08:10 PM	1) I agree the diplomacy allies rules are broken, and also the handle animal rules to a lesser extent. 2) I still want a way to have allies for my characters though. Taking the followers out of leadership seams wrong to me. If I want a character with a bunch of low CR allies under that rule I would have to have a necrocleric to animate with. 3) There's one thing that no one else seems to have noticed: The CR of an ECL10 character with a CR6 ally is not 10. It's always bothered me that two charcters from the same league fight each other because they are the same even though one is 1-2 CR higher because of allies. I think if we fixed this little bit there wouldn't be nearly so much of a problem.
Zevox 12-05-06, 08:21 PM	3) There's one thing that no one else seems to have noticed: The CR of an ECL10 character with a CR6 ally is not 10. It's always bothered me that two charcters from the same league fight each other because they are the same even though one is 1-2 CR higher because of allies. I think if we fixed this little bit there wouldn't be nearly so much of a problem. Been brought up before, been rejected before, several times. Can we not open that can of worms again please? Anyway, I suppose I'd be fine things as proposed, presuming that, as Vath suggested, leadership was still allowed to give followers if you want them, and the unusual mounts (e.g. Pegasus, Griffon, etc) were still purchasable (I think they count under the "Core purchased allies", but I figure its worth clarifying). Its kind of a shame that thematic things like Druids with pets (bye bye to Dire Wolves for Destra :( ) or a diplomatic Paladin with a Pegasus he convinced to help him would no longer be possible, but its clear enough that diplomacy allies are imbalanced, and I'm guessing I couldn't convince folks not to take Handle Animal away with it if it went even though I think that one is balanced just fine. Of course, we all know Cat will shoot this down right quickly when he notices it, but I may as well say what I'm thinking while its on the table. Zevox
NiQil 12-05-06, 08:58 PM	I have always maintained that both the diplomacy and handle animal ally system we have should be scrapped...that hasn't changed. Of course Cat is going to shoot this idea down as soon as he sees it....unless the Elders can force an Elder vote to show him that there is a pretty unified position on the issue. Three of us have already voiced the same opinion, so I would be curious to hear what Telin and Pittbull have to say....though Pittbull has been AWOL for a couple of weeks now. I'd very much like to hear others' opinions' on the issue as well....
SauroGrenom 12-05-06, 10:01 PM	Anyway, I suppose I'd be fine things as proposed, presuming that, as Vath suggested, leadership was still allowed to give followers if you want them, and the unusual mounts (e.g. Pegasus, Griffon, etc) were still purchasable (I think they count under the "Core purchased allies", but I figure its worth clarifying). Its kind of a shame that thematic things like Druids with pets (bye bye to Dire Wolves for Destra :( ) or a diplomatic Paladin with a Pegasus he convinced to help him would no longer be possible, but its clear enough that diplomacy allies are imbalanced, and I'm guessing I couldn't convince folks not to take Handle Animal away with it if it went even though I think that one is balanced just fine. I'm suggesting that unusual mounts should still be purchasable but not advanced versions of those. Druids already have pets. They can purchase them or they can just have the animal companion, or they can summon them into combat. I only feel that they cannot have "free" pets. With focus on a pet strategy, you can have summoned creatures last a very long time, or you can do interesting things with figurines or polymorph. A pegasus was never an option for a diplomacy ally. This is not a change realy. You can still buy one (not advanced though). About Leadership Followers: This is something allowed in Core rules, but it is specificially tempered by the GM's ability to rule what is and is not allowed. I feel that the whole concept of a troup of followers going around after you is crazy. I wouldn't allow it as a DM. I don't think CoCo should allow it either. Keep in mind that Followers are like people who hang out at your home base and will fight with you in a battlefield campaign, but they are specificially forbidden from participating in adventuring. I don't like followers because the flavor is wrong for a 1vs1 combat environment. Also it's a pain in the arse to pitlord when the number of participants increases. That pain in the arse increases when you need to keep referencing various character sheets or you have various 3FC's going on at the same time. Also if you realy want "followers" be the leader of a "party" by joining up with another PC. Our new rules for teaming up with another player make this a real attractive possiblity. As a compromise, I'd suggest that characters be allowed to substitute a cohort for leadership followers as long as the total ECL of all followers or allies listed on the character sheet does not exceed the ECL-2 max imposed on a cohort. Furthermore followers should be restricted to NPC classes and typical stat spread. Leadership is obviously overpowered for mid levels. It's clearly the best feat. The only reason I think we should allow it at all is because it's clearly Core. Furthermore the effect in a battle is slightly balanced by the fact that you pay for the equipment of your cohort from your own resources.
SauroGrenom 12-05-06, 10:03 PM	I have always maintained that both the diplomacy and handle animal ally system we have should be scrapped...that hasn't changed. Of course Cat is going to shoot this idea down as soon as he sees it....unless the Elders can force an Elder vote to show him that there is a pretty unified position on the issue. Three of us have already voiced the same opinion, so I would be curious to hear what Telin and Pittbull have to say....though Pittbull has been AWOL for a couple of weeks now. I'd very much like to hear others' opinions' on the issue as well.... To my knowdlege Pittbull is buisy with RL right now. The last post by him that I saw was in Cat's campaign last week some time.
Vathelokai 12-05-06, 10:55 PM	Been brought up before, been rejected before, several times. Can we not open that can of worms again please?Err.. sure, but I must have missed that week, 'cause I don't remember it. If somebody is feeling helpful send me a PM telling me what happened. About Leadership Followers: This is something allowed in Core rules, but it is specificially tempered by the GM's ability to rule what is and is not allowed. I feel that the whole concept of a troup of followers going around after you is crazy. I wouldn't allow it as a DM. I don't think CoCo should allow it either. Keep in mind that Followers are like people who hang out at your home base and will fight with you in a battlefield campaign, but they are specificially forbidden from participating in adventuring. I don't like followers because the flavor is wrong for a 1vs1 combat environment. Also it's a pain in the arse to pitlord when the number of participants increases. That pain in the arse increases when you need to keep referencing various character sheets or you have various 3FC's going on at the same time. Also if you realy want "followers" be the leader of a "party" by joining up with another PC. Our new rules for teaming up with another player make this a real attractive possiblity. As a compromise, I'd suggest that characters be allowed to substitute a cohort for leadership followers as long as the total ECL of all followers or allies listed on the character sheet does not exceed the ECL-2 max imposed on a cohort. Furthermore followers should be restricted to NPC classes and typical stat spread.The NPC classes for followers thing makes sense. But that would force a bunch of red wizards over at TAO to retire their characters; you need 4 specialist wizards around to do circle magic with you or the main class feature is worthless. Sadly, I have to agree to the logic that fixing the problem despite one PrC getting the shaft is better for CoCo overall. I think the compromise of getting 2 cohorts instead of X followers is not a good idea.
Zevox 12-05-06, 11:44 PM	The NPC classes for followers thing makes sense. But that would force a bunch of red wizards over at TAO to retire their characters; you need 4 specialist wizards around to do circle magic with you or the main class feature is worthless. Sadly, I have to agree to the logic that fixing the problem despite one PrC getting the shaft is better for CoCo overall. Couldn't you accomplish your circle magic via purchasing NPC casting? Zevox
McJarvis 12-05-06, 11:46 PM	Couldn't you accomplish your circle magic via purchasing NPC casting? Zevox Only of those NPC's have the tattoo focus feat. I'm not sure if you can do that...
Zevox 12-05-06, 11:47 PM	Only of those NPC's have the tattoo focus feat. I'm not sure if you can do that... *shrugs* Why not? Theres nothing specifying who you're buying the spells from. Whats wrong with saying you're paying off some junior Red Wizards to cast the spells? Zevox
SauroGrenom 12-06-06, 12:10 AM	Err.. sure, but I must have missed that week, 'cause I don't remember it. If somebody is feeling helpful send me a PM telling me what happened.The main point is that there are many factors that effect the Encounter Level of an encounter in a real campaign or in CoCo. The CR of various participants is just one of those. Factors such as surprise, or rounds of preparation before a battle can have huge effects on the difficulty of an encounter. So if you take allies into consideration to influince the ECL, then what happens when your ally dies in the 2nd fight of the 3FC? It looks like the league of the character changes. That becomes a mess to track, and it also opens the door for any factor that could effect the difficulty of an encounter to then modify the EL you are listed on in the roster. It's a messy complicated concept, and to do it well would require some complicated rules, and a shift of CoCo from an ECL (Equivalent Character Level) based system to a EL (Encounter Level) based system. That shift is just too much of a major shift.
McJarvis 12-06-06, 12:12 AM	The main point is that there are many factors that effect the Encounter Level of an encounter in a real campaign or in CoCo. The CR of various participants is just one of those. Factors such as surprise, or rounds of preparation before a battle can have huge effects on the difficulty of an encounter. So if you take allies into consideration to influince the ECL, then what happens when your ally dies in the 2nd fight of the 3FC? It looks like the league of the character changes. That becomes a mess to track, and it also opens the door for any factor that could effect the difficulty of an encounter to then modify the EL you are listed on in the roster. It's a messy complicated concept, and to do it well would require some complicated rules, and a shift of CoCo from an ECL (Equivalent Character Level) based system to a EL (Encounter Level) based system. That shift is just too much of a major shift. Not to mention a Wizard with full spells on their third fight would be a much different EL than a wizard on their first fight with only 1/3 available due to restrictions. :)
SauroGrenom 12-06-06, 12:12 AM	The Red Wizard thing is unfortunate, but I'm sure that you could request in the Training Hall to swap those levels to a different Prestige Class or levels in a different class. The other option is to use a cohort, and group into a team with another red wizard who also has a cohort. That will get you 4 red wizards together.
Vathelokai 12-06-06, 08:09 AM	Couldn't you accomplish your circle magic via purchasing NPC casting? Zevox You could; the prereq is to have a specialist wizard with the tattoo focus feat. However that is some broken overpowered stuff right there Participation: You must have the tattoo focus feat (see above). One caster with the circle leader class ability stands at the center of the circle of wizards and is called the circle leader. A circle requires at least two wizards in addition to the leader. Up to five wizards (plus the leader) can participate in a standard circle. A great circle can have up to nine participants in addition to the leader. All participants must be within 10 ft. of the leader. Circle Powers: After one full hour of uninterupted concentration, the helper wizards cast spells. The spells have no effect, and the spell level of all spells cast this way is totaled up and become bonus levels. Each bonus level can be used by the circle leader on the following effects. The circle leader can divide the bonus levels as he sees fit. * Increase the caster lv of the circle leader by one by expending one bonus level. Max caster level is 40. This applies to level dependent variables. This lasts 24 hours. * Increase the caster lv of the circle leader by one by expending one bonus level. Max caster level is 40. This applies to caster level checks. This lasts 24 hours. * Add empower spell, maximize spell, or heighten spell to currently prepared spells. The circle leader does not have to have the feats in order to do this. The spell level is not adjusted; these powers effect the spell the same way a metamagic rod does. The effective spell level can be raised up to level 20. Each bonus level spent on these virtual feats counts as a substitute spell level for that feats level adjustment. These bonuses last until expended or 24 hours. lv 1 spells are 10gp via NPC services. That buys a full effective caster level of 40 for 3 fights at a reasonable 600 gp (all this at ECL 10). Or just empower and maximize your spells for 60 gp each. But I feel like I"m detracting from the greater arguement about diplomacy allies and leadership followers. If we can work out a solution other that 'scrap it' before cat returns he will react far more positively to such a proposal.
SauroGrenom 12-06-06, 09:54 AM	For Cat the key point has always been that the skills Diplomacy and Handle Animal need to have some use. He's always considered the allies rules as a success because it allows you to have very effective skills (IMO too effective). So we need to invent some suitably potent use for HA and Diplomacy that is more balanced relative to other skills.
hogarth 12-06-06, 10:11 AM	For Cat the key point has always been that the skills Diplomacy and Handle Animal need to have some use. He's always considered the allies rules as a success because it allows you to have very effective skills (IMO too effective). So we need to invent some suitably potent use for HA and Diplomacy that is more balanced relative to other skills. I would argue that Handle Animal is already useful (considering you can buy horses and other animal allies). Note that Diplomacy already has another (weak) use too (Political Career), making it at least as useful as Disguise (one weak use) or Survival (one weak use) and more useful than Decipher Script (a very weak synergy) or Knowledge: Architecture (a very weak synergy).
McJarvis 12-06-06, 10:57 AM	You could; the prereq is to have a specialist wizard with the tattoo focus feat. However that is some broken overpowered stuff right there lv 1 spells are 10gp via NPC services. That buys a full effective caster level of 40 for 3 fights at a reasonable 600 gp (all this at ECL 10). Or just empower and maximize your spells for 60 gp each. But I feel like I"m detracting from the greater arguement about diplomacy allies and leadership followers. If we can work out a solution other that 'scrap it' before cat returns he will react far more positively to such a proposal. Hold on there-> there's a cap on how many people are in your circle :) Somewhere I thought it said each participant only cast one spell....?
Krytos 12-06-06, 11:24 AM	I agree that the HA, Dip. and Advanced allies are just unbalanced as they are now. I would not be against a reworking to balance them out, but I currently have no suggestions as to how to help. As for other uses of the Dip. and HA skills, I don't think the HA really needs anything except what is in the PHB already. If this isn't enough, maybe make a skill package that uses HA to "intimidate" an animal ally. Make it seperate from the actual Intimidate skill. For the Diplomacy skill, maybe something that allows you to buy items for less. You make a Diplomacy check against the shop owner and if you succeed he gives you a discount.
hogarth 12-06-06, 11:51 AM	For the Diplomacy skill, maybe something that allows you to buy items for less. You make a Diplomacy check against the shop owner and if you succeed he gives you a discount. Note that there already is a Discount skill package that uses Appraise, Bluff, and Sense Motive. I was thinking about something similar to the Intimidate skill: As a Free Activity, you can use your Diplomacy skill to alter the attitude of one or more allies of your opponent that have an intelligence of 3 or more. If you have the Wild Empathy ability, you may use it to influence animals without penalty, as well as using it to influence magical beasts with an intelligence of 1 or 2 with a -4 penalty on your Wild Empathy check. You take 10 on this check and then consult the table below. Class allies (like psicrystals, familiars, animal companions, etc.) start with an initial attitude of Hostile and other allies start with an initial attitude of Unfriendly. - - Initial attitude is Hostile... DC 25 - Ally's attitude improves to Indifferent DC 35 - Ally's attitude improves to Friendly DC 50 - Ally's attitude improves to Helpful - Initial attitude is Unfriendly... DC 15 - Ally's attitude improves to Indifferent DC 25 - Ally's attitude improves to Friendly DC 40 - Ally's attitude improves to Helpful - - The results of the new attitude are as follows: Indifferent: Your opponent must make a DC 10 Charisma check as a move action to successfully order the ally to attack you. Friendly: Your opponent's ally refuses to directly harm you, as if it had failed its Will save against the spell Sanctuary. If you directly attack the ally, you break the Sanctuary effect. Helpful: Your opponent's ally refuses to help fight against you and does not appear to the fight. Maybe there's too much similarity, though.
TelinArtho 12-06-06, 11:58 AM	I tend to think that the allies should stay - but I am willing to entertain greater restrictions on them. For diplomacy allies, which is where I personally feel there is the greatest benefit, there is still a substantial cost - and that simply can't be ignored. Yes, a CR1 air elemental is only 300gp - okay that's not so bad. But for a character to use diplomacy allies throughout his career, this cost is going to build up quickly. Just take, for example: ECL3-5 - 1 CR1 Air Elemental 300gp. ECL6 - 1 CR2 something 600gp ECL7 - 1 CR3 something 900gp ECL8 - CR4 1200gp ECL9 - CR5 1600gp ECL10 - CR6 2000gp By ECL10 - he's now spent 6600gp on allies alone - before equipment. Add to this the cost of the diplomacy stat boost item and the cost in skill points and that character is starting to look much weaker in my eyes. Of course, with characters who start in the higher leagues the cost is much less - but the benefits of the diplomacy allies diminish quickly if you don't regularly upgrade them. For animal allies the same holds true for the most part - but the side of it that makes them less effective is determined by their relative intelligence and lack of varied options in order to use them. Leadership has its own costs as well - including a feat slot that many do not want to give up, and additional costs in terms of equipment (though less so than diplomacy allies). I do agree that characters with allies are effectively at a higher ECL, but given the extra amount of bookkeeping that would be required to put that into place, I don't think it is a benefit to add it to the system. More importantly, the benefits of allies is greater at the lower ECLs - an ECL3 character with a CR1 ally is arguably more effective than an ECL10 character with a CR6 ally (your mileage may vary). I would be against taking out all allies. I would be willing to work with changing the rules to remove diplomacy allies or making them less effective. I would also be willing to work with handle animal allies if there is a feeling that they are "too" effective outside of ECL3-4.
hogarth 12-06-06, 12:36 PM	For diplomacy allies, which is where I personally feel there is the greatest benefit, there is still a substantial cost - and that simply can't be ignored. Yes, a CR1 air elemental is only 300gp - okay that's not so bad. But for a character to use diplomacy allies throughout his career, this cost is going to build up quickly. Just take, for example: ECL3-5 - 1 CR1 Air Elemental 300gp. ECL6 - 1 CR2 something 600gp ECL7 - 1 CR3 something 900gp ECL8 - CR4 1200gp ECL9 - CR5 1600gp ECL10 - CR6 2000gp By ECL10 - he's now spent 6600gp on allies alone - before equipment. Add to this the cost of the diplomacy stat boost item and the cost in skill points and that character is starting to look much weaker in my eyes. I'll make two comparisons of expenses between permanent equipment and allies (one intended seriously and one completely ludicrous). #1) CR 4 griffon Diplomacy ally = 1,200 gp (according to your calculations above) Bronze griffon Figurine of Wondrous Power = 10,000 gp (but can be sold for 1/2 price) So you save about 3,800 gp with the Diplomacy ally. #2) CR 2 wyrmling white dragon Diplomacy ally with wands of Detect Undead, Detect Magic and Cause Fear = 600 +750 +750 + 375 = 2,475 gp +1 intelligent Dancing Frost dagger with powers of detect undead, detect magic, cause fear, blindsense, darkvision, 10 ranks in Spot & Listen = ~90,000 gp (but can be sold for 1/2 price) Here you save at least 42,000 gp with the Diplomacy ally. ;) My point is that an extra pair of hands and eyes is expensive, no matter which way you get it.
Gonbow 12-06-06, 01:12 PM	I'd have to agree that Handle Animal is already perfectly useful; in that you need it to use purchased mounts and assistants, etc. I've never been remotely interested in making a character with HA or Diplomacy because the rules are far too far from what I could look up in the SRD and entirely messy. I've never really liked pitlording for pet-builds, because the intelligence of their pets is almost always at odds with the complicated tactics they want to use/expect me to improvise on their pets behalf. The only concession I've made in that area is characters with ranks of Ride... who don't have horses to use it with yet, because I'm always spending my gold elsewhere! Nicolae was my only character to ever use a horse; in non-combative situations in a Campaign. Lortavos is my only character to ever own a horse inside the arena, because I thought having a magical beast ride around on a horse would be a funny. Even so, he never used it. The only ally I've ever included in a tactics was Tatyana's psicrystal, which tends to get ignored aside from the Psi focus it contains. So yeah, I'm pretty ally-lite. As far as a new use for diplomacy goes... Well, perhaps it could waive the credit cost for certain things? We already have something to waive the credit costs of blackmarket items, which doesn't appear to be too unbalanced, perhaps Diplomacy can reduce the credit cost of going on Quests/Campaigns? Perhaps a 1 credit reduction (total, not per week in the case of quests) for every 10 points of modifier the character has, with a requirement of at least 5 skill ranks? It'd be an automatic thing, much like Political Career is now. (Which is fine, since it would only happen during quests/campaigns, where you cant use free actions anyways).
SauroGrenom 12-06-06, 05:53 PM	Telin, I'm not suggesting dropping all allies of all kinds. I think we should drop the following ally types that we currently allow: Advanced Creatures (acquired by diplomacy, HA or purchasing) Leadership Followers (By Core rules they are forbidden to participate in adventuring) Non Core mechanisms of gaining allies (HA and Diplomacy) This leaves several options of ways to gain allies: Leadership Cohorts Purchased Core Allies (horses, griffons, so on which are not advanced) Class Features (Thralls, Controlled Undead, Undead Spawn, Familiars, Animal Companions,... and so on) This still leaves lots of room for allies of various kinds to pop up in various places, but it almost eliminates the grappling horses. Advancing monsters through CR creates fantasticially powerfull allies that overshadow the character. There are clear imbalances at ECL3 and 4 where CR1 monsters are a huge advantage in an ECL3 battle. But also the imbalances are crazy at ECL10 or higher when you advance allies with racial HD. I mentioned earlier that at ECL 14 you can get a CR10 Elite Griffon with 21 HD. That creature has a better BAB than most fighters at ECL14. It's huge, it's got about 150hp, and 8 feats. Deck it out with a few pieces of equipment, and you've got a monster of terrible power. A simular monster acquired with Leadership requires epic levels. The whole option to get advanced allies, and to get them to be your allies with skills is not core, and it's highly imbalanced. I think we should remove that option from the rules, and stick with the various and powerfull options that are available in the Core rules (Leadership, Class Allies and purchased base animals or exotic mounts).
TelinArtho 12-06-06, 06:13 PM	I probably should have mentioned that I am not particularly impressed with the advancing rules - so yes I would certainly support dropping those. However, I don't see why it is out of question to have a character quest for and gain a CR 2 bear at ECL6 or a CR7 Elephant at ECL11 - both of these work very well into character concepts and I don't believe they are out on left field with being unreasonable. A CR 1 Small elemental or a CR 3 Medium Elemental are also nothing to be too scared of and can similarly be appropriate to some builds (particularly cleric builds with the appropriate domains - but that would be covered in the above class features anyway. As to the imbalance of ECL3 and 4, this is only because of the way the system is set up (ECL-4 or CR1 or ECL-4 is <1) - however from ECL 5 on it is not a problem. Since ECL3-4 aren't allowed to MQ for allies anymore (right? I thought that wasn't allowed with the new quickstart rules) - then that issue only remains with the canon CR1 animals - riding dog and light warhorse (mostly) - which you seem to be fine with in any case.
Vathelokai 12-06-06, 06:23 PM	Hold on there-> there's a cap on how many people are in your circle :) Somewhere I thought it said each participant only cast one spell....? Yeah, but there's no cap on how many times you can have a circle (1 hour each), or how many spell levels the participants can provide (all if they want), or how many slots an NPC caster might have or donate (there's reasonable and then there's the rules {which there are none for this model}). Telin, I'm not suggesting dropping all allies of all kinds. I think we should drop the following ally types that we currently allow: Advanced Creatures (acquired by diplomacy, HA or purchasing) Leadership Followers (By Core rules they are forbidden to participate in adventuring) Non Core mechanisms of gaining allies (HA and Diplomacy) This leaves several options of ways to gain allies: Leadership Cohorts Purchased Core Allies (horses, griffons, so on which are not advanced) Class Features (Thralls, Controlled Undead, Undead Spawn, Familiars, Animal Companions,... and so on) I think it would be fine to leave the leadership followers as long as they were banned from fights (sort of a 'mostly banned'). You could use them on quests or campaigns in non combat situations. Advanced creatures I could see removing except as cohorts; if your cohort wants to advance by race instead of class more power to them. I don't think the handle animal allies are too bad. It kind of makes sense as a core method of gaining allies; handle animal specificly describes how to train an animal to follow your commands. The diplomacy one seems the most out there to me.
SauroGrenom 12-06-06, 06:37 PM	Well I think that an ECL6 character with a Bear is probably not overpowered. My problem is that getting this ally just because you want it and it's not overpowered violates our concept of be in a Core Rules board (mor accurately a mininal house rules open source rules board). Consider that the only core way to get this ally is as an animal companion at ECL 4 druid. An elephant is significantly more powerfull, and according to core rules it requires 13th level druid to gain that ally. If you realy want to have an elephant or a bear as an ally, I think the core rules do a good job of making such things available in a reasonably balanced and thematicially appropreat way. Rangers and Druids can have animal allies, while evil clerics can have undead allies, paladins have special mounts and everyone can have a cohort (which can be an advanced flying mount if you want). I think Core rules do a realy good job of making allies available in various way, and our house rules screw up the balance. Since House rules are something we try to avoid, let's cut the house rules out, and let the many options already available by Core rules be the only options available.
TelinArtho 12-06-06, 06:43 PM	Well, the thing is - handling animals (as in training wild animals) is covered by core rules - so that argument is kind of tough to fly. I just don't understand why you want to restrict a warrior (who has handle animal as a class skill) to having either a riding dog or a light warhorse when a bear would seem more appropriate for his background or an elephant in later levels. Forcing a character to "dip" 13 levels into druid just to get an elephant for his warrior seems a little absurd, no? I agree that the things you are saying do provide some options, I just think that opening up the options is not an unreasonable thing to do - and let's not forget that handled animals are in fact covered in the rules. For diplomacy allies - I think it is really a matter of taste and given your opinion already, I don't think anything I could say could sway you away from that. I happen to think they work well and to me are reasonably balanced. All of this again doesn't deal with advanced creatures, which, as I said before, I'm not too keen on.
McJarvis 12-06-06, 09:06 PM	On an unrelated & less important topic-> I've been informed by Pitlords that since there is no current mechanic for Gather Information to be used in conjunction with Craft Magic(whatever), I can not use Gather Info to craft anything. I would like mechanics to be created.
SauroGrenom 12-06-06, 10:58 PM	True, the use of the handle animal skill is already in the core rules. But so is the use of the diplomacy skill. Diplomacy allows you to use persuasion to make NPC's helpfull. But neither of the skills describe how you are going to get animals or people to follow you around and do your bidding. That's up to DM discression to determine. Core rules do give us rules to buy certian mundane animals, and to train or rear other more exotic animals. There are hints that you can train all sorts of animals, but no clear way to get the animals in the 1st place. There is no rules in the game for prices on dinosaurs purchased at the market, but you can clearly train one much like you can train a dog. So the hole in the rules is answering the question of "How does a character come into posession of an ally which is controlled by Handle Animal or Diplomacy?" Our CoCo answer has been that you can just quest for it if your skill check is high enough. If we want to continue to allow allies for HA, then why not Diplomacy? And if you're raising an animal from birth, why not customize its feats? If you're customizing skills and feats, why not advance it with the elite ability array or a few extra racial HD? I think there is a serious slippery slope kind of situtation because CoCo doesn't have a GM to arbitrate with some sense of judgement in every case as would happen in a typical game. In your example if you want a warrior to ride on an elephant for thematic purposes, then the same rules that allows that will also allow a rogue character to ride an elephant at the same level (or lower since he's got skill points to spare) even though the elephant doesn't fit the theme of the character. I understand your point that some combinations of a certian creature with a certian character are not terribly imbalanced. But I cannot see a simple crisp way to make rules that allow some thematicially appropreat and balanced allies for some characters without also making it possible for imbalanced an inappropreat combinations as well.
MitzaVolchenko 12-07-06, 08:43 AM	For Cat the key point has always been that the skills Diplomacy and Handle Animal need to have some use. He's always considered the allies rules as a success because it allows you to have very effective skills (IMO too effective). So we need to invent some suitably potent use for HA and Diplomacy that is more balanced relative to other skills. Not sure why, but it still surprises me that there is a prevailing attitude that every skill should have a use that directly applies to the arena. My two bent coppers worth on allies: Allies are crushingly effective at all levels. Where they came from is more or less immaterial. If you are going to allow them, then just deal with them. Set reasonable caps on what is permissable and go forward from there. The limitation on what CR's can be brought into the arena does that fairly well, now. One might require full quests for allies instead of the current MQ. That would mean that one has to actually give something back to the community before they are allowed that particular spiffiness. My greater concern remains that allies changed out between fights in the 3FC allow for a greater range of spells. If it occurrred to my less than power gamerish mind that simply procuring three allies of the same ability set would allow me to effectively have the same full range of abilities to draw on every fight, there is something wrong with the system. For instance, three backpack buffer/healers. If I burn out the spells I need on Larry, I just bring Curly next fight. It effectively awards a full spell/ability refresh while my opponent cannot even swap their own spells out.
hogarth 12-07-06, 09:06 AM	My greater concern remains that allies changed out between fights in the 3FC allow for a greater range of spells. If it occurrred to my less than power gamerish mind that simply procuring three allies of the same ability set would allow me to effectively have the same full range of abilities to draw on every fight, there is something wrong with the system. For instance, three backpack buffer/healers. If I burn out the spells I need on Larry, I just bring Curly next fight. It effectively awards a full spell/ability refresh while my opponent cannot even swap their own spells out. I also considered this, but it isn't quite as easy as it sounds. The only ways I can think of to get a true spellcasting ally are Leadership and Thrallherd (which are mutually exclusive) and hiring mercenaries; none of the Diplomacy allies are spellcasters. You might be able to do the something similar with allies that have X/day use abilities, though.
spasheridan 12-07-06, 01:15 PM	On the subject of allies – I would like to see followers (via leadership / thrallherd) have some effect in the game. I was thinking they could come in certain shapes and have some interesting side-benefits. Imagine having: Courtier Follower - +2 synergy to Diplomacy or Knowledge / Nobility Street Urchin Follower: +2 synergy to spot / listen rolls when ambushing or assassinating Blacksmith Follower: Has +5 craft skill, can craft DC 15 items for you at a rate of 700 gp/week (1/10th pc rate) – you pay 2/3rds cost for things he crafts Blacksmith assistant: +2 synergy bonus to craft (blacksmith) checks Tavern Wench follower: +2 synergy to Gather Information checks City Watch follower: +2 synergy to spot / listen when resisting ambushing or assinating Dog Boy follower: can train your pet dog +1 trick a week when you train your dog a trick I’m imaging bonuses that are similar in scope to the familiar / psicrystal bonuses but are restricted to non-combat (obviously) and extended time actions. Would stacking them be too good? Would a level 2 follower have double the bonus of a level 1 follower? Does this seem reasonable / usefull?
MitzaVolchenko 12-07-06, 03:41 PM	I also considered this, but it isn't quite as easy as it sounds. The only ways I can think of to get a true spellcasting ally are Leadership and Thrallherd (which are mutually exclusive) and hiring mercenaries; none of the Diplomacy allies are spellcasters. You might be able to do the something similar with allies that have X/day use abilities, though. Sorry to confuse you...my surprise that the skills are still trying to be forced into universal usefulness in the arena has nothing to do with that allies issue. I don't care where the allies came from. The spellcasting was an example, but x/day items are just as much of a problem. Note my signature...Sliver is a pixie that went undefeated but had her pixie arrows denied by Caterane, her polymorph removed by WotC, and her once per day abilities stripped from the realm of the useful by the 3FC. I know precisely how deadly those abilities can be when put to good use. I recognize that Leadership takes a feat slot. That doesn't mean it should be the be all end all of feats because it allows you to have perma-fill-in-the-blank due to ally swapping mid-3FC.
Guildmaster (WAR) 12-08-06, 02:02 PM	Might I ask (very politely) where/when the CEF picked up 80 regulars and 10 irregulars? We've all had conscripts (purely defensive) for some time, but no-one's had time for building up armies. The CEF didn't have them last week, and only spent 400 REC-PTS this week. That should net them the 10 irregulars, and that's all. If what I say is the case, then thank you kindly Cat for giving a new Guildmaster a near-heart attack. TM
McJarvis 12-08-06, 02:12 PM	On an unrelated & less important topic-> I've been informed by Pitlords that since there is no current mechanic for Gather Information to be used in conjunction with Craft Magic(whatever), I can not use Gather Info to craft anything. I would like mechanics to be created. For instance: Full activity: Craft/Gather Info: You may craft 1 item up to ( Min[Gather Info*ECL Multiplier, 1,000gp] ) in value without a credit cost as a full activity. 3FC craft/gather info: You may combine up to three free activities to gather information & craft items to avoid credit costs. Normal caps still must be recognized. All crafted items still must be confirmed by Pitlords! I believe these changes are minor & could be put up with minimal debate.
MindWandererB 12-08-06, 03:01 PM	Might I ask (very politely) where/when the CEF picked up 80 regulars and 10 irregulars? We've all had conscripts (purely defensive) for some time, but no-one's had time for building up armies. The CEF didn't have them last week, and only spent 400 REC-PTS this week. That should net them the 10 irregulars, and that's all. If what I say is the case, then thank you kindly Cat for giving a new Guildmaster a near-heart attack. TM Unfortunately, Cat is quite right, although those aren't regulars, they're militia. From Achos. CEF has them for 17 weeks from Solan's activity on the campaign. I should probably point out that Featylec is entitled to the same benefit!
SauroGrenom 12-08-06, 03:11 PM	Might I ask (very politely) where/when the CEF picked up 80 regulars and 10 irregulars? We've all had conscripts (purely defensive) for some time, but no-one's had time for building up armies. The CEF didn't have them last week, and only spent 400 REC-PTS this week. That should net them the 10 irregulars, and that's all. If what I say is the case, then thank you kindly Cat for giving a new Guildmaster a near-heart attack. TMAlso I think that all those regiments wouldn't fit into a single barracks. I'm looking at it now, and Cat has used the militia rules. I recall that militia's were only defensive, and CEF hasn't researched the militia technology. Those must be conscripts. If that's the case, then I think that a great deal of points and GAP need to be spent to recruite them. Also that should tank the local attitude of the district.
Zevox 12-08-06, 03:13 PM	Rules from the Guildhall on free regiments from Campaigns: 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. Example: TAO has had one of its wizards (ECL 7) on a campaign (10 weeks) to extermine a werewolf plague in Simanor. Grateful as the kingdom is about that, it lends TAO seven militia regiments which can be freely used (if drafted) in their battles, offensively or defensively. After ten weeks, Simanor calls its troops back. This is where those 8 came from TM - the CEF had Solan on the campaign. WAR can have the same any time from Featylec. Zevox
Guildmaster (WAR) 12-08-06, 04:16 PM	{Gomer Pyle Voice} "Well sup-rize sup-rize sup-RIZE!" And WAR's got the militia development researched, so mine are beefier. Okay. I feel better. {Whew} Wait. :thinks: Defensively -OR- OFFENSIVELY?! :eek: So I could take my militia vs. their conscripts like, RIGHT NOW (next week) and stomp the livin' crap outta some resource-producing structures in Arkhein? ... That's just not right, ya'll. It's too soon. As much as I'd like to do it, it's too soon. Edit - "(If Drafted)". What does that translate to? "If bought with REC-PTS?" "If paid for like mercs?"
MindWandererB 12-08-06, 04:22 PM	Edit - "(If Drafted)". What does that translate to? "If bought with REC-PTS?" "If paid for like mercs?" Here: Conscripts and Militia regiments can be drafted, that is, instantly recruited as a reaction to an attack by another guild, and it does not require a Guild Action. You just need to process the required amount of stored Recruitment Points and the regiment fights on your side.As near as I can figure (remember that Cat and only Cat knows whe's really intended), you cannot use them offensively.
Guildmaster (WAR) 12-08-06, 05:55 PM	I found CEF's big negative on DEF-PTS in Gawane: the attitude of the Gawane Freedom Fighters. As long as that group exists, the DEF in Gawane for the CEF is reduced by -500 on top of the -250 of the district, for a total modifier of -750 on district defense (ouch). It was -1000 before the district attitude reset. So Featylec will do (1061*(-750+1000))*1000=4244 hp damage to the Tournament Site. Ceilia will do (1786*(-750+1000))*1000=7144 hp (!!) to the Outpost. Isn't that total modified by the ECL of the acting character?! Group Attitude Effects Hostile: The group attacks any hostile guild that moves into or passes through its district. Defense points in this district are reduced by -500. ...which is why I've been trying to keep them around. I'd just forgotten where I saw it.
MindWandererB 12-08-06, 06:07 PM	Isn't that total modified by the ECL of the acting character?!It used to be, but not anymore. The old rules would have had someone like Uhme literally doing 20,000 damage on an attack. To make it so that ECL 3 characters weren't basically just throwing spitwards, the ECL was removed from the equation. Otherwise, I can't find anything wrong with your logic. Cat was sneaky; he didn't list his district defense anywhere on CEF's guild thread, and he even misrepresented the effect of having an unfriendly district (he wrote down "No Effect" instead of "-250 Defense"). Probably an honest mistake....
SauroGrenom 12-08-06, 07:00 PM	It looks like Cat thinks that the Gawane Freedom fighters are Rioters. This is not true. The Freedom Fighters are a normal para-military group. Also CEF structures are taking damage from Rioters, but I don't think there are any Rioters in Gawane. At least there are no rioters in Gawane listed in the random events.
MindWandererB 12-08-06, 07:20 PM	It looks like Cat thinks that the Gawane Freedom fighters are Rioters. This is not true. The Freedom Fighters are a normal para-military group. Also CEF structures are taking damage from Rioters, but I don't think there are any Rioters in Gawane. At least there are no rioters in Gawane listed in the random events. I don't think that's exactly the problem. Rather, Hostile PMG's used to deal damage like that. Apparently that rule was changed at some point.
Caterane 12-09-06, 05:54 AM	The regiments from a campaign alliance need no barracks. They are not stationed in any district but are drafted - ie with REC points - normally. You need to pay the draft cost everytime anew. Also, they work differently then conscripts in that they can be drafted offensively and they are always militia regiments. They have nothing to do with the militia development that is only applicable for conscripts from your structures. As for the district attitude, the CEF hasn't moved into Gawane yet. You need a Chapter House to apply all district modifiers. When the Tournament Site is finished, the CEF may not apply its guild traits (+2FAI, +1NEG) to the income but likewise, the attitude plays no role. That's the whole point about outposts: attitude effects do not apply unless you have a Chapter House there. Structures are actually seen as a boon by the citizen (see Guildhall: Structures) so even a hostile district won't attack your structure if you have no Chapter House there. After reading the rules again I think I expressed it clearly enough.
Caterane 12-09-06, 06:02 AM	Sheesh... what a discussion in my absense! First of all, let me say that we won't reduce the amount of options in CoCo, ie we will not remove diplomacy allies or handled animals. They are a great addition and make this board richer. This includes customized allies. What we can do is to correct their power and accesssability a bit. We recently set a gold cost for having allies in that they cost only gold and no XP. I think that makes allies a costly endeavour. Customized allies can be fixed easily if we say that the CR increases right on the first HD beyond the threshold. That way you can't add 2 free HD without changing the CR. If your worried about the accessability of dipl and HA allies, we can talk about that too. One skill requirement is indeed easy to frontload. Suggestions? Maybe you need Knowledge aswell?
NiQil 12-09-06, 10:56 AM	Sheesh... what a discussion in my absense! First of all, let me say that we won't reduce the amount of options in CoCo, ie we will not remove diplomacy allies or handled animals. They are a great addition and make this board richer. This includes customized allies. What we can do is to correct their power and accesssability a bit. We recently set a gold cost for having allies in that they cost only gold and no XP. I think that makes allies a costly endeavour. Customized allies can be fixed easily if we say that the CR increases right on the first HD beyond the threshold. That way you can't add 2 free HD without changing the CR. If your worried about the accessability of dipl and HA allies, we can talk about that too. One skill requirement is indeed easy to frontload. Suggestions? Maybe you need Knowledge aswell? After the discussion that has been had, I think I can say with a great deal of certainty that a good chunk of people in this forum think that they are a problem, rather than a great addition. They are clearly overpowered, irregardless of level, but more so at some levels and less so at others. It has been proven time and time again that if you want a character to be successful on these boards, you have to have an ally of some kind beyond what your class abilities offer you. I fail to see why you won't at least consider the possibility of removing or paring down our existing uses for diplomacy and handle animal. For all the times you have laid into me about how close-minded I am in things....that is as about as close-minded as it gets. This discussion keeps coming up time and time again...and really we always run into the same thing. You don't want to remove them or remove a portion of them, so we have to try and invent ways to fix them, causing us to create house rules for our house rules. It's the main reason why I don't really participate in these discussions anymore...because I know no matter what ideas we come up with, it won't entirely fix the problem, and the one thing that we are pretty sure will fix the problem, you aren't interested in. That's also why these discussions tend to crop up when you are away, rather than when you are active on the boards. Anyway...that's my two gilded electrum pieces. Everyone can rip this apart at their leisure. That's all I have to say.
Vathelokai 12-09-06, 11:31 AM	I'm going to have to back you up on this one NiQil.
Caterane 12-09-06, 11:36 AM	@Niqil: Since this was the first week I've been away this hardly qualifies as a proof for your theory. Anyway. We cannot just fix a problem by removing the whole section. That's a bad way to approach things. So far, we have very few bans and this is because I always try to fix something before banning it but if the approach you suggest would be the best one, we can just aswell run a board with skeleton rules. There's a patient called Allies and instead of dismembering a whole leg we should always try to cure it first. So they are overpowered. Agreed. Let's find the cure.
SauroGrenom 12-09-06, 11:47 AM	Cat, If a rocket launcher is too powerfull for paintball games, then limiting the accessability and increasing the cost of a rocket launcher is not going to fix the problem. Someone will still go the extra mile and pay the extra cost to get a rocket launcher, and the paintball game is over. The only way to fix the problem is to not have rocket launchers in your paintball game. Also making a new house rule for advancing allies is rubbish. That in no way will fix the problem. Making an 8HD griffon be the same CR 5 as a 10HD griffon is nothing. The problem is that a 21 HD griffon is CR 9 (or CR 10 using your suggestion) and that is allowed as an ally for a ECL14 character. The only core rules way to get this ally is to have a griffon cohort of ECL 24, and the Leadership feat and Epic Leadership feat and epic levels. Keep in mind that we are compairing a house rule to the most powerfull pre-epic feat in combination with epic game elements, and the house rule gives an ally which unattainable w/o the most powerfull pre-epic feat and an epic feat in combination with high epic levels. This is like saying that with knowlege arcana, Raskos should be able to craft low cost epic scrolls that he can use in battle. What we're talking about is epic level game effects at medium levels. The effect is less dramatic at lower levels, but it's still vastly overpowered compared to Core game elements (like leadership cohorts). This should be impossible. It's not a fix to simply try and make it harder to get these game effects. That's just ignoring the problem. HA and Diplomacy allies are house rules that contribute little to our game, and these house rules cause serious imbalances and abuses, and unnecessary andimbalancing house rules don't belong in the Core Coliseum. If you think those skills don't have enough uses, then make a skill package of equivalent potency to the other skill packages. If you want to keep the number of ally options as high as possible, then make a house rule to increase the number of creatures eligable as leadership cohorts and animal companions. If you go this way, keep in mind that you're making a house rule. If you want to make it possible for people to have animals of kinds not listed in the Core equipment section, then create gp cost to purchase those that you think are appropreat to purchase. If you go this way, keep in mind that you're making a house rule, and you should use the animal companions of rangers as a guide for balance. Realy, You're the game master, and you can do whatever you want. But there is clearly a problem, and your suggested "solution" is not a solution at all. Our CR based ally rules makes it possible for mosters with epic ECL to contribute to mid level fights. That's a problem. Limiting access or increasing cost of alies will do nothing to fix the underlying problem.
MindWandererB 12-09-06, 04:25 PM	The regiments from a campaign alliance need no barracks. They are not stationed in any district but are drafted - ie with REC points - normally. You need to pay the draft cost everytime anew. Also, they work differently then conscripts in that they can be drafted offensively and they are always militia regiments. They have nothing to do with the militia development that is only applicable for conscripts from your structures. As for the district attitude, the CEF hasn't moved into Gawane yet. You need a Chapter House to apply all district modifiers. When the Tournament Site is finished, the CEF may not apply its guild traits (+2FAI, +1NEG) to the income but likewise, the attitude plays no role. That's the whole point about outposts: attitude effects do not apply unless you have a Chapter House there. Structures are actually seen as a boon by the citizen (see Guildhall: Structures) so even a hostile district won't attack your structure if you have no Chapter House there. After reading the rules again I think I expressed it clearly enough.Yep. There it is, all right. Sorry, TM, I missed this part of the rules, myself. And there lies the rationale for why CEF didn't go ahead with the Chapterhouse. Although I would add that while the Outpost does say that the district attitude doesn't apply, it says nothing about group attitudes. It should mention that as well. And I also can't figure out why the Outpost is taking damage. -=-=-=-=-=- Re: Allies: While I do have strong opinions about this subject, I'll keep my comments to a minimum. Let me do this, though: Con: Allies are unbalanced. This is pretty much a proven fact. Diplomacy allies, in particular, are far cheaper and more effective than anything available by any other means. Griffons are just sick, air elementals of all sizes are far more useful than their CR would indicate, and there are some other amazing options, too (like white dragons). Even horses are overpowered; they work in TT D&D because of the dungeons, so you can't take them everywhere. Con: PCs pretty much need allies of some sort to be competitive. Again, this is hardly up for debate. A few straight casters have managed to excel despite the lack of allies, but they're in the minority, especially at the highest ECLs. Cat would have a hard time arguing this, seeing as how every one of his characters relies heavily on allies of one sort or another, whether from Diplomacy, Leadership, Animate Dead, or just plain purchase. Con: There's nothing at all like this in TT D&D. The strongest argument of all, IMO. Sure, you can buy griffons and whatnot... if your DM allows... but you can't take them everywhere, they don't advance, and before long they get killed and you're out your 4000 bucks. Horses are similar (I was in a game with a lot of mounted combat, once; they burned through horses like crazy). Diplomacy is the worst offender; if a PC asked me, as DM, for an air elemental as a buddy, they'd get nothing but a blank stare from me. And for sheer sanity's sake, I'd allow no PC to have more than one ally, two in unusual circumstances, period. Pro: "They are a great addition and make this board richer." Uh huh. Sure. Great argument. And for once, Cat, it looks like none of the Elders (Pittbull perhaps) agree with this. Pro: It gives Diplomacy and Handle Animal a use. As has been pointed out, better to find a different use entirely, than one that is the object of such hot debate. I'll save my own suggestions for another time, but suffice it to say that I do not think this system can be fixed except by starting from scratch. Diplomacy allies make no sense to keep in the game. Allies of all sorts are pretty unbalanced, largely because of our dungeonless, deathless environment. We need to start with the "mandatory" allies (Leadership, purchased allies) and work the balance out from there, all the while staying within the realm of things a sane DM in a TT game might allow.
Zevox 12-09-06, 11:47 PM	Permit me to speak up on Sauro's side for this ally thing: In the one year I've been here, we've tried fixing diplomacy allies (in Cat's metaphor, curing this leg rather than cutting it off) no less than twice that I can definitively recall, and I seem to remember there being a third time I can't quite wrap my mind around. The first came when Balbanes proved they were insanely overpowered originally, and that was merely adding the prebuff requirement. When that failed to take care of the issue, we reworked the formula for them entirely, made them reduce gold rewards for the MQ to obtain them, and added a gp cost to advancing them. That helped, but clearly not enough, since its still obvious that they're overpowered, especially in advanced form. Honestly, at this point, I don't see anything balancing these out sufficiently. Adding a knowledge requirement would, from where I'm sitting, most likely do one of two things: cause thier use to disappear almost entirely (due to most knowledge skills being cross-class for many diplmacy/handle animal users - only Druids or Rangers with Know (Nature) have much of a chance for that), or cause those who have them to spend credits on skill + items for the knowledge skills, which from where I'm sitting is worse since it thens lets only those with credits get access to an option most everyone around here sees as broken. Personally, I'd rather just scrap diplomacy allies and advancing allies altogether as a lost cause at this point. No matter what we do, having such an ally will always be an incredibly potent advantage, even if the character has to leave themself quite weak to get ahold of it. Now, I will say that I rather like the idea of Handle Animal allies thematically and don't think we should necessarily ditch them just yet (raising or taming animals is, after all, one of the uses of the skill in core rules). They've not yet proven to be unbalanced - the most effective use of them we've seen is Dire Bats and Bat Swarms, which are flying radar stations and melee support, but quickly become useless at later levels where they're cannon fodder if not advanced. Presuming advancing allies was removed as an option, I'd see no particular reason to get rid of them. Now, I will be nitpicky here and argue one thing with MWB on this: Con: PCs pretty much need allies of some sort to be competitive. Again, this is hardly up for debate. A few straight casters have managed to excel despite the lack of allies, but they're in the minority, especially at the highest ECLs. To be fair, there are more exceptions than just those you've listed. Stealth-based characters like Noko, Walden, and The Chameleon have been very successful without need for allies or being straight casters. My own Eraca Moralta is only partially a caster and has never used any ally except her familiar (and now only has an animal companion as a scout) and has a 12-3 record at level 9. To be sure, its much harder to be successful at higher levels without allies, but its not quite that impossible. Anyway, my opinion in a nutshell then is: scrap diplomacy allies and advancing allies, though don't toss out handle animal with it unless it can be shown to be really necessary. :twocents: Zevox
spasheridan 12-10-06, 02:10 AM	I haven't examined the rules on allies in depth, but I'm checking out the options of purchasing a riding dog with the elite array instead of the normal stat lines - and using this animal as my animal companion. For an extra 150 gold I get a dog that is VERY much better than any other level 1 animal companion - in fact, it's better than most of the level 3 animal companions. I think that advancing monsters / animals or using alternate skills and feats is a bit much for a core game. Especially when we consider their power based on CR, which doesn't seem to scale properly with templates & advancing. I wont come down on either side for sure until I examine what folks have been using as their allies at the higher levels and seeing what the options really allow.
Vathelokai 12-10-06, 08:09 AM	I haven't examined the rules on allies in depth, but I'm checking out the options of purchasing a riding dog with the elite array instead of the normal stat lines - and using this animal as my animal companion. For an extra 150 gold I get a dog that is VERY much better than any other level 1 animal companion - in fact, it's better than most of the level 3 animal companions.Problem: you do not get to pick your animal companion like that. You do the 24 hour ceremony and a standard animal of that type appears. You can have a riding dog animal companion and your super custom riding dog. (not a bad combo at low levels). There's a patient called Allies and instead of dismembering a whole leg we should always try to cure it first. So they are overpowered. Agreed. Let's find the cure.Thank you, Dr. Benway. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Caterane 12-10-06, 08:45 AM	Guys, I'm not willing to give up on a whole section of the board rules that easily. Look. Sometime in the past, we added diplomacy allies. It's clear that no prototype is perfect so we applied one two three fixes and each one has helped to improve the situation. A bit but nethertheless it was better than before. Do you have any idea how long we tweaked what finally manifested in the 1/3 rule and 3FC? Uncounted times but we have found the cure after endless discussions and we're all happy that we didn't give up half-way. We could raise the BaseCD cost. We could eliminate the modifiers that reduce the BaseCD cost, or... We could turn them into modifiers that increase the BaseCD if you don't have them. We could add a second skill as requirement. We could eliminate the option to advance allies after you obtained them. We could invent drawbacks or requirements for diplomacy allies, like the HA commands you need for animals or we could make them more unreliable. We could make it harder to get them. Like a full quest with a % roll at the end. We could create a ressurection cost if they die in battle (for any ally?) (1-3) makes it harder to get a diplomacy ally and thus makes the investment steeper. (4) means that your invested gold will be 'lost' after some levels because the ally you quested for at ECL 5 isn't able to compete at ECL 10. (5) could actually be the best and most interesting way to balance them. There are still many ways to get them in line with the other allies. Btw, I see no problem with handle animal allies at all. PS: Who's Dr.Benway? (I don't watch TV at all)
TheMagister 12-10-06, 08:57 AM	Nevermind. Cat edited in my idea (which just proves how desperate he is to keep all his allies. Imagine. Taking into consideration ideas spawned by ME?!).
hogarth 12-10-06, 09:00 AM	Personally, I think the Diplomacy allies thing is ridiculous and I favor getting rid of them (because of the "it never happens in a D&D campaign" rationale). However, I think eliminating the Forgery skill's ability to bring in extra allies helped a lot to tame down the overpoweredness of allies in general. My only suggestion would be to put a cap (any cap!) on the number of allies you can have waiting in the wings. Otherwise you can have a stable full of animals (purchased or Handle Animal), some Diplomacy allies and a Leadership cohort. Someone killed your ally? Call up the next in line! If we couldn't remove some of the ally methods altogether, I'd favor having a cap so that a gladiator's allies that count towards his CA (e.g. cohorts, purchased animals, Handle Animal and Diplomacy allies) are limited to the number he could possibly bring into the arena at one time.
SauroGrenom 12-10-06, 12:27 PM	We could raise the BaseCD cost. We could eliminate the modifiers that reduce the BaseCD cost, or... We could turn them into modifiers that increase the BaseCD if you don't have them. We could add a second skill as requirement. We could eliminate the option to advance allies after you obtained them. We could invent drawbacks or requirements for diplomacy allies, like the HA commands you need for animals or we could make them more unreliable. We could make it harder to get them. Like a full quest with a % roll at the end. We could create a ressurection cost if they die in battle (for any ally?) 1: Rasing the Base CD cost only makes the allies accessable to a more select group of players who have credits to spare on +5 or +10 skill items. This is a clear and overpowering combat advantage earned by using credits. I don't think we should go their. 2: Eliminating the modifiers is just another way of increasing the CD cost of the allies. As mentioned before, this won't realy fix the problem. It will actually make it worse since a smaller set of players will have these alies, their effect on battles will be magnified when the cannot be easily countered by other allies. 3: The second skill would be a knowlege skill I assume. That makes allies again a wizard thing. Only wizards with lots of INT and extra skill points and the ability to craft items will be able to satisfy all the requirements. That is thematicially inapproppreat. Why should wizards have diplomacy allies when they don't even have diplomacy as a class skill? 4: This only increases the gp cost of keeping allies for the long hual. The dis-incentive caused by this is very small. This penalizes pet builds, but not characters that use a single crazy overpowered pet for 3 or 4 levels before replacing it. And it does nothing to fix imbalances at those levels where the crazy pets come into play. 5: In the past we've tried to avoid making whole new house rules systems that are a part of the battles. There are good reasons for not putting new house rules into the battles. House rules that pitlords must use are a barrier to new pitlords. We don't need to introduce new barriers for pitlords, that would be bad. 6: Again this makes these allies into a game element that only those with credits can have. That makes characters w/o credits into second class citizens of CoCO. We should avoid that kind of effect on our game. It realy discourages people from joining when they see that kind of thing in the game. 7: What would such a cost be? This also penalizes all allies of every kind. Leadership Cohorts and Thralls and Animal companions suddenly look rather crappy. The purchased pegasus ally is looking rather crappy as well. This becomes a serious balance problem for non-caster builds who need those flying mounts in mid levels. Their flying mounts are now far more expensive, and they cannot recoup the cost by crafting items. Btw, I see no problem with handle animal allies at all. As long as you cannot advance or customize these creatures, then there is no problem I suppose. Keep in mind the customised grappling horse problems.... Also I've pointed out how advanced allies can be abused with a griffon, I'm sure that there are good examples of advanced animal allies being way overpowered as well. The Tiger, Snakes and Rino come to mind as creatures that can be advanced a large number of HD through various size changes. That's where the advanced creatures become crazy powerfull beyond their CR. The only reason we haven't seen anything abused with HA allies, is because Diplomacy allies are obviously the 1st choice. Anyone looking to make an overpowered ally looks to the Diplomacy allies section first and finds what they want. If you cannot tweak and overpower your character with diplomacy allies, then you look to HA allies. The real central issue is our use of CR instead of ECL. At low levels ECL and CR are simular, but as you increase levels they become rapidly different. For example a Lizardman is ECL3 and CR1, but a Stone Giant is ECL18 and CR 8. Accouring to our rules a lizardman is an OK ally at ECL3, while the stone giant is OK at ECL12. So the lizardman is an ally at your ECL, while the stone giant is an ally 6 ECL higher than you. When you use the rules to advance monsters by racial HD, then the difference between CR and ECL increases very rapidly. For example the advanced griffon from my eariler post is CR 8 while ECL24. 1: If you want to fix the problem, then simply make the allies of all kinds limited to ECL-2 as with cohorts. For monsters w/o a LA listed, then create one (LA is almost always equal to CR +/- one). 2:For HA allies, look at the Ranger Animal Companion's at every level. Make a CR table that mimics the advancement of the ranger's animal companion with ECL. The total CR of all your animal allies should mimic that advancement. This is the only way to bring the power of allies back down to earth and balance them with all other allies gained by class features or feats. All other solutions don't directly address the problem.
Caterane 12-10-06, 12:53 PM	Well, it seems the problem comes from the option to advance allies. The rules for advancing monsters don't seem to be well thought-out anyway (still, it's a core rule). If we remove that (incl. elite array) all those overpowered examples would be gone. We could further say that if an ECL is given, we use that instead of CR. Still, I think an uncertanity factor would also be a great regulator. Imagine that your diplomacy ally reacts in certain ways depending on the opponent. To prevent pitlord work we make a rule that's clear before the battle begins. As an example, we could look at the rules for intimidate. Say, if the alignment matches, the ally refuses to fight and does not appear. Alignment is only one idea; there're surely others.
SauroGrenom 12-10-06, 01:22 PM	The balance issue comes from the fact that CR and ECL are terribly unbalanced from the onset. Where ECL is always much higher than CR. Our rules use CR, and that is the mistake which allows abbuse. We need to change that. Advancing allies by racial HD and customizing them accentuates the difference between CR and ECL. This is simply the most obvious way in which the CR and ECL can be abbused to cause way overpowered allies. Removing this option, doesn't make the problem go away, it just makes the imbalance a little smaller in some cases. There are still many cases where there is no advancement by racial HD and ECL is way higher than CR. We could further say that if an ECL is given, we use that instead of CR.If we use this, then allies w/o a LA listed become the obvious choices for allies. That means that monsters w/o a LA are more attractive for abuse, and the griffon, worg, yeth hound, dragon and a few others are no longer attractive as diplomcay allies. Instead you pick the slaad, the elemental and the wyvern. All this does is decrease the list of abbusable allies. As long as there are any abusable allies we continue to have a problem. If you realy want to plug the hole and realy fix the problem, then say that ECL is always used, and if the monster doesn't have a LA listed, use CR as the LA to calculate ECL. Apply this to both HA Allies and Diplomacy Allies. This is the "simple" fix. Don't get me wrong. I still think that Diplomacy and HA allies are totally non core and they don't belong in the Core Coliseum. But if you realy absolutely must have these non-core house rule allies, then look at the mechanisms of allies that are allowed in core rules. Follow the example of game mechanics used in those examples. That means that we must use ECL as the measure of how powerfull an ally is and what allies are allowed.
Caterane 12-10-06, 01:28 PM	Can you give me some examples to proof that CR is more or less similar to LA please?
SauroGrenom 12-10-06, 01:39 PM	Go to this (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/toolsMonsterIndex.html) web page. Click on the word Level Adjustment at the top right of the page. This will sort all the SRD monsters by LA. With a few exceptions, all the LA values are all within 2 or 3 points of the CR values. Most of the exceptions to this are intellignet creatures with a great many spell like abilities (and are not eligable as Diplomacy allies).
MindWandererB 12-10-06, 04:28 PM	We could raise the BaseCD cost. We could eliminate the modifiers that reduce the BaseCD cost, or... We could turn them into modifiers that increase the BaseCD if you don't have them. We could add a second skill as requirement. We could eliminate the option to advance allies after you obtained them. We could invent drawbacks or requirements for diplomacy allies, like the HA commands you need for animals or we could make them more unreliable. We could make it harder to get them. Like a full quest with a % roll at the end. We could create a ressurection cost if they die in battle (for any ally?) (1-3) makes it harder to get a diplomacy ally and thus makes the investment steeper. (4) means that your invested gold will be 'lost' after some levels because the ally you quested for at ECL 5 isn't able to compete at ECL 10. (5) could actually be the best and most interesting way to balance them. There are still many ways to get them in line with the other allies. Btw, I see no problem with handle animal allies at all. 1 & 3: As Sauro said, these limitations just make credits more valuable. The only way to give a good hard nerf to the ally strength would be to reduce MaxCA, or increase the effectice CR (by using ECL, for example) (in all cases, not just select ones). #2: Again, inadequate. Only by mucking with the absolute limit can we provide an effective nerf. #4: How does that help? You just have to constantly quest for new ones. No, if anything, allies must be advanceable once you have them. In fact, I'm of the opinion that all allies should be advanceable, if they should be allowed at all, so that you're not just replacing your allies all the time (like the 3.0 druid companions). #5: And add even more artificiality? No thank you. #6: Again, doesn't help. That just means that the players with the time, the credits, the luck, and the characters who are already strong enough to survive the quest, get the allies. Pushes the top up but not the bottom. #7: This is not a bad idea, but unfortunately, the lethality of the CoCo environment just makes death penalties an uncool concept. And Cat: none of these ideas affect one of our chief complaints, which is that this system in no way resembles anything in the core D&D game. The skill packages, okay; things like ambushes and whatnot do reflect things you can do in D&D, though by a different method. But this is completely artificial; both the method and the outcome are unrelated to TT games. My general rule is that one of those two things--the method or the outcome--has to have an equivalent in the normal game. This does not meet that criterion. Handle Animal, on the other hand, does. So I have no problem with it. Although I think some things, like bat swarms, are absurd. I've been trying to prove that, but they keep getting blown up. At some point I'll do it.
Vathelokai 12-10-06, 07:38 PM	Dr. Benway is actually a literary character created by William Burroughs. He appeared in almost all the books written by Burroughs. The first appearence of him was in the book Naked Lunch, which was published in 1959. Over the next 7 years there were repeated attempts to have the book labled obscene and banned, and fines placed on the author and publishers. In 1966 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it was not obsenity. Benway is an 'old time' doctor from the late 1800s. He is disdainfull of the 'new-fangled' medicines and techiniques of the '40s. He generally wishes for a return to the days before liscensing, drug control, and oversight. The following quote is one of his earlier appearances, and sums up his character fairly well. The lavatory has been locked for three hours solid.... I think they are using it for an operating room.... NURSE: "I can't find her pulse, doctor." DR. BENWAY: "Maybe she got it up her ****** in a finger stall." NURSE: "Adrenalin, doctor?" DR. BENWAY: "The night porter shot it all up for kicks." He looks around and picks up one of those rubber vacuum cups at the end of a stick they use to unstop toilets.... He advances on the patient.... "Make an incision, Doctor Limpf," he says to his appalled assistant.... "I'm going to massage the heart." Dr. Limpf shrugs and begins the incision. Dr. Benway washes the suction cup by swishing it around in the toilet-bowl.... NURSE: "Shouldn't it be sterilized, doctor?" DR. BENWAY: "Very likely but there's no time." He sits on the suction cup like a cane seat watching his assistant make the incision.... "You young squirts couldn't lance a pimple without an electric vibrating scalpel with automatic drain and suture.... Soon we'll be operating by remote control on patients we never see.... We'll be nothing but button pushers. All the skill is going out of surgery.... All the know-how and make-do... Did I ever tell you about the time I performed an appendectomy with a rusty sardine can? And once I was caught short without instrument one and removed a uterine tumor with my teeth. That was in the Upper Effendi, and besides..." DR. LIMPF: "The incision is ready, doctor." Dr. Benway forces the cup into the incision and works it up and down. Blood spurts all over the doctors, the nurse and the wall.... The cup makes a horrible sucking sound. NURSE: "I think she's gone, doctor." DR. BENWAY: "Well, it's all in the day's work." He walks across the room to a medicine cabinet.... "Some ****ing drug addict has cut my cocaine with Saniflush! Nurse! Send the boy out to fill this RX on the double!" Exerpt from Naked Lunch William Seward Burroughs, 1959
Sindorin 12-10-06, 09:08 PM	:bow: Very nice...
SauroGrenom 12-10-06, 11:40 PM	For the sake of summary, I'll let you I've counted all the entries on the websight I posted above. There are 161 entries listed with a LA. Of those 13 are templates, so they probably shouldn't count. There are only 23 of the remaining 148 monster where the LA is different from the CR by more than 2. Monster (CR-LA) *Chimera (5) Criosphinx (4) *Dragonne (3) Gynosphinx (4) Drider (3) Young Copper Dragon (3) *Hill Giant (3) Juvenile Black Dragon (3) Juvenile Brass Dragon (4) Frost Giant (5) Juvenile Copper Dragon (5) Stone Giant (4) Fire Giant (6) *Grey Render (3) Androsphinx (4) Treant (3) Lammasu (3) Athach (3) Young Gold Dragon (3) Rakshasa (3) Couatl (3) Trumpet Archon (6) Astral Deva (6) Only 4 of the above creatures are on the diplomacy allies list. They are marked with a *, and the ECL of these creatures would be calculated using the LA given in the monster entry. Clearly the CR is appropreat for almost 85% of all monsters to esitmate LA within +/-2. Also CR is able to predict LA within +/-3 for 93% of all creatures. This means that a character using a diplomacy ally will get access to an ally of simular potency as the leadership cohort within 2 levels at least 85% of the time. That looks good to me. If you absolutely must have house rules allowing non-core diplomacy allies, this is clearly the way to go. With animals the mechanism looks to be different. Here the CR of a druid animal companion is about equal to 1/2 the class levels of the druid. For rangers it's about 1/4 of class levels. Any HA allies we allow should follow the guidelines of one of these classes, and never allow any single animal more powerfull than the animal companion of the equivalent ECL druid. If we must have this mechanic as an element in CoCo, I'd suggest that HA skills allow animals simular to a ranger's animal companion.
SauroGrenom 12-11-06, 12:10 AM	Rereading my posts over the last couple days, I've realized that the conversation has drifted a bit. I'd like to bring it back to focus on what I propose. I'll give two drafts. The 1st is what I think is appropreat for Core rules. The second is a comrpomise that I think is more likely to be acceptable to Cat and those who want HA allies. Core Rules Proposal: Allow only the following types of allies: Leadership Cohorts (no followers) Class or racial features (Animal compaions, command undead, thralls, and so on) Purchased Core Allies (mounts, hunting dogs w/o advancing racial HD or customized feats and skills) Compromise Proposal: Eliminate all options to advance or customize allies gained by Diplomacy, HA or purchased. All diplomacy allies are limited to ECL-2 as the max CA (they count as leadership cohorts). If the creature has no LA listed, then use CR=LA for the calculation of ECL. HA allies are limited to max CR=1/4ECL (MQ reward allies simular to ranger companions). Purchased Allies Max CR = 1/2ECL. Total CR of all allies= 1/2 ECL (combined CR of all HA and purchased allies). I hope that the Core Rules proposal is accepted, but if not, then the compromise suggestion may be acceptable.
Gonbow 12-11-06, 12:32 AM	Core Rules Proposal: Allow only the following types of allies: Leadership Cohorts (no followers) Class or racial features (Animal compaions, command undead, thralls, and so on) Purchased Core Allies (mounts, hunting dogs w/o advancing racial HD or customized feats and skills) This is, very simply put, not core. While I understand the arguement for the removal/reduction of allies and heartily agree with it, as it has never been an aspect of CoCo that I enjoyed... if this change is going to be grounded in the argument of keeping things Core I will have to request that there be no half measures. The balancing of extreme things like the Energy -Foo- chain, sure. But Leadership followers? No, I don't see a reason to ban them from CoCo at this time. While the concern about Red Wizards using circle magic has been raised... if Circle Magic is unbalanced, then fix Circle Magic! I do not think Cohort Followers are inherently unbalanced. Just my 2 cents.
SauroGrenom 12-11-06, 01:07 AM	I remember something in the the core rules specificially say that your Cohort will adventure with you, but your "followers" will not. This means that your followers don't participate in all your battles with you. Clearly followers who won't go into a scary tomb with you also won't go into an arena with you. Besides the circle magic thing is a red herring. Followers are said to be members of NPC classes. You cannot particiapte in circle magic if you are an NPC class. By core rules this circle magic thing was never a real possibility in combination with this feat. That's not to say that circle magic won't work. I've said before that a wizard who is in a team with another wizard and who both have wizard cohorts will have the necessary participants for circle magic. If you want to make it happen, then more power to you.
Gonbow 12-11-06, 01:11 AM	I remember something in the the core rules specificially say that your Cohort will adventure with you, but your "followers" will not. This means that your followers don't participate in all your battles with you. Clearly followers who won't go into a scary tomb with you also won't go into an arena with you. Besides the circle magic thing is a red herring. Followers are said to be members of NPC classes. You cannot particiapte in circle magic if you are an NPC class. By core rules this circle magic thing was never a real possibility in combination with this feat. That's not to say that circle magic won't work. I've said before that a wizard who is in a team with another wizard and who both have wizard cohorts will have the necessary participants for circle magic. If you want to make it happen, then more power to you. Well. I don't see anything like that in the SRD. It says they are NPCs (Not NPC-classes) who are rarely effective at combat because they are five levels below the PC. I don't see any restrictions on them adventuring, due to cowardice or otherwise.. or what class they can be. If the book version of the feat goes into greater detail, so be it, but I'm just not seeing anything to back that up at this time. Number of Followers by Level: The character can lead up to the indicated number of characters of each level. Followers are similar to cohorts, except they’re generally low-level NPCs. Because they’re generally five or more levels behind the character they follow, they’re rarely effective in combat. Followers don’t earn experience and thus don’t gain levels. However, when a character with Leadership attains a new level, the player consults the table above to determine if she has acquired more followers, some of which may be higher level than the existing followers. (You don’t consult the table to see if your cohort gains levels, however, because cohorts earn experience on their own.)
SauroGrenom 12-11-06, 01:05 PM	Well. I don't see anything like that in the SRD. It says they are NPCs (Not NPC-classes) who are rarely effective at combat because they are five levels below the PC. I don't see any restrictions on them adventuring, due to cowardice or otherwise.. or what class they can be. If the book version of the feat goes into greater detail, so be it, but I'm just not seeing anything to back that up at this time.*Shrug* I cannot find the reference now. Perhaps it was in the 3.0 rules. In any case this feat is an optional feat that is in the DMG not the PHB. The DM is given the option to arbitrate the use of this feat as appropriate for his campaign. Since we don't have a "DM" to arbitrate on a case by case basis, we need the rules to represent a decision that is appropriate for our setting. It is entirely within the scope of the Core rules to place setting appropriate limits on what the leadership feat allows. For a 1 on 1 PvP combat setting the leadership followers really look inappropriate, especially if we allow characters to team up with other characters… Basic point is that I think that leadership followers shouldn’t be allowed, and there is a core rules justification for not allowing it. You can feel free to disagree. I suppose that at this point, unless someone else want’s to contribute to the discussion, what happens is up to Cat.
Krytos 12-11-06, 02:11 PM	I don't know what version of the PHB you have, but the Leadership feat is on page 97, right above the picture of the archer. It's also in the chart on page 90. And to top it all off, Leadership is in the SRD feats section. As a side note, I'm going to start keeping a seperate win/loss record for my fights that include allies (Of all kinds except class features). If it bugs enough people enough to want to get rid of it, I think some factual data collection is in order. We say that allies throws fights, but do we have proof?
hogarth 12-11-06, 02:17 PM	I don't know what version of the PHB you have, but the Leadership feat is on page 97, right above the picture of the archer. It's also in the chart on page 90. And to top it all off, Leadership is in the SRD feats section. I suspect I know what version he has -- the 3.0 version, same one I do!
spasheridan 12-11-06, 02:24 PM	I made a suggestion re:followers a few days back - do they look and feel like decent uses of followers in this setting? Would you prefer they were just absent entirely? If I was in a campagin with followers I can't imagine asking them to be spear carriers, I would be too annoyed at all the resources I wasted keeping them alive to avoid the penalty if they died, so I would want them as friends and contacts in town, as an rp resource and a small usefull tool - folks who would do some research for me while I was away, folks who would find merchants to purchase some nice loot from, maybe do a little rumor gathering to help me find my next adventure.
McJarvis 12-11-06, 02:32 PM	I would be too annoyed at all the resources I wasted keeping them alive to avoid the penalty if they died I believe in 3.5 the penalty for the death of followers is not cumulative-> only the penalty for cohort death is. I consider the penalty for followers to be a "Oh, following that guy is dangerous...be warned!" kind of effect.(Like joining the Army) Regardless, at Table Top games I use followers whenever I get the leadership feat. They follow my character around in a caravan & set up camp for the party//heal the party(I usually get alot of clerics). Occassionally I'll even have a few be bards so they can follow the party into battle & inspire them.
Hirumajoe 12-11-06, 02:38 PM	Rereading my posts over the last couple days, I've realized that the conversation has drifted a bit. I'd like to bring it back to focus on what I propose. I'll give two drafts. The 1st is what I think is appropreat for Core rules. The second is a comrpomise that I think is more likely to be acceptable to Cat and those who want HA allies. Core Rules Proposal: Allow only the following types of allies: Leadership Cohorts (no followers) Class or racial features (Animal compaions, command undead, thralls, and so on) Purchased Core Allies (mounts, hunting dogs w/o advancing racial HD or customized feats and skills) Compromise Proposal: Eliminate all options to advance or customize allies gained by Diplomacy, HA or purchased. All diplomacy allies are limited to ECL-2 as the max CA (they count as leadership cohorts). If the creature has no LA listed, then use CR=LA for the calculation of ECL. HA allies are limited to max CR=1/4ECL (MQ reward allies simular to ranger companions). Purchased Allies Max CR = 1/2ECL. Total CR of all allies= 1/2 ECL (combined CR of all HA and purchased allies). I hope that the Core Rules proposal is accepted, but if not, then the compromise suggestion may be acceptable. You're forgetting one other method of getting temporary allies. Spells. The Planar Ally and the Planar Binding series of spells (might be others I'm forgetting). However, in the Planar Ally case, you're spending something like 3780-6780 gp for a 6HD elemental or outsider for a single 3FC, and in the Planar Binding case, there's no guarantee it'll work. As far as I can tell, the Diplomacy House rules blow this core method completely out of the water. They're even mentioned in the rules of gladius, but I've *never* seen any fights recorded where allies from this method were pre-buffed. If there have been, I'd love to take a look at them. Just my two cents. Edit: Oh sweet. Thanks Hogarth. Don't know how I missed that. Taking a look now. Edit2: I will now say that I've never seen any fights recorded from this method that didn't take advantage of house rules that were pre-buffed.
hogarth 12-11-06, 02:45 PM	The Planar Ally and the Planar Binding series of spells (might be others I'm forgetting). However, in the Planar Ally case, you're spending something like 3780-6780 gp for a 6HD elemental or outsider for a single 3FC, and in the Planar Binding case, there's no guarantee it'll work. As far as I can tell, the Diplomacy House rules blow this core method completely out of the water. They're even mentioned in the rules of gladius, but I've *never* seen any fights recorded where allies from this method were pre-buffed. If there have been, I'd love to take a look at them. There was a fight last week using a Nightmare as a Planar Ally. Kraegin the Thaumaturgist got it to work for free (via another CoCo house rule): http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10821032&postcount=324
Zevox 12-11-06, 03:24 PM	You're forgetting one other method of getting temporary allies. Spells. The Planar Ally and the Planar Binding series of spells (might be others I'm forgetting). However, in the Planar Ally case, you're spending something like 3780-6780 gp for a 6HD elemental or outsider for a single 3FC, and in the Planar Binding case, there's no guarantee it'll work. As far as I can tell, the Diplomacy House rules blow this core method completely out of the water. They're even mentioned in the rules of gladius, but I've *never* seen any fights recorded where allies from this method were pre-buffed. If there have been, I'd love to take a look at them. Just my two cents. Edit: Oh sweet. Thanks Hogarth. Don't know how I missed that. Taking a look now. Edit2: I will now say that I've never seen any fights recorded from this method that didn't take advantage of house rules that were pre-buffed. Those would fall under the "class features" part of his list, don't you think? Spells being a class feature and all? And yes, they've seen use - Kraegin the Thaumaturge uses Lesser Planar Ally, and The Harvester, the old version of Anixx the Warbringer, and the retired Enoch the Prophet all use(d) Animate Dead to get undead allies. Its not common (probably because Leadership, Diplomacy, and Handle Animal are more appealing for most characters), but its out there. Zevox
SauroGrenom 12-11-06, 03:42 PM	You're forgetting one other method of getting temporary allies. Spells.I lumped that one under the class features idea. Animate dead, summon monster... and many other spells give more or less temporary or permanent allies. Since they are spell effects, they should probably be allowed.
Hirumajoe 12-11-06, 04:17 PM	I lumped that one under the class features idea. Animate dead, summon monster... and many other spells give more or less temporary or permanent allies. Since they are spell effects, they should probably be allowed. I was actually thinking more along the lines of NPC spell casting service getting you allies via Planar ally, for non-casters I guess. But you're right, those all fall under class features.
Guildmaster (WAR) 12-14-06, 12:55 AM	The regiments from a campaign alliance need no barracks. They are not stationed in any district but are drafted - ie with REC points - normally. You need to pay the draft cost everytime anew. Also, they work differently then conscripts in that they can be drafted offensively and they are always militia regiments. They have nothing to do with the militia development that is only applicable for conscripts from your structures. Okay, I didn't fully understand this when I read it, but perhaps I do now. These regiments from Achos are no different from other regiments except that WAR/CEF don't have to shelter them or upkeep them. Otherwise, they are usable by processing REC-PTS. Right? As for the district attitude, the CEF hasn't moved into Gawane yet. You need a Chapter House to apply all district modifiers. When the Tournament Site is finished, the CEF may not apply its guild traits (+2FAI, +1NEG) to the income but likewise, the attitude plays no role. That's the whole point about outposts: attitude effects do not apply unless you have a Chapter House there. Structures are actually seen as a boon by the citizen (see Guildhall: Structures) so even a hostile district won't attack your structure if you have no Chapter House there. After reading the rules again I think I expressed it clearly enough. This makes no sense to me. The district doesn't like you, but they'll let you build a structure there so that they can support you? UNLESS you build a chapterhouse (which makes the district SAFER) and THEN they start rebelling. It makes no sense. Either they like you or they don't. For example: people don't like the mob. If an establishment is known to be run by the mob, people don't go there and spend their money. In fact, if the mob opened up a house of ill-repute next to their kindergarten, there'd be riots in the streets. I don't think they care if the mob converted their hideout down the street into a mansion, there'd still be rioting before the mansion got there. For a guild to be able to gain resources from a district, the citizen should be convinced to support that guild. If they don't like you, you have negative defense. If they don't care, they don't care, and if they like you, they like you. A chapterhouse only makes things worse (the loss of attitude when a guild occupies a district). I don't understand how building a chapterhouse (which is supposed to make a district safer) can make it more unsafe. My two cents.
Guildmaster (WAR) 12-14-06, 01:48 AM	It appears that Ixenthor has headhunted staff more than once in four weeks. Once on Nov 22 and once on Dec 6th. There was no Peaceful Operation undertaken between these two incidents by CEF. And might I take a moment to say that Headhunt staff is too powerful? What if it was used against someone with no REC-PTS? That's 500 gp per 10 staff. CEF has hunted 5 staff the first time (500 gp of "damage" since you can't hire only 5 staff at a time. They MUST be hired in groups of 10) and 19 staff the second time (1000 gp of "damage"). Also, this "damage" does not include the loss of income from the structure which must be replaced by spending a GAP. So this operation also causes the loss of a GAP, too. That's three seperate hurts for one "peaceful" operation. It's pretty serious. Also, didn't CEF spend 600 REC to hire 24 staff for the Tournament site? This is illegal, since they must be hired in groups of 10. If there are excess, you have to let them go or pay upkeep on them.
TheMagister 12-14-06, 05:22 AM	Also, buying a CAP with 1000gp really makes guilds with large numbers of high level characters more powerful. Three ECL 10 raids a week? That's harsh.
Caterane 12-14-06, 07:52 AM	These regiments from Achos are no different from other regiments except that WAR/CEF don't have to shelter them or upkeep them. Otherwise, they are usable by processing REC-PTS. Right? No. They are very different. They are more like conscripts but are not considered conscripts so everywhere where you explicitely need conscripts you cannot use these regiments and everywhere where it says 'regiments' it requires hired stationed regiments. These Achos troops are just for attack or defense. Nothing else. This makes no sense to me. The district doesn't like you, but they'll let you build a structure there so that they can support you? UNLESS you build a chapterhouse (which makes the district SAFER) and THEN they start rebelling. It makes no sense. Either they like you or they don't. For example: people don't like the mob. If an establishment is known to be run by the mob, people don't go there and spend their money. In fact, if the mob opened up a house of ill-repute next to their kindergarten, there'd be riots in the streets. I don't think they care if the mob converted their hideout down the street into a mansion, there'd still be rioting before the mansion got there. It's not a question of wether it makes sense to you or not; only that these are the rules. If you need an explanation: Structures are seen as a boon in this struggling war-torn city with so much poverty and destruction. If there's now a new factory that employs new workers, then the citizen are glad about that. An outpost is seen as no intrusion; just a gathering point of some guild guys. But a Chapter House is an administration that governs the district and as such the citizen see this as a threat. A bigger threat than the structure is a boon. For a guild to be able to gain resources from a district, the citizen should be convinced to support that guild. If they don't like you, you have negative defense. If they don't care, they don't care, and if they like you, they like you. A chapterhouse only makes things worse (the loss of attitude when a guild occupies a district). The thing you miss here is that without a Chapter House you don't generate or process ressources at all. You need to control it to benefit from that. I asked MWB to underline the word 'control a district' in the rules section where this is mentioned so that it's clear. It appears that Ixenthor has headhunted staff more than once in four weeks. Once on Nov 22 and once on Dec 6th. There was no Peaceful Operation undertaken between these two incidents by CEF. ...with Sir Valkin being on the contest, a peaceful operation on the 29th. And might I take a moment to say that Headhunt staff is too powerful? What if it was used against someone with no REC-PTS? That's 500 gp per 10 staff. CEF has hunted 5 staff the first time (500 gp of "damage" since you can't hire only 5 staff at a time. They MUST be hired in groups of 10) and 19 staff the second time (1000 gp of "damage"). Also, this "damage" does not include the loss of income from the structure which must be replaced by spending a GAP. So this operation also causes the loss of a GAP, too. That's three seperate hurts for one "peaceful" operation. It's pretty serious. So Ixenthor dealt 500 damage on week 1, then 950 damage on week 3. Ceila is just going to deal 1828 damage in a single week but this is okay for you? :confused: Also, didn't CEF spend 600 REC to hire 24 staff for the Tournament site? This is illegal, since they must be hired in groups of 10. If there are excess, you have to let them go or pay upkeep on them. It's not mentioned anywhere in the rules that you have to recruit them in scores of 10. That's only true for regiments. Perhaps we can clarify that in the rules. Also, buying a CAP with 1000gp really makes guilds with large numbers of high level characters more powerful. Three ECL 10 raids a week? That's harsh. We need additional uses for money and that's a good one. We could up it to to 2000 gp for a CAP but we should first see it in action. Even a successful EL 10 mission doesn't earn you 2000 gp so it's probably too expensive. I've been thinking about doing the same for a GAP although at a much higher price. Still, this should be reserved for later in the game.
Zevox 12-14-06, 08:23 AM	We need additional uses for money Wait, what? You mean that requiring it to build anything and everything plus having the option to use it to hire staff isn't enough yet :confused: ? Seems like its already about as essential as anything gets in this system. Zevox
Caterane 12-14-06, 08:46 AM	Heh, but once you have two three structures up you don't have that problem anymore. The CEF is spending around 2-3000 gp a week and its treasury is still filling up. It will be the same for other guilds. At the time when you control three districts, money won't be an issue anymore. That's why we should start to think about additional uses. Btw, we've thought about making CON and PRO more attractive as their uses are too situational atm. My suggestion is to allow building structures/HQs with CON points at no gold cost, and rooms with PRO points at no cost. The alternative to just buy it with 1000 gold per GAP stays. We currently have the same mechanic for staff: either you pay gold or you hire them with REC for free. Thoughts? Alternatives for CON/PRO? Or for money?
McJarvis 12-14-06, 10:27 AM	Thoughts? Alternatives for CON/PRO? Or for money? I don't have any other ideas: but I think it's silly to say "We're going to run into problems with guilds having too much money" and "We need a new innovative way to use CON/PRO points! I know, lets make them save the guilds money!" at the same time. =\
SauroGrenom 12-14-06, 06:31 PM	The regiments rules are a bit fuzzy on your ability to project force around the map. CEF and WAR have regiments now, and there is basicially no limit on how they can march through the city. CEF could attack Dragor Mounds or Villis. The forces should be limited to attacking districts adjacent to one you control. Also it's not clear if you can use an army to sack a structure if a chapterhouse is in the district. The rules say the chapterhouse "protects" the district, but what does that mean? Are regiments forced to attack the headquarters before attacking structures? If not, then there is no point to building headquarters except local guild point processing and countermeasures.
Guildmaster (WAR) 12-14-06, 06:50 PM	So Ixenthor dealt 500 damage on week 1, then 950 damage on week 3. Ceila is just going to deal 1828 damage in a single week but this is okay for you? Celia is dealing the listed amount of damage to a guild that has a structure in a district with a hostile PMG. Ixenthor is dealing the listed amount of damage to a guild at its strongest points, and the damage is not static, but compounded by other factors. Taking out 5 staff from a structure costs 500gp in replacement cost, a GAP (to replace those staff), and the loss of income from that structure. Losing only 5 staff has this effect on a class A structure: WAR's Battle Theatre (Class "A"): Full Efficiency: 165*10.25=1691gp Post Headhunt: (165/40)*35=144. The structure's new efficiency has dropped to 144. 144*10.25=1476. 1691-1476=215gp. So Ixenthor on a (thankfully) poor roll vs. a (thankfully) high roll on WAR's part dealt 715 gp of damage. On Ixenthor's second outing: Staff: If you do not have the required amount of staff, all institutions that generate or process guild points in this district lose efficiency. Calculate "Generated Points" divided by "Staff Needed" multiplied by "Staff Assigned". Example: your two Assembly Halls process only 300 Production Points in a Chapter House with 6 Staff (500/10*6=300). Ixenthor headhunted 29/40 staff from WAR's guildhall on an average roll vs. an average roll. WAR was able to replace 10 of them, bringing our magic total to 21/40 staff. WAR now produces and processes only 52.5% of its normal guildpoints this week. This is not peaceful. It's cripplingly devastating. On a good roll vs. a bad roll on headhunting guildhall staff, Ixenthor would make it NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE for WAR to replace staff (can't process REC-PTS, and can only buy them at 500gp/10 with a GAP). WAR can't spend money it doesn't have, so my treasury being at 1500gp (or thereabouts) at the time of the attack means that Ixenthor basically completely halts my forward progress with ONE operation. I would have to spend 1 GAP to drain my coffers to replace staff, and wouldn't be able to spend my 2nd GAP because I can't process anything for an entire week. After spending a week recovering (in which CEF spends a CAP REACTION to participate in a contest and calls it a "peaceful operation" [and aren't those two different things?!]), Ixenthor can do it again, dealing the finishing blow to a guild with one character. And you DON'T have a problem with that?
Caterane 12-14-06, 07:42 PM	First of all, Ix did 215 gp damage since you can rehire staff at no cost. That's in no way comparable to Ceila's 1830 damage which also needs a GAP and gold and ressources (CON) and facilities to be repaired (which we don't even have). Next, Ix hunted 19 and not 29 staff as you said. Just like Ceila attacks a district with no defenses, Ixenthor is opposed by a guild with no diplomacy or knowledge dungeoneering value at all. The last headhunt action Ix rolled [10] vs your [2] which is not average as you say. And even despite that huge difference in skill values, the first headhunt was only 5 staff. If we weaken that mechanic, then any guild with a bit of diplomacy or knowledge can auto-resist headhunts which would make this type of operation useless. Everyone has a weak spot - it's covert operations for the CEF, and apparently it's peaceful operations for WAR. What distinguishes Peaceful Ops however is the fact that they cannot be intercepted. I think this can be changed to be in line with other actions. That way you can intercept Ixenthor in the future. Another thought is to make staff universal instead of specific so that there's only one type of staff period. That'd allow WAR or anyone else to reroute staff from one structure to another or a HQ should they need it. With that your ressource generation is not in jeopardy. I'll discuss both with MWB. PS: The Operation that removed the staff from your HQ took place on DEC 13. Your new staff does not arrive until the end of this week, ie DEC 20 so you do not gain the ressources from the new staff for this week.
TheMagister 12-14-06, 07:59 PM	You still have not addressed how Ixenthor was even allowed to headhunt twice in three weeks. A CAP reaction is not the same as hosting the contest.
Guildmaster (WAR) 12-14-06, 08:28 PM	You still have not addressed how Ixenthor was even allowed to headhunt twice in three weeks. A CAP reaction is not the same as hosting the contest. I'd like to add that, if participating in a contest is qualifies as "going on a peaceful op", then intercepting an assault or a covert op is also the same as going on one. What distinguishes Peaceful Ops however is the fact that they cannot be intercepted. I think this can be changed to be in line with other actions. That way you can intercept Ixenthor in the future. And they don't require a miniquest, either. Frankly, a random monster at ECL 10 has a better chance of stopping Ixenthor or Uhme than just about any other ECL 10 out there. {shrug} I'm actually quite flattered that you feel you have to use them to stop WAR. TICKED, but flattered, too.
Caterane 12-16-06, 05:25 AM	I received a long letter yesterday from one of the guildmasters saying that he and several other guildmasters are on the brink of stepping down. I don't want to post it in detail but the core of it was that 1- I have too many of my characters in the CEF 2- My characters are too powerful for the guild game 3- I know the rules too well 4- I change the rules to gain an advantage in the game 5- The guild system doesn't work if all guilds are not equal (1) I don't think that two characters are a problem. I don't think having 10 characters in a guild are a problem. Remember Niqil's 4 horsemen. No one complained. You say all of my super characters are in the CEF when it's actually only Uhme and Ix, not Merman, Indri, Harvester, or my new projects Umbralok, Lazarus, and Requiem. That's just not true. (2) So it's forbidden for me to participate in the guild game because they're too powerful? Everyone can play a wizard like Uhme; he's pretty stereotype. It's more the tactic that matters. So you mean Caterane should not participate in the guild game? (3) They are out there for everyone to read. Although I have written them, I frequently take half an hour to reread the whole thing to keep it fresh in my mind. Everyone can do the same. Without that I would forget one or the other rule soon so it's about me being too diligent for the guild game? (4) This has nothing to do with the CEF! My job is Game Master and having a working system is my top priority. When I wrote the guild system I couldn't foresee all issues and that's why I have to adept it here and there. Besides, this is an accusation. (5) That's not true. It is a fact of life that we are not equally strong. If I am the president of Mexico, I wouldn't attack the US to gain control of Gawane uh I mean Texas. TM knew that he has only 1 active level 10 character, Sdentch the barbarian, and the CEF has six ECL 10 plus two ECL 9 characters. That's 8 vs 1. If you still attack despite these odds, then it's definately not the fault of the system. I could have launched a 5 CAP week right from the beginning on but didn't. I realize one thing though. It doesn't matter how good my answers to these concerns are. If you say that Vath, Zevox, Sauro and TM are frustrated and about to quit, then no answer I can give will satisfy you guys ...unless something changes. As I said, I am the Game Master and my prime concern is about a working board, and in particular a running guild system. Anything else, like running a guild or playing my characters, is nothing else but having my own fun between all the workload. I cannot risk to lose even one guildmaster. For that reason, I am stepping down as Guildmaster of CEF as soon as a substitute has been found (Assistent Guildmaster Pittbull has no time). I will further remove all my characters from the guild game as soon as the new guildmaster takes my place. Cat PS: I am not miffed or mad or some such thing. Really. But when I hear that several guildmasters are on the brink of leaving, I am very concerned and have to do everything to prevent that. 4 out of 5 points mentioned by you are about my person and you said the others share that opinion. I am not going to risk seeing the whole guild system fall apart into which I have invested so much time and energy. I love that system far too much to let that happen. If that means I cannot participate anymore, then fine if it goes on afterwards.
McJarvis 12-16-06, 10:33 AM	TM knew that he has only 1 active level 10 character, Sdentch the barbarian, and the CEF has six ECL 10 plus two ECL 9 characters. That's 8 vs 1. This factoid is the main reason why many guild masters have to not care about the guild-game. For instance, CEF has more ECL9+ characters than LOY even has members, period. I'm not saying I was one of the ones who was frustrated enough to step down as guildmaster-> but I am more or less resigned to the CEF winning. Also note that I understand that CEF is the most powerful & LOY is the least powerful(and a startup guild, no less), but I think it's safe to say CEF is hands and feet above everyone else in this matter. Perhaps a reasonable answer would be to institute a ECL cap on guilds that is relative to the other ones...but I'm not sure if this would be popular(and obviously would just be me changing the rules to benefit LOY ;) ) The only other concern I really was feeling was that you are more familiar with the rules than everyone else & just this once the rules seemed to change in the CEF's favor. CEF did 4 low-grade structures to max out on gp income-> I decided not to request such a change for LOY because I didn't see the point of having massive gp income. Then the rules changed to let GP=1 Cap/week and my decision based on the rules earlier was less-relevent. But honestly, the GP=CAP thing is the only example I can think of where a rules change was made directly for CEF. (though I haven't been around super-long)
Zevox 12-16-06, 11:17 AM	If you say that Vath, Zevox, Sauro and TM are frustrated and about to quit Wait, whoever sent this said I was one of the ones on the brink of leaving? Thats not true (incidentally, from a PM I got, I don't think its true for Vath either). I'm damn frustrated by the fact that not only can I not see anyone but the CEF winning unless they're taken out quickly, but that even now they could destroy pretty much any Guild they wanted if they wanted with no help and little trouble, and that as soon as that campaign of yours wraps up they'll have enough regiments ready for drafting that its just a matter of getting large amounts of recruitment generation and processing (which you're already up to in Gawane in spite of having a pretty good amount from Arkhein already, surprise surprise) before you have yet another way of mowing everyone down with little difficulty. *deep breath* But I have no intentions of quitting here. I've grown too attached to the EHTC to leave it hanging like that. If I'm stuck sitting back and waiting for an inevitable CEF victory, so be it - I've been resigned to that for a while. Its not much fun doing so, but it can be done, and at least I get to RP in the meantime. Incidentally, as McJarvis said, that buying CAPs thing does look pretty suspicious to me. Anyone can see that benefits the CEF far more than anyone, since they have the most money, high income, and the most numerous and powerful characters to use those CAPs with. Besides, wasn't the previous intent to get a new room or two and have those be the ones that get you more CAPs? Seems buying them is imbalanced compared to that if you ask me - gets more costly to use constantly, true, but without the drawbacks of upkeep (constant cost even when not used) or using SS in a building (big cost there). Zevox
Vathelokai 12-16-06, 11:47 AM	Well, I said nothing of stepping down. I think my position has been fairly clear all along; I prefer the rp aspect of the guilds and will persue that no matter the rules. Appart from that, let me address the concerns mentioned. 1)Although Ix and Uhme are increadibly powerfull, I don't believe they are the problem. Other ECL10s can compete with them, but Sdentch cannot. I think this becomes more of a problem with Cat running them; Our GM just happens to be great with Tactics and can take a stereotype character and win most of the time. Decision: the characters are not the problem. 2) Once again, Cat has mad skills. The characters are built well. But your rebuttal says it; "you mean [cat] shouldn't participate in the guild game?" I personally think the characters should stay. But Cat's level of involvement (as mentioned in the next points) is at issue. 3) Your dilligence in keeping up on the rules is above anything the other guildmasters can muster. Speaking only for myself, I barely find the time to keep my guild roster, etc. updated. I simply don't have 1/2 an hour to re-read the rules. The only time I have read any of them since they were first posted, is when there is a notice of rules change, or when I'm planning a mission. Decision: your diligence is not a problem, I envy your schedule far more. 4) Ah, the accusation. Yes, we fully admit it is an accusation. Here's what I'm seeing. Cat updates CEF, Cat spends the day thinking in the back of his mind about the strategy he wants to persue, Cat realizes that CEF (or any other guild) will not be able to do something because of a rule, Cat changes the rule. Afterwords, Cat thinks to himself that all guilds have benefited from the change. Note, at no point (in my example) did Cat think to himself 'CEF would be so ahead if this rule was different'. My point is that as a GM you will see the rules problems that effect your guild first, because you spend the most time on it. There's hardly a way around that. So it creates the impression (and sometimes the truth) that the rules that get changed benefit the CEF before they benefit the other guilds. If we were to restart the guilds with the current rules, yes they would be balanced, but being that you are making adjustments to the rules as the game is in progress it creates it's own series of balance issues which you seem to not consider as problems. 5) Of course the guilds are not equal: the problem is that they did not start equal. CEF started ahead, stayed ahead, and still ahead despite numerous conflicts. The first two of those has little to do with the guild system, and only the third is connected to how we played the game. 6) I don't wish to be rude, but I do believe it is best not to have a person running a guild who also has the power to change the rules. I do not believe that you had any desire to manipulate the system to your benefit; I do believe that you have a subconcious bias - and my reasoning for that is that you are human, and I have yet to meet a human who does not see the problems in front of them first and the problems in front of others second, despite their best intentions. However, I see no reason to remove your characters. That seems excessive; I see the complaints you outlined above against the characters as generally unfounded, and only a problem in that there is a GM/Guildmaster/player conflict of intererst. Being that you have characters in other guilds, it seems obvious to me that guildmaster/gm relationship is the only real conflict of interest. Now having addressed that post, I will continue writing my general opinions in the next post...
Caterane 12-16-06, 12:04 PM	Quick reply (have little time atm) to point 4, the bias: I hope you all remember that the amount of CAPs was previously based on guild ECL which allowed the CEF almost 6 CAPs. I changed that. And I have no interest in throwing out a guild. I am only interested in the guild game going on long enough with the highest number of guilds still ingame.
Vathelokai 12-16-06, 12:22 PM	I see I was not explicit... I don't accuse of having a bias all the time. Your intention is the best game possible. I don't mean to imply that you never see the other guilds problems, or that you always fix CEFs problems first; only that you see them first. It is subtle, and not a bad thing (merely a human thing). I'll get back to my long post now...
Vathelokai 12-16-06, 12:56 PM	Warning; this is a ramble___The points all connect but in no particular order. Not being privy to the above mentioned PM, I can only make assumptions on it's content; so I will state my case from the best of the knowledge available to me. I don't know of a guildmaster who would step down; none have said anything to me anyway, but I don't IM very much, so I don't know. However, a couple guildmasters have said that having their guilds go nova to to balance out the guilds is an option. I could see this being construed as 'guildmaster dropping out' but it is more of a whole guild dropping out, and then only potentially. The nova option has been on my mind for about a year now. Numerous guildmasters have come to the conclusion that CEF is neigh unstopable. This early in the game, crippling the CEF (as was done to EHTC and EYE), is possible at the expense of another guild. If CEF is allowed to expand further and have 40 odd regiments at their disposal, they would be completely unstoppable. Looking over CEFs current projects, they are only a month or so away from that place. At that point CEF has the power to do whatever they want with minimal threat of retaliation unless all guilds join forces. The guildmaster of CEF seems baffled that multiple guilds would consider doing something now about that. It's a friggin strategy game; what kind of strategy lets a potential enemy aquire unlimited power early on? I'd like to bring attention to the statement in the war thread... Gooy boy, what's your aim here TM? If there'll be a full-scale war at this early stage in the game, there's surely one or the other guild dropping out! Your festhall is already down if those three ops succeed and if your theater falls aswell WAR is out; 2 weeks of 5-CAPs each kills off the EHTC guildhall. Of course, CEF would suffer enough damage to be out of the game too. As inventor of this game who has invested so much time into this system (half my summer this year!) my hairs begin to stand up when I see you rousing all guilds to end-war only 3 months after the new system began. The way is the game, not the final result (which will hopefully be years away). I would've offered a truce after the festhall is down. You can have it immideately if you like. To be honest I have no idea why you attacked CEF in the first place.1)What's wrong with a full scale war at this stage of the game? I know you want to make the game last a few years, but 2 guilds killing each other off is not the end of the game; it even makes the remaining guilds fight harder for the newly opened map space. 2) Amazing! RP is completely not covered in the guild rules, and that seems to be the only strategy that freaked out CEF. 3) 'The way is the game, not the final result' ...? A couple guilds going out will not end the game. Second, the final result is secondary? Perhaps this way of looking at the guild system is why you don't take our mention of CEF being a predetermined winner seriously. 4) A truce after the festhall is down? So let me get this straight; any guild that opposes you will be crippled then allowed to live as long as they are non combative and have no power to expand. Sounds like a bit less than a truce. 5) No idea why CEF was attacked? I'll explain it___Way back in the day CEF and EHTC were fighting. EHTC was outclassed. CEF always sent one more PC than EHTC could defend against. This continued until WAR (under Stormwinds leadership), decided that is was unbalanced, and as a neutral guild with PCs crossing her territory she sent Varjo to balance things out. This, combined with the other warring guilds becoming weakend lead to this autumns general truce. WAR recognized the strategy at that point; cripple a guild and leave them as a buffer against other strong guilds. RP wise, WAR has always supported the resistance movement of Gawane. When CEF began moving in to Gawane, two things happened; First a realization that the CEF was moving to build an army and needed the leisure structures, Second they began attacking (at least RP wise) the Gawane Resistance. Strategy wise, this ment that WAR would have trouble getting enough rescources in leisure for a counter army. So WAR restarted the conflict, once again seeing a threat to the balance of the city and themselves comming from the celestial direction. WAR is of the opinion that this is the last chance before CEF becomes unstopable. Do you blame them (i didn't ask if they were right, I asked if you blame them of their opinion)? So why not global war at this point? Can the system not handle it? As you say, you want the most guilds around for the longest time. But how does that benefit? I see a philisophical difference; From a playtesting standpoint, having many guilds with many options is good. From a strategy standpoint, having many guilds with multiple options is very bad. Those of us interested in winning have to consider the strategy in long term, and the consensus seems to be that CEF is on the brink of winning already. Cat seems fairly confused at such a response, though it seems completely rational to me. Except for the scale it is similiar to CEFs past actions; show them who is boss then leave them weakend after offering a truce. RP wise, there are 2 guilds who have been fighting with CEF, other guilds that want a balance of power, another that want's outsider influence out of the city, and everyone is worried about CEF taking out the council and resistance in one move to control city politics. So from both standpoints, CEF has become a threat to all. That is the risk of being the most powerful. I think I should say something about tone, though I don't know how it will come out. I don't intend rudeness. This has come up before, but always as a side not to a current discussion. Above, Cat said "My job is Game Master and having a working system is my top priority. When I wrote the guild system I couldn't foresee all issues and that's why I have to adept it here and there. Besides, this is an accusation." What is that last bit supposed to mean? Are you simply above accusation? When mulitple people make an accusation it should at least be considered, but over the two years I've been around this is the same response to all of them. Now it is entirely possible (and probable) that the accusation (this one or past ones) are unfounded. If they are, then why not explain the position instead of brushing it off? It is good to remember that none of us (except maybe Pitt) know you in person; we can only judge on your actions and statements here on the board. My point being; people brush accusations off for 2 reasons - either because they are true or because they are rediculous. Since we don't know you, it is hard to determine which it is. Don't take it personally; there are multiple facets of leadership - you excel at some and are not so good at others. It is one thing to take others concerns seriously, it is another to let them know you take their concerns seriously; you do the first but not the second, and they are both equaly important. (Note: obviously you have made bold action to address the concerns this time; I am not blind. This is a general statment on what I have seen since the days of Jindl two years ago. I could go through and quote the events, but I don't see that as productive. *EDIT* The point being that mulitple incedences of being blown off build up over time to a point where suspicion becomes the default. By blowing off others concerns many times before addressing only one of them, people get a bitter taste. [/EDIT]) So, all, where are we at? What are we doing? Are we to playtest this thing or play to win?
SauroGrenom 12-16-06, 02:43 PM	Just so that everyone knows what was said. I'll post the email. I sent this to Cat just after midnight thursday evening. TM had sent a message to all the guildmasters expressing his thoughts, and I felt that there had been general agreement with several of his points. The actual words are as follows:I've been talking with TheMagister, and you're about to loose him. You've backed him into a corner, and I don't see a way out. You can force him to surrender and break his competitive spirit. Or he will succeed in getting a few guilds to gang up on CEF and kick your ass out of the game. Both options are not good. I don't know what you can do. But I must also say that he is voicing several very valid concerns about how you're playing the guild game. I'm very tempted to team with him. All of you super characters are in CEF and not in any other guild. You're using credits to craft (rebuild or optimize) them at high levels and they become very powerfull members of the guild. You have too much power over your guild. It's Cat's guild not a guild of several members. All the other guild masters have characters in other guilds before they have multiple characters in their own guild. Kracknol could be in PSI, but I've decided that it wouldn't be right for me to dominate my guild like that. Then there is the fact that you're the guy who writes the rules. You've made the rules very complex, and no other person can know them as well as you do. You have a distinct advantage with that. This advantage is increased every time you modify the rules even in small ways. You've had ultimate decision making power over what elements are part of the game and what are not. I don't like the guild points processing rooms, but they are in. I don't like the regiments and siege and complicated warfare, but that's in. I thought the golums idea was interesting, and that there should be some kind of "concealment" for guilds against attack, but none of that's in the game. The whole guild game is Cat's game. Recently you've been rather heavy handed in exercizing that power. I've been vocal in complaining about it, and I know that TM is ******. MWB has said he's not pleased that you sometimes change rules without talking to him about it. Your guild has an advantage in its placement on the map. You have an advantage of uber power characters of our own concentrated in your guild. You have an advantage of knowing the rules better than anyone else (you wrote them). You have the advantage of being able to change the rules to correct any imbalance. You have the advantage of having lots of credits to use whenever you need for making new characters (or items that help characters on guild related activities). The guild game has reached a point where I've decided to not fight with CEF or anyone else because I don't want to play the regiments war and maximized accounting race. A couple weeks ago when we had the last major rebuild, I came very very close to quitting. I'm only around because I decided that I'll just play the game my way. I'll be non competitive, and I'll "play nice" for the stories that get told along the way. Vath has told me he feels simularly. TM is almost there as well, because he's getting beaten and every hole he finds to attack CEF is plugged as you edit the rules. Zevox says he's not willing to attack CEF due to the beating they recieved last time. CEF is practicially immune to threat unless all the guild unite against them. This is a game where 7 people are playing, but one and only one person is making the rules as they play. The rule maker will win every time. That's so fundamentally unfare that no person can have fun being competitive playing that game once they realize the reality they face. Think about it... What would you do if everyone united against CEF and ruined the guildhall? Would you restart the guild game? Would you continue to edit the rules and follow everything every week as you do now? How you answer these questions tells something about your own investment in the game, and how capable a person can be of being fare and competitive and writing the rules as you go along. These three tasks contradict one another. Being competitive, makes it nearly impossible to be fare and write the rules as you play the game. No one can do that. But you've been trying for a while now, and it shows. You have too many advantages, and you are using them. This is making the game not fun to play. If it continues, you are sure to loose TM. Then who knows what other guild masters will fall out or loose their competitive spirit. If you want the game to continue, and you want everyone to have fun, then there needs to be a hole in the armor of CEF. You need to loose someway or else everyone things the game is a meaningless dance to the CEF final victory. I already know that it doesn't matter what I do. CEF will win in the end. TM is learning the lesson now. Zevox hopes someone else will hurt CEF so they can catch up. Vath probably learned it first. If you keep this up, pritty soon you'll be playing a game by yourself. I'm writing this with two main goals. 1: You should know that TM is at a breaking point. He rightly feels that his guild or any guild cannot compete with CEF, but that everyone should be able to. Comming to the realization that his guild will loose because of the inherent advantages CEF has is wounding his spirit. 2: You should know that the game is deteriorating because you have too many advantages and much control over the rules and you're playing the game at the same time. When the fun drains out, so does the spirit that drives the game. I don't know what you can do, or what you even want to do. But I do know that the approach that has been used so far, and the direction we are headed leads to the end of the guild system due to collapse of interest. I have no recomendations, demands or ideas right now. I'm just a messenger sharing a few observations that I've make and that I've heard from others. Cheers, BenIf I misrepresented the opinions and thought of any others, I'm sorry. Please accept my appology as it is not and never was my intention to misrepresent anyone. This is the message that precipitated Cat's reaction. Mind you I don't think he should quit, but there are problems.
Vathelokai 12-16-06, 03:17 PM	nope, no misrepresentation that I can see. Though I think Cat may have missed some of the more subtle points.
TheMagister 12-16-06, 03:30 PM	Slight misrepresentation. I'm no quitter. I'll "take one for the team" to make the game competitive though (i.e. - kill/cripple my guild in an effort to expose CEF to counter-attack by other rival guilds, thus rendering CEF "beatable"). You're my Goliath, CEF. Behold, I am David with my sling. I'm too impatient to sit back for two years until CEF can steamroll me safely underfoot with little or no effort/risk. I'm not stupid...I can see the end result. I'm a fighter-class guild. I'm used to holding off the BBEG while the mage does the real work. I can take a measure of pride in that. There's no glory in taking the safe way out. p.s. - I'm at a friend's house for a limited amount of time. I won't be back online for an extended period until Monday. --Wow. What did I start?! TM
SauroGrenom 12-16-06, 04:47 PM	I get a sense that emotions are running a bit too high right now. We need to keep things in perspective. Let me clarify. No one is accusing anyone of intentional wrong doing or unethical behavior. Also no one is threatening quitting. The worst accusation right now, from Vath, is of unintended favor for CEF. Let's try and keep the comments about persons and judgements about a person's actions out of this discussion. There is no faster way to hurt fealings and destroy relationships. Cat I appologize. I broke the above rule in my email thursday night, and I made it a bit too personal when I said you were the one doing all these things that drain the fun out of the guild wars. I wasn't trying to be personal or accuse you of doing anything other than play the game as best you can. I was trying to make the point that with your current strategy and advantages CEF has, you're kicking everyone's ass so bad that several of us guildmasters had decided to not compete with you. What we have is a newly created competitive strategy game. When I mention loosing someone (like TM), I'm not talking about anyone quitting. What I mean is that a player looses the sense they can win. In a competitive game this is equivalent to loosing the competitive spirit. In a competitive game everyone needs to be able to convince themselves they can win to keep having fun playing the game. I've played dozens of Risk games with friends. We have never played to the very end. We only play to a point where a victor is totally clear, then it's no more fun to keep playing the strategy game. We are not there yet with the guild wars, but we are getting close. Everyone can see that CEF is winning unless we gang up on CEF, and in a few months CEF will have an advantage so great that even if we gang up on CEF we cannot win, assuming there was anyone who wanted to defeat them. For a competitive game that basicially means Game Over unless we all gang up on CEF now. Let's think about what happened. How did we get here? What are our goals? What goals did we meet? What goals did we not meet? Did anything go wrong? What went wrong? How did that happen? Do we want to play the game to its ultimate end? When it's over do we want to play again? If so, do we want to change any of the rules or starting conditions of the guilds? What form would those changes take? Will the next game be competitive against each other like this one? Discussions about how to answer these questions are constructive. Criticisms about what has happened are destructive. Let's avoid criticisms and look toward being constructive.
TheMagister 12-16-06, 05:01 PM	{Italian mobster voice} "Look, Tony. It's not personal. It's business. {shrug} You understand." {POW} ...
Zevox 12-16-06, 09:52 PM	Some slight (but understandable) misrepresentation in that e-mail: Zevox says he's not willing to attack CEF due to the beating they received last time. I think you're inferring this from my replies about the World Event, no? Thats actually me not wanting to attack anyone at this point, not because of the damage the CEF did last time (unless someone takes advantage of it before we get a chance to repair it, its actually not a concern to me), but both because I know the CEF could destroy us if we struck them and because anyone else could hurt or slow us enough that we're actually crippled relative to everyone else (not just the CEF, as everyone is crippled relative to them). It has more to do with our membership status, really - several prominent members dropping out from what we had during our last scuffles with the CEF and TLT, and only Indivara and a few (usually inactive) low-level characters coming in to replace them, leaves us without as much of a chance in a prolonged battle of CAPs as we once had. Zevox hopes someone else will hurt CEF so they can catch up. Erm, no. I hope we (e.g. the rest of the Guilds besides the CEF) can find a way to keep the CEF from dominating the way it looks like they will. I'm fully prepared for the EHTC to participate in an event that will yield that result. I'm simply not prepared to be the only one doing it and end up just committing Guild suicide - I'm too attached to the place for that, and I know a number of the other members at the EHTC are too. So yes, as Vath and TM have said "some Guildmasters" have, I've come to the conclusion that at this point either the CEF will be stopped soon and with great difficulty, or not at all. When the "Warriors of Light" campaign wraps up is the cut off point - then, the CEF will be unstoppable unless the rest of us just sit quietly until all those regiments leave and the CEF actually chooses not to destroy anyone with them while they have them (I have a real hard time buying the idea that this would actually be the way that happens). If anything can be done to prevent that from happening, I'm prepared to be one of those doing it. From the looks of things though, I doubt it'll happen, and if thats the case I'll resume waiting for Cat to decide its time for the CEF get off its duff and win. Maybe in the meantime the EHTC will manage to kill off one or another of the other Guilds just to be able to say we did something other than be one of the CEF's four to six punching bags in this game, or maybe someone else will get to us before the CEF. Either way, it'll just be a long game of pretending its not already over in that case. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 12-16-06, 10:33 PM	I'm not quoting any of the posts. I am in favor of Caterane stepping down as head of CEF but not of him removing his characters. As Gamemaster, he should not be making the decisions for CEF. I don't think he actively changes rules to favor CEF, but even the perception that he might be doing so is enough to cause frustration and disaffection. I also think that 10th level characters need to be limited when they are working for a guild. They are frozen and so take no penalties for having their allies present. They take no penalties in the form of lost expendables. Pretty much that boils it down to who has been around longest, has the most allies, has nothing to lose, has the advantage. Frankly 10th needs to be opened. We have enough people to play it, and then all of the above start going away and 3FC kicks in. There are a total of 22 8th and 9th combined. 22 10th levels. Open it! As far as all of the new guild rules are concerned, I won't pretend to understand it all. I am catching up as I run Indivara back up to speed and look for a guild for Sybil...she seems doomed where TAO is concerned (maybe WAR could use a slumtrimpet to boost their morale). CEF is the powerhouse guild right now. That can change if the others do form the alliance that is being noised about now. There is nothing wrong with the guild wars going full speed ahead this early. If guilds fall, perhaps new ones will rise with more interest from the new folks who will not be walking into a good old boys' club.
Zevox 12-16-06, 10:47 PM	Frankly 10th needs to be opened. We have enough people to play it, and then all of the above start going away and 3FC kicks in. There are a total of 22 8th and 9th combined. 22 10th levels. Open it! Now that I think of it, you still weren't back when we did that poll, were you? This will be happening soon - we took a poll not long ago, and nearly everyone on this board wants the ECL 10+ leagues opened, so Cat plans on hosting the Iron Man once the World Event for the Guilds wraps up. Once the Iron Man is done, the upper leagues will at long last be opened. Zevox
Caterane 12-18-06, 01:04 PM	I'm not sure if I will host the iron man. Phew, how am I going to explain that now... As you've surely noticed I haven't fought in the arena for a long time; mostly because I've lost interest in arena battles. I've quitted my D&D group half a year ago. The campaign began to drag along in the last weeks that's why we paused it. The thing that kept my spirit high and me deeply involved in this board was the guild system where I sometimes sat an hour or two infront of the guildhall and tried to find the best tactic for CEF. That was also the reason why I continued to have fun in playing and designing my characters. With that gone I begin to see that all what's left for me in coco is work. Look, I have a busy life. It had always been that way but I am very good at scheduling so that I can get the most out of the 24 hours I have each day. I have a good carreer going on, I have lots of friends, and many hobbies. CoCo is different in that it is the only thing I have that doesn't benefit my life in any way other than having fun. With the fun gone, I see little reason for me to stay. In the past days I've pretty much lost any interest in the guild game. The guildmasters are all having no fun or whatever because everyone feels that they have to kick out the CEF now or lose. Well, I wrote this system and I failed to install a safeguard for such an event. Maybe the CAP Actions are too powerful. Maybe we need to allow intercepts without a CAP. Maybe something else. I don't know and I don't care because I'm not willing to invest any more of my free time into this. That's the reason why I am stepping down as Guildmaster; not because I think the GM shouldn't be Guildmaster. Others, many others, however are of that opinion; I've even heard in the past that a GM shouldn't be allowed to have characters at all. I am however not the coco mule nor do I get payed for doing this work (and it's a lot actually). If there's nothing left for me except boring board work, then I better invest this precious time into my other hobbies or my carreer. If I would have to make a decision at this very moment, I wouldn't hesitate to throw the towel. But I also know that I was here right from the beginning on and that I have build up this board a from a simple thread to what we have today. I am not going to leave what took years behind in a few days. What I have to find out now is wether there is a reason left for me to continue. For now, do with the CEF what you want. Do with the guild system what you want. I'll do pairings next wednesday and the week thereafter. I'll talk to MWB and Sauro about a possible succession in the meantime. I'll stop to write now because I'm not in the best mood to make decisions atm. This guild discussion in the past days has stolen my mirth completely. Cat
Guildmaster (WAR) 12-18-06, 02:06 PM	{Stands here holding a smoking gun} Good LORD, what have I done? Cat, nobody wants you to go away. It is still possible to have fun if you're not the best and the biggest (just look at Sdentch, for goodness' sake!). All you have to do is scale back your power level some to make the game competitive and you'll have everyone happy and on-board again. The only reason that I sent out the PMs that I did was because that was the ONLY way I could see WAR having a chance in the end game! CEF had WAR beat on showdown (meaning you simply outgunned me) from the start, and the gap between our guilds' respective power levels was only going to increase with time. We needed to hit you NOW and hit you HARD. Being dismissed out-of-hand (along with EHTC, the second most powerful guild [arguably] after CEF) as we were in the post you made in the WAR thread; "In two weeks, WAR is dead. In three weeks after that, EHTC is dead," just proves how out of balance the power-curve is. NO guild this early in the game should wield that kind of power. Maybe you're right, and the CAP actions are just too powerful. I don't know. I haven't had the hand in designing the framework of the game like you have. All I knew was that "Divided we fall and United we stand." So I went for the throat. The stuff I wrote about your bias toward CEF was (I still think) justified. If I stopped being friends with my buddies every time I caught them "tweaking" their character sheets and "accidentally" mis-adding modifiers, I'd quickly be out of buddies to game with. I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I express the desire for you to stick around. I also want you to have fun. I also want both of us to have a shot at winning. If the CEF is knocked out first, what difference does it make to your participation? Find another guild to back. Heck, START another guild from scratch! WHO CARES?! As long as we're all having fun, I know that I don't. Right now, we're not all having fun, so something needs to change. I was having fun up until I realized that I couldn't win. Then I started having fun when I realized that you could be beaten with help from everyone else. So I made that happen. And then you stopped having fun. Why? (Seriously.) Because you weren't guaranteed to win? Or because you (mistakenly) thought that we didn't want you around anymore? I made a tactical decision when I petitioned for help. The result was NOT what I wanted (what I actually wanted was to blindside you the next GAP week with four-to-six guild's worth of CAPs to make you think twice about leaving nothing home for defense...Sauro ruined that surprise nicely [Thanks a LOT, ya snitch {I know your intentions were good =)}]). What I got was you quitting. I've got no problem with you as a GM. I've even got no problem with you as Guildmaster of the CEF (as long as your conduct remains above reproach; for example - the habit you had of changing rules without notice or consultation or discussion). As long as you don't have a problem with being the target of every other guild, I don't have a problem with you being the most powerful guild! Don't be a quitter. As you said, you've put too much time and energy into this thing to just drop it. I've said my piece. I want you to stay.
MindWandererB 12-18-06, 02:44 PM	I don't really want to say very much here, but I do have some points. 1) I also assumed from the start that CEF would win. With nigh-unbeatable ECL 10 characters, a military mindset, and master strategist Cat at the helm, I have known all along that the only way to win would be to blindside CEF somehow. Either by forming a massive alliance as TM tried, or by biding our time until CEF was weakened enough to attack with troops, or by some other such thing. Otherwise, there was just no chance. And playing a game for years with a foreordained winner is no fun for anyone, except possibly that winner. All of my plans have involved A) surviving, and B) beating out CEF. No other guild mattered, except in that they could damage TLT prematurely. 2) Like most of us, I don't want to see less of Cat around. A few policy changes to alleviate suspicion are about all. 3) I've started an opinion thread about the guild system. This is not to imply that I necessarily want to rebuild the guild system from scratch again, but I do want to see whether that would be the best way to go for everyone to have the most fun, or if fun can be increased by a simpler method. I'm just gathering info at this point, and expect to for a long time, perhaps months.
TheMagister 12-18-06, 04:25 PM	What effect does this situation have on the current incarnation of the Guild system? Is everything on hold until Cat's back on board? Should I still get my GAPs/CAPs in the mail?
MindWandererB 12-18-06, 04:38 PM	What effect does this situation have on the current incarnation of the Guild system? Is everything on hold until Cat's back on board? Should I still get my GAPs/CAPs in the mail? For now, I think we should continue to play on. I'll keep doing my job as Guildlords until Cat tells me otherwise. We'll just continue to use this as a learning experience. Since aside from being GM, Cat is basically just another guildmaster, we shouldn't stop play for just one person. If it were any other guildmaster, we wouldn't wait.
Caterane 12-18-06, 04:53 PM	@TM: You think it's about the CEF losing? In all my time here I have seen the highest heights and the deepest depths, emotionally, but I have never even considered leaving so this is not something I speak out lightly, just because I'm miffed. Two reasons: (1) As said, I'm not interested in arena battles, tournaments, high leagues, or quests anymore. I enjoyed devicing new add-ons to improve this board but gave up because of the heavy resistance I meet everytime. What kept me enthusistic and my characters active was the guild game. I'm not interested in starting a new guild (not that others think I should do that as GM); I've invested too much passion into the CEF and I currently see this as a waste of time and energy. (2) It's about me having invested half my summer into this system only to see it dissolve four months after it began. I never intended to kick out any guild with the CEF! I never intended to use these 40 regiments from the campaign. I just want this game to go on forever, or years at least. Now this goes all down the waste. All the work, all my real life hours for nothing. These two points - the waste of time and energy and the decease of the last of my many passions here - forces me to ask if it isn't time to leave. Whatever, I'll run the board normally for the next time until I make a decision.
MindWandererB 12-18-06, 05:15 PM	(2) It's about me having invested half my summer into this system only to see it dissolve four months after it began. I never intended to kick out any guild with the CEF! I never intended to use these 40 regiments from the campaign. I just want this game to go on forever, or years at least. Now this goes all down the waste. All the work, all my real life hours for nothing.While I sympathize--a lot--I do have to wonder what you expected us to do with the situation. CEF was the superpower coming into the system. The rest of us had a choice: resign ourselves to losing, or figure out a way to take down the behemoth. You made an analogy earlier about the U.S. and Mexico. Mexico would indeed be insane to go to war with the U.S. to try to conquer Texas. But what if there had to be a winner of some sort? The rest of the world would either have to decide to accept their loss, or else band together to take the U.S. down. Competing against each other would be pointless, and would just weaken one's own nation unnecessarily. Of all the methods of winning, all but one required the elimination of one or more guilds just to be able to take the required territory, and the other (Diplomatic Victory) basically just required you to spend insane amounts of time accumulating and spending NEG-PTS (about 60,000 of them!). Now you tell me--what else could we do? Again, I respect all the work that went into this. Maybe you could get someone else to play that game. But not us, apparently; it's just not what we want, especially since there's no way of playing it that's acceptable to everyone.
Abyssal Stalker 12-19-06, 03:17 AM	I don't know how well the guild system has worked, because I'm not completely familiar with the rules. Still, I have enjoyed it very much as it is. I think it has been a huge leap forward for the whole CoCo. It has increased chances to roleplay characters and also added a technical perspective to the RP, by creating situations that require reactions from the players. It has done a great deal to the Living Gladius, just take a look at the Gladius Weekly for example. Most of the stuff I have written is somehow guild-related. We need a "mechanic" to roleplay to make Gladius Living.
Vathelokai 12-19-06, 09:19 AM	I'll talk to MWB and Sauro about a possible succession in the meantime. I'll stop to write now because I'm not in the best mood to make decisions atm. This guild discussion in the past days has stolen my mirth completely. ... It's about me having invested half my summer into this system only to see it dissolve four months after it began. I never intended to kick out any guild with the CEF! I never intended to use these 40 regiments from the campaign. I just want this game to go on forever, or years at least. Now this goes all down the waste. All the work, all my real life hours for nothing. I've taken a few days to cool off and I'll try to make this quick. Cat, have you considered stepping down a GM and remaining as Guildmaster? As you say, it's boring work for you now-a-days, but the guild keeps you interested. Why not stay and do what you like? Be guildlords and keep running the guilds to the best. I've got to repeat MWBs point; the only way to win is to kick out characters, expecially with the mass of paramilitary groups taking up map space. I think we have a problem; we want a perpetual guild system, but the system is designed to end. We can fix that without scrapping the guild system; in fact I didn't hear anything of scrapping the system, only that it needed another major overhaul. We've done that before, I see no reason not to do it again. It comes to what I'm seeing as a core problem; are we playtesting this or playing this? If we are playtesting this, then we need to make foolish decisions, min/max everything and do things that make no sense to see if we can break it, and if so we need to fix it. If we are really plaing it, then everyones out to win, and changing rules midgame is very frustrating. I broke my rule; I banned myself from the council and here I am, being the same a-hole I was when I banned myself in the first place. I'll take a lot of the blame for instigating this; after all, I did encourage WAR to give an in game excuse for other guilds to attack, and then sent multiple PMs trying to rally support to take out the CEF. What can I say; I saw a chance to have someone else win and I jumped on it. It was a decision based on desperation and frustration. I'm working on a response to Sauro's above statement. I should have that in a day or so.
Caterane 12-19-06, 12:34 PM	Alright I'll try one more thing to save the child... I see that all arguments for a gang-up on my guild are based on frustration and resignation; that all think the winner is clear. That's far from true. Let me explain and please read it. I'll reveal my build plan for the CEF now. I wanted to take Gawane and Gorthyum, then stop there and build them full of structures. After that I just wanted to research and apply the developments, research and produce equipment, build up a defense army, and fortify the Chapter Houses to Fortresses, and my Guildhall to a Palace. After or between that I would've looked for High Traversam and built it up in the same way. I've detailed GAPs till April, and this whole plan takes about 1.5 years!! There's no war planned and I swear I wouldn't have attacked anyone. The CEF is only interested in peaceful expansion into their neighbouring districts and build them up a bit. Only in case of an attack would we retaliate. Now think about it. NOW is the best time for CEF to attack and win. It has been that way from day one on and it's on the one side because of our many powerful high-level PCs and on the other side because it's so early in the game that PCs make too much of a difference. I could've taken out WAR in 2 weeks running 5 CAPs a week but I didn't. I didn't attack anyone unless it was in defense. Why? Because 1) the CEF is peaceful and 2) I want the game to go on forever. Let's remember my expansion plan to which I will stick. In 1.5 years the face of the guilds will be very different. Some of the CEF top guys might be gone, Huan, maybe Pittbull and others while other guilds can gain. Additionally, we'll open the higher leagues which results in a greater disparity of levels which means that suddenly much more of a guild's PCs can launch attacks against buildings with fixed ELs. As far as expansion goes, other guilds will have about the same number of districts, structures, and income so there's no advantage to the CEF anymore. And of course, you'll all have defenses up so that even if I still have the most high-level PCs, PCs do not impact the game as they do now in the very beginning. All that means one thing: now is the time of the CEF and I promise I won't use it offensively. If there'll be an end war, several guilds will drop out; sure the CEF but before our Guildhall is down, all attacking guilds will be out too or too crippled to continue to play. That's not what you want and definately not what I want, neither as Guildmaster CEF, nor as Game Master and designer. I want to show you that your frustration is unnecessary and with my promise to play the CEF peacefully and defensively and the fact that time favors all other guilds, there's nothing to worry about my guild. And there's nothing to gain for anyone by doing this endwar now. It'll only destroy our guild game. Instead, let us try to find some improvements to the current system - MWB has already begun to gather data. I'm not talking about another overhaul but about some fixes to holes we just found and an adaption to the wishes of the players and guildmasters. Cat PS: I felt that I had to ask for a truce on a metagame basis because all guildmasters who are about to attack the CEF are metagaming right now (except for Zevox and the EHTC). TAO wants to attack? Why? We helped reclaim your campus! Is that the reward? The lawful PSI guildmaster gave his word; he even missioned with Hagrid. TLT and CEF were always in good standing. Forget this misguided urge to strike now or lose. It's not reality and will only destroy the game.
SauroGrenom 12-19-06, 12:47 PM	I can live with that.
SauroGrenom 12-19-06, 12:51 PM	blrmmblbpspttt.
Caterane 12-19-06, 01:06 PM	21 districts, 7 guilds = 3 district for everyone. Arkhein, Gawane, Gorthyum are my three. I am not against small struggles; I'm only against the end war that TM is looking for.
MindWandererB 12-19-06, 01:40 PM	Let me ask you one more thing then, Cat: Do you plan for CEF to lose? CEF is a powerhouse. They have superior characters, finances, and armies compared to everyone else. Those advantages will only increase their lead as time goes on. Unless CEF makes the deliberate decision to not win, even when another guild is on the verge of doing so, then this is still all moot. CEF will win when it decides to win. And what's more, this knowledge makes a mockery of the whole system. If we know that CEF will never try to win, then we can safely ignore it. That makes the guild game a non-game for you, Cat, because you're not actually competing with anyone, just growing in isolation. I can't imagine how that would be fun for you. Ultimately it comes down to this: if CEF tries to compete, it wins, which is no fun for the rest of us. If it doesn't, I can't see how that would be fun for you. Regarding my poll: Although there are still many voices yet to be heard (yours included, Cat: you're a player as well as everything else, and your opinions count), it looks like there are some fundamental aspects of the system that most players dislike. Almost no one likes the armies. Few like the idea of having a winner at all. Those seem to be the major problems with the system as it is. There are also a couple of areas in which it looks like we can make small tweaks. Re: metagaming: It's not as bad as you think, Cat. TAO is closer to WAR than it is to CEF. PSI is in an odd place, trying to be friends with both EHTC and CEF, which doesn't work so well. TLT was probably going to stay out of it, mostly for RP reasons, although if we did get involved (which we considered), we had an RP reason for that as well (which will remain secret for now).
Vathelokai 12-19-06, 02:18 PM	TAO wants to attack? Why? We helped reclaim your campus! Is that the reward? The lawful PSI guildmaster gave his word; he even missioned with Hagrid. TLT and CEF were always in good standing. Forget this misguided urge to strike now or lose. It's not reality and will only destroy the game. Not quite. Vath wants to attack. Since I felt that was obviously a biased decision, I contacted all guildmembers to see how they felt. TAO is run by democratic process. The vote tally as of now (not all in) was a few of the evil members thought it was a great idea, and everyone else thought it best to force encourage an end to hostilities via non hostile means. So that's what we're doing. We'll see how that goes.
Caterane 12-19-06, 02:25 PM	@MW: You got me wrong. I am trying to win, but not now. Maybe in 2-3 years, or maybe even never. I definately don't want to win now because that would mean the end of the game. How the guild situation will be in 2 years, no one can say. I am sure the gap CEF has now will have decreased by then because of the reasons mentioned above. I don't think an alliance can take out CEF now. It can destroy all our structures and maybe we'll be out in the end but with 5 CAP weeks I can destroy a lot of other guilds aswell. No one wants that because it would mean the end of the guild game.
McJarvis 12-19-06, 02:27 PM	No one wants that because it would mean the end of the guild game. Well, a non-involved guild might not mind. B-)
MindWandererB 12-19-06, 02:34 PM	@MW: You got me wrong. I am trying to win, but not now. Maybe in 2-3 years, or maybe even never. I definately don't want to win now because that would mean the end of the game. How the guild situation will be in 2 years, no one can say. I am sure the gap CEF has now will have decreased by then because of the reasons mentioned above. I don't think an alliance can take out CEF now. It can destroy all our structures and maybe we'll be out in the end but with 5 CAP weeks I can destroy a lot of other guilds aswell. No one wants that because it would mean the end of the guild game. I don't follow your reasoning. If CEF is unassaulted (no one guild would survive, and we're assuming no one gangs up on them), then they alone will be free to expand and develop freely. Without needing to maintain much security because of the threat of retribution, they can spend all their efforts on economic growth. That will result in having a lead that only increases over time. No guild will be able to catch up when CEF decides to just end it all. Which means that if the rest of us want to have any chance at all, now is the time to eliminate CEF from the game, or we'll forever lose our chance, as poor as it is.
Abyssal Stalker 12-19-06, 02:43 PM	I don't care who wins. I just enjoy the game. :)
Caterane 12-19-06, 02:51 PM	MWB, you're not helping at all. Again: You cannot take out CEF now without ending the game and creating bad feelings all over. What will be in 2 years, no one knows. We're no fortune tellers and you can build up aswell. Everyone can and that's what we all want. As Abyssal said, we just want to enjoy the game. We could for example remove the victory conditions to emphasize on the game and not the end result.
Vathelokai 12-19-06, 02:54 PM	MWB, you're not helping at all. Again: You cannot take out CEF now without ending the game and creating bad feelings all over. Suffice to say, we disagree, but it's a moot point. It's not going down like that because we're fixing the problem. Let's latch onto Abyssal's enthusiasm and move onward... What will be in 2 years, no one knows. We're no fortune tellers and you can build up aswell. Everyone can and that's what we all want. As Abyssal said, we just want to enjoy the game. We could for example remove the victory conditions to emphasize on the game and not the end result. How about if we lower the victory conditions a bit and have them do something other than 'victory'? Like if you control a powercenter you get X bonus.
McJarvis 12-19-06, 03:00 PM	We could for example remove the victory conditions to emphasize on the game and not the end result. Instead of victory conditions, there could be goals related to advancing the story of CoCo. Surely the city of Gladius is but one "page" in the grand story that will eventually unfold....
Caterane 12-20-06, 05:17 AM	Hm, I like that proposal. Any concrete suggestions for that?
Hirumajoe 12-20-06, 07:48 AM	Here's some concrete suggestions, inspired by a collectible card game I played in my mis-spent undergradute days. :-) They essentially set up tournaments, and depending on who won, a story line "event" would go one way or the other. Say its the determination of who is the Emperor after the last one died. Depending on which faction won, they'd get to choose which of the four NPC contenders ascended to throne, plus got a member of the their own faction added as one of the closest advisors to the emperor. And the great thing about this, is they could keep writing. The story never ended, even though people won individual tournaments. So imagine writing up "turning points" or "important events" of Gladius. *Alot* like this artifact race we're all having. The winner of these events (and the winning conditions could be almost anything - get X amount of troops to place Y first, or race to get the artifact first, to using diplomacy (missions and NEG points) influence the neighboring states to give Gladius (and in particular your guild) favorable trade status. And in return, you could hand out semi-long lasting benefits, on the order of 6 months to a year, until the next plot point comes up that interacts with the previous one (say the Emperor got assassinated *again*. At which point that close advisor has no one to advise again, and the whole choose the Emperor happens again.) So a concrete example might be a member of the Gladius Council dies. So all the guilds start lobbying through honest (and not so honest means) to get their candidate of choice onto the council. A benefit of winning that plot point could be that once a month, you can get a favor from said candidate, liking having someone released from prison, or get some inside information, or even get a tax break.
MindWandererB 12-20-06, 01:54 PM	That's a nice idea, but the "goals" ought to be driven by the expansion of the guild mechanic, not the PC action. Otherwise, the whole guild mechanic ends up being aimless. I would suggest, rather, rewards for achieving the win criteria, which go away if you lose them, or if someone else beats you in that regard. For instance: Winning the vote: wow. The Council is ousted, and your guild is in charge. If that RP goal isn't enough, even held temporarily, they could command extra military forces (or indeed any military forces at all, since it's beginning to look like those should be removed from the system), or impose sanctions, or tax the entire city. Something scary, but not so much that this makes them unbeatable or unreachable. Alternatively, the guild could be removed from the game entirely until another guild ousts them (and perhaps an 8th guild should replace them). When and if another guild wins the vote, the former rulers are turned back into an active guild, at that state where they left off. Which would be a nice balancing feature, since they'd now be behind most of the other guilds and would have to catch up. Powercenters: I think owning a powercenter is enough reward. Owning multiple ones would be cool enough without anything extra. Plus, it is again cool RP. Control: Meaningless. Again, owning that many districts is reward enough. Military: clearly, this is not the way to go. No one wants the guilds to war like this.
McJarvis 12-20-06, 01:59 PM	Alternatively, the guild could be removed from the game entirely until another guild ousts them (and perhaps an 8th guild should replace them). When and if another guild wins the vote, the former rulers are turned back into an active guild, at that state where they left off. Which would be a nice balancing feature, since they'd now be behind most of the other guilds and would have to catch up. While I understand this is meant to be a handicap, I as a guildmaster would never want to reach a state of limbo as such since it would mean I would have to stop playing the game. Even if it means being in a "winning" seat, I wouldnt' want to sit out while everyone else has the fun.
Caterane 12-23-06, 08:21 AM	What the heck is that: 86: 1 Troll Weretyrannosaurus [CR 10] Is that an EL 10 monster? Can someplease please elaborate how this is CR 10?
Caterane 12-23-06, 09:05 AM	See Guild Discussion thread
Macbrea 12-23-06, 09:11 AM	What the heck is that: 86: 1 Troll Weretyrannosaurus [CR 10] Is that an EL 10 monster? Can someplease please elaborate how this is CR 10? Troll is CR 5 Tyrannosaurus is 18HD Lycanthrope states on Challenges rating increases for base creature: Challenge Rating By class level or base creature, modified according to the HD of the base animal: 1 HD or 2 HD, +2; 3 HD to 5 HD, +3; 6 HD to 10 HD, +4; 11 HD to 20 HD, +5; 21 or more HD, +6. So, 1 Troll Weretyrannosaurus = Troll CR 5+ Lycanthrope +5 = CR 10. Yup. that is correct. Oh, should I mention if you choose to play that as a character it is ECL 31.
TelinArtho 12-23-06, 09:17 AM	And this is why templated creatures can be completely outrageous...
Caterane 12-23-06, 09:18 AM	That beast is undefeatable for any non-wizard. Alternatives? Edit: Troll +5CR, Lycanthrope +5CR, T-Rex +8CR => CR 18
Macbrea 12-23-06, 09:21 AM	no.. you don't add the CR of the T-Rex it was calculated in that quote frrom Lycanthrope that I gave. And that creatures is more beatable by a figther type then. 1 Hydra, 11-headed [CR 10] Which has Fast healing 21. Unless you can do more then 21 damage per round you are not even touching this baby.
Caterane 12-23-06, 09:51 AM	At least you can outmaneuver the hydra to buff to the roof. I also expect a fighter to be able to sunder its heads.
Zevox 12-23-06, 10:50 AM	At least you can outmaneuver the hydra to buff to the roof. I also expect a fighter to be able to sunder its heads. Without Improved Sunder they'd only be committing suicide to even try (11 AoOs from one of those is not fun, at all, for anybody), and its not like every fighter-type in the CoCo takes that feat (off the top of my head, I can think of four here that have it - Asran, Manzarf, Solan, and Maya). And to be technical, you can outmanuever that Were-T-Rex and buff through the roof too, unless its bought a potion of fly or you're actually an ECL 10 who can't yet fly. Plus those lucky enough to get a map a huge creature won't fit in don't have to worry about facing it in hybrid or animal form. I suppose basically what I'm saying is that this is by no means a terribly unusual example of our monster system as-is - some monsters are just plain near impossible for their CR for many characters (5-headed Hydra at CR 4? Even the wizards will get their assess kicked by that thing at that level). Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 12-23-06, 11:51 AM	Without Improved Sunder they'd only be committing suicide to even try (11 AoOs from one of those is not fun, at all, for anybody), and its not like every fighter-type in the CoCo takes that feat (off the top of my head, I can think of four here that have it - Asran, Manzarf, Solan, and Maya). And to be technical, you can outmanuever that Were-T-Rex and buff through the roof too, unless its bought a potion of fly or you're actually an ECL 10 who can't yet fly. Plus those lucky enough to get a map a huge creature won't fit in don't have to worry about facing it in hybrid or animal form. I suppose basically what I'm saying is that this is by no means a terribly unusual example of our monster system as-is - some monsters are just plain near impossible for their CR for many characters (5-headed Hydra at CR 4? Even the wizards will get their assess kicked by that thing at that level). Zevox *chants* EL=CR=ECL=LA is a LIE! EL=CR=ECL=LA is a LIE! EL=CR=ECL=LA is a LIE! EL=CR=ECL=LA is a LIE! *falls silent*
Caterane 12-24-06, 04:10 AM	Well, that's the fault of the D&D system if they equal a 5-headed hydra with a seacat, or a hound archon with a derro. We can't do anything against that without rewriting the d20 system.
MitzaVolchenko 12-24-06, 08:04 AM	Well, that's the fault of the D&D system if they equal a 5-headed hydra with a seacat, or a hound archon with a derro. We can't do anything against that without rewriting the d20 system. D&D already has a fix. It is called the DM ;) Challenge Rating This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.
TelinArtho 12-26-06, 04:13 PM	Potential issue: Diplomacy and Alignment issues. Do Diplomacy allies have to use the exact alignment listed or can they use the alignment according to the way we have specified for Planar allies (Always means always; Usually means within one step; etc)? For instance Saffron's wyvern is Neutral good while the entry for Wyvern is "Usually Neutral" Since the alignment plays a direct part in determining the CD value of the ally, this is important to note.
Vathelokai 12-26-06, 05:23 PM	Potential issue: Diplomacy and Alignment issues. Do Diplomacy allies have to use the exact alignment listed or can they use the alignment according to the way we have specified for Planar allies (Always means always; Usually means within one step; etc)? For instance Saffron's wyvern is Neutral good while the entry for Wyvern is "Usually Neutral" Since the alignment plays a direct part in determining the CD value of the ally, this is important to note. I was told by Cat that when it says 'usually' it allows for a 1 step difference.
TelinArtho 12-26-06, 05:28 PM	I'll close the violation for now, until there is opportunity to review it further or to at least confirm.
Sutro 12-27-06, 01:54 AM	Two questions: 1.) What are, if any, the crossbow analogues to Renaissance firearms for the purposes of firing with one hand? There are rules for firing crossbows with one hand, and what they qualify as for two-weapon fighting purposes; my supposition would be that a pistol would be considered a light weapon in a TWF situation but this supposition needs a ruling. :) Since they're so poorly fleshed out in the core rules and rapid reload has already been house-ruled to apply, I figure adding a house rule to this isn't out of the question. 2.) Maybe I haven't read the correct part of the rules regarding domain choices, but I gather that you can basically invent your deity, their domains and their favored weapons. If your invented deity has an exotic weapon as a favored weapon and offers the war domain, do you or do you not receive proficiency in it, as the exact text of the rules is "Free Martial Weapon Proficiency." Normally I wouldn't even ask this but the Living Greyhawk campaign, which abides fairly strictly to the rules, has deities for choice that include exotic weapons and the War domain (one, for example, the spiked chain and several the bastard sword) and they receive the proficiency. -Sutro
The_First_Horseman 12-27-06, 02:27 AM	Nevermind.
MindWandererB 12-27-06, 02:35 AM	Two questions: 1.) What are, if any, the crossbow analogues to Renaissance firearms for the purposes of firing with one hand? There are rules for firing crossbows with one hand, and what they qualify as for two-weapon fighting purposes; my supposition would be that a pistol would be considered a light weapon in a TWF situation but this supposition needs a ruling. :)I don't own the 3.5 DMG, but that seems reasonable to me. 2.) Maybe I haven't read the correct part of the rules regarding domain choices, but I gather that you can basically invent your deity, their domains and their favored weapons. If your invented deity has an exotic weapon as a favored weapon and offers the war domain, do you or do you not receive proficiency in it, as the exact text of the rules is "Free Martial Weapon Proficiency."Correct; it must be a martial weapon. We abide by the letter of the law, whatever the RPGA thinks. Oddly, it does not have to be a melee weapon by that rule, but I have no clue how a Spiritual Weapon works in that situation.
The_First_Horseman 12-27-06, 03:24 AM	I know I'm new here, and really don't have much opinion on anything yet, but to me, a guild does not have regiments of soldiers at its disposal. It has tens maybe...maybe...hundreds of members, and that's it. And its those members that do the fighting. But again, that's just what I think of when someone says "guild." I do have an idea or two about what we could do for guild wars, and they are just ideas, so please don't bite my head off if you dislike (or hate) them. One idea would require a revision to the current guild rules but not too much, I don't think, so please bear with me. We implement a win/loss system and set a time limit, such as six months. Then (and I'm not sure how we could make this work quite yet) a guild's members could go on a quest or miniquest to "attack" another guild, while the defending guild's members would "intercept" the attackers. Whoever wins gets a win added to their count, and whoever loses gets a loss. At the end of the six month period, the guild with the best win/loss record would be the "winner" and would gain bragging rights, and then things would start over. Another idea, that sort of goes along with my first one is that we could set a percentage of each ECL in a guild. For instance, for now we could have roughly 30% ECL 3, 20% ECL 4, and 10% of each ECL up to ECL 10. All numbers can be tweaked, I was just making examples. I just thought I'd put those out there. Feel free to build off these ideas if you come up with something.
Macbrea 12-27-06, 08:33 AM	Two questions: 1.) What are, if any, the crossbow analogues to Renaissance firearms for the purposes of firing with one hand? There are rules for firing crossbows with one hand, and what they qualify as for two-weapon fighting purposes; my supposition would be that a pistol would be considered a light weapon in a TWF situation but this supposition needs a ruling. :) Since they're so poorly fleshed out in the core rules and rapid reload has already been house-ruled to apply, I figure adding a house rule to this isn't out of the question. They are not poorly fleshed out. The chart says exactly what they are. Exotic Weapon (Firearms) Cost Dmg(S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Increment Weight Damage Type One-handed Ranged Weapon Pistol 250gp 1d8 1d10 x3 50 ft. 3 lbs Piercing Two-Handed Ranged Weapon Musket 500gp 1d10 1d12 x3 150 ft. 10 lbs Piercing Feat needed is Exotic Weapon (Firearms) and requires standard action to reload. One-handed Ranged Weapons are one-handed weapons. Two-handed Ranged Weapons are two-handed weapons. Category of weapons are Light, One-handed, and Two-Handed. You can wield one in each hand and fire them two weapon combat style but you suffer same modifiers as wielding two longswords in your hands.
Sutro 12-27-06, 12:26 PM	Incorrect. Light, heavy and hand crossbows are not categorized in their table as "light" weapons, yet you can fire a hand crossbow with one hand at no penalty, and a light crossbow at a -2 penalty with one hand. These are special rulings within the crossbows' description. Since they break the normal "light, one-handed, two-handed" definition, I'm asking for what analogue to the crossbow is appropriate for the pistol for TWF purposes.
MindWandererB 12-27-06, 12:59 PM	Incorrect. Light, heavy and hand crossbows are not categorized in their table as "light" weapons, yet you can fire a hand crossbow with one hand at no penalty, and a light crossbow at a -2 penalty with one hand. These are special rulings within the crossbows' description. Since they break the normal "light, one-handed, two-handed" definition, I'm asking for what analogue to the crossbow is appropriate for the pistol for TWF purposes. Actually, they're characterized as "ranged" weapons, without any handedness designation. They do have the text, "You can shoot a [hand/light] crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two light weapons" (or one-handed for a heavy crossbow). Firing a pistol 1-handed with no penalty, or 2-handed as a light weapon, seems appropriate to me (it's a lot like a hand crossbow). I'm not sure about rifles.
Erithmu 12-27-06, 04:40 PM	This is kinda an odd question. I was trying out the pairingsmaker just to see what it did and how it looked. As I got down to the ECL 6 section, the pairings maker had put the CoCo's first 'team' into a hunter fight. So the questions I have is this: 1) Are teams allowed in a hunter/FFA fight? 2) How is a team eliminated from a multiperson fight? 3) Any other questions that come from this situation...
Caterane 12-28-06, 05:43 AM	1) Yes as long as there are not more than 4 characters in the fight 2) All party members must be out.
Hirumajoe 12-28-06, 10:57 AM	I know I'm new here, and really don't have much opinion on anything yet, but to me, a guild does not have regiments of soldiers at its disposal. It has tens maybe...maybe...hundreds of members, and that's it. And its those members that do the fighting. But again, that's just what I think of when someone says "guild." I do have an idea or two about what we could do for guild wars, and they are just ideas, so please don't bite my head off if you dislike (or hate) them. There's actually a thread discussing this and other ideas related to the guild system here, if you haven't already seen it. Feel free to fill out MWB's page of questions. And according to that, you're not alone in your opinion. Also, just to play devil's advocate, it really does depend on the setting. You can imagine an incredibly weak city ruling body and the entire city having fallen into anarchy, at which point maintaining some standing soldiers to defend with or even impose law isn't so crazy. Although I'd probably think of them as mini-governments trying to assert their authority. I need to read more of the Gladius history though to figure out if this is the case for *this* city. One idea would require a revision to the current guild rules but not too much, I don't think, so please bear with me. We implement a win/loss system and set a time limit, such as six months. Then (and I'm not sure how we could make this work quite yet) a guild's members could go on a quest or miniquest to "attack" another guild, while the defending guild's members would "intercept" the attackers. Whoever wins gets a win added to their count, and whoever loses gets a loss. At the end of the six month period, the guild with the best win/loss record would be the "winner" and would gain bragging rights, and then things would start over. A few things: 1st: There's already missions which are designed to attack and hurt your opponents, along with interceptions. So all you're doing is adding an additional scoreboard, in addition to the economic damage. Its not a crazy idea, however, why not just measure overall wealth? The problem with guild member fights is they aren't a measure of the strategy game strength of the guild, but rather the individual strengths of it members. The guild has no method of providing aid to its members and thus the strategy game aspect becomes disconnected completely with the winning mechanism. Which leads into point 2... 2nd: The memberships of the guilds aren't controlled by the guildmasters (except in the rejection sense). They can't just get an ECL 5 or 10 character to join whenver they want. Someone has to have leveled (or used credits) to get a character there. Another idea, that sort of goes along with my first one is that we could set a percentage of each ECL in a guild. For instance, for now we could have roughly 30% ECL 3, 20% ECL 4, and 10% of each ECL up to ECL 10. All numbers can be tweaked, I was just making examples. I just thought I'd put those out there. Feel free to build off these ideas if you come up with something. I do not think this suggestion is feasible. What happens as characters level? Are they forced out of the guild and RP opportunity just because they had some successes, but the higher ups didn't? In addition, you'd need to start handing out characters of the higher ECL's because some guilds simply don't have any at the moment. Or else those guilds without higher level characters are *really* hurting as they can only have 1 of each upper ECL in your system, but have 2 or 3 in the same bracket, while other guilds with more higher ups might actually have the appropriate spread. My personal opinion is that you should balance it from the rules end, such that guilds with lots of low ECL characters are as effective in the strategy game part as those with lots of high ECL characters. Instead of trying to balance it from the membership end. For example, I consider the change from 1 CAP per person to 1 CAP per mission is a very good one, since you can now send a pair of ECL 8's on an ECL 10 mission if you don't have any ECL 10s, for the exact same guild cost.
McJarvis 01-02-07, 12:56 PM	I hurt on the inside, once again, and have a couple of issues that I am currently unhappy with. 1) Expendibles. I made a character just to see what Mac has been telling me about Magic Missile wands being so powerful(Artificer of Glad) and I got to say-> he's right. Crafting for gp combined with a little knowledge nobility will completely offset the expendible usage of magic missile, and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to have shield spells. Even worse: my second fight was up against someone with a cure light wounds wand. It's clearly not acceptable to have a mechanic in CoCo such that two gladiators could forseeably blow ~1/4 of their total gp in wealth. Thus, at the expense of making my Artificer anulled in competitve value, I propose the following "fix" for wands: If a spell has a duration equal to or longer than 1 min/caster level, the wand is not an expendible. If otherwise: the wand is expendible. This will fix cheap defensive magic missile builds like Art & will prevent CLW wands from being such an effective tactic if you want to extend the fight to a long archery duel. 2) RP value of the Guild system. LOY was intercepted this week by TAO for no forseeable reason from a game perspective. While I fully understand why Vath felt he had to do this(the artifact is important to him), I must confess the event has sucked my desire to send LOY after this artifact. Metagame hurts my mind-> though I'm not sure at all how to fix it....unfortunately for this one I have no fix in mind :(. 3) Teams//leadership I don't have the numbers in front of me(nor I have I looked at them in depth), but it occurs to me that a character of ECL X with a leadership ally has more power than two ECL X-2 characters without allies, pretty much no matter what. The gp-sharing isn't an issue since the ECL X-2 people probably have around half your gp each anyway, & the reward penalty is somewhat not great since you're getting much greater rewards than the other two as well.(and your expendible cap is higher as well) Something either needs to change with either teams or leadership, I think, though perhaps some more time is still necessary to see how all factors balance out... In other news(and not really related to complaints), I've officially decided(after a few months of thought) that the elders were in error picking Poe for the stealthy part of Uncon and I will be retiring him. Listen checks being what they are(2 DC0 listen checks to snipe with a spell), there is no reasonable way to snipe with spells if the character has no access to the silence spell-> which is the ONLY reason I developed the character the way it is. I could probably rebuild him to do something else, but it wouldn't be fun for me anymore.
hogarth 01-02-07, 01:17 PM	1) Expendibles. [Paraphrase: Magic missile and CLW wands should be treated as expendibles.] This will fix cheap defensive magic missile builds like Art & will prevent CLW wands from being such an effective tactic if you want to extend the fight to a long archery duel. I had the same opinion, but I've mellowed a bit. My experience with Kilpquabjeg is that Magic Missile wands are great at low levels (3-5 maybe), but after a while they don't do damage fast enough to be really exciting. Plus they can be sundered and disarmed so easily. Ditto for CLW wands -- they're good at low levels (provided you can stay away from your enemy), but unless you're fighting a real wimp, their damage is going to be outstripping your healing at higher levels. At any rate, there are people here (Telin and Sauro, for example) who believe you're only hurting yourself if you use charged items, so there's no need for a limit. I don't necessarily agree, but that's the argument. 3) Teams//leadership [Paraphrase: Fighting a character with the Leadership feat is unfair.] I don't have the numbers in front of me(nor I have I looked at them in depth), but it occurs to me that a character of ECL X with a leadership ally has more power than two ECL X-2 characters without allies, pretty much no matter what. Who said the ECL X-2 characters can't have allies of their own? You can always fight fire with fire. I think everyone's in agreement that [character + ally] > [character], but regular debates on the issue haven't changed much (except for getting rid of Forgery for allies, which was a great first step).
McJarvis 01-02-07, 01:21 PM	At any rate, there are people here (Telin and Sauro, for example) who believe you're only hurting yourself if you use charged items, so there's no need for a limit. I don't necessarily agree, but that's the argument. This may have been the case before crafting for Gp was around-> but Art is going to have a higher gp:xp ratio than he would if I bought him at ECL 4. If you can spend a number of expendibles less than the gp you make by crafting as a free activity, then you effectively are beating the ratio. (since when you buy characters at higher levels I believe it has been taken into account that you spent about ~1->2%(thereabouts?) of your rewards every fight) Magic Missile-> CLW is just one example. Another is easily Ego Whip dorjes, which don't downgrade in effectiveness as you level up. I would merely argue that anything you plan on using 3+ times per fight that you use it in should be treated as an expendible. Who said the ECL X-2 characters can't have allies of their own? You can always fight fire with fire. Well, for starters at lower ECL's they don't have access to leadership :-)
hogarth 01-02-07, 01:31 PM	Magic Missile-> CLW is just one example. Another is easily Ego Whip wands, which don't downgrade in effectiveness as you level up. I would merely argue that anything you plan on using 3+ times per fight that you use it in should be treated as an expendible. I understand the rationale; it's not a coincidence that I have two characters with Craft Dorje (and one of those has both a wand of Magic Missile and CLW, to boot)! Using a dorje of Ego Whip would get you into a deficit situation pretty fast. Each charge would cost you 45 gp (self-crafted) and would have a lousy save DC of 13; it'd probably take you 6+ charges to knock out an enemy with 8 Cha. And unfortunately it'd be useless vs. constructs, plants, vermin, undead, etc. I considered it, though... Who said the ECL X-2 characters can't have allies of their own? You can always fight fire with fire. Well, for starters at lower ECL's they don't have access to leadership :-) There's always animal companions, (improved) familiars, psicrystals, mercenaries, Handle Animal/Diplomacy allies, ad nauseum.
McJarvis 01-02-07, 01:38 PM	Regarding egowhip being too expensive: At ECL 5: (with craft wands/dorjes & a mere 800 gp invested in tools) Craft(?): +17 (8(ranks)+5(int)+2(tool)+2(magic item) Knowledge(nobility/royalty): +15 (8(ranks)+5(int)+2(magic item)) gp earned: 155 gp, 2 sp, 5 cp. Which pays for ~4 ego whips per match alone. Offset it with castables per fight in the 3FC & it's still pretty powerful. Then take into consideration that you're not going to be using egowhip vs every single opponent & that means this could potentially pay for ~7 egowhips for every opponent you might use it against. :-O (assuming you're not abusing another wand/dorjes somewhere else)
Macbrea 01-02-07, 02:11 PM	Magic missile wands get powerful when you actually spend some money on them. Yeah, they don't seem like they would do alot. But how about this: ECL 9 Fight. 190 ft readied action: 5 missiles 5d4+5 ~ 17.5 damage per shot. Average kill shots = 4 - 6 rounds to kill with wizard. If you cannot kill the wizard because he is mobile you loose. If he has any method of delaying you from arriving at him. Your dead. Your defense is shield spell or brooch of shielding. Now, having said that. I will mention that restricting wands more is the same as just removing them. I debated making a wand of lightning bolt. But, the cost becomes slightly prohibitive for CoCo.
TelinArtho 01-02-07, 04:17 PM	Well, I guess in my opinion wands are a subpar magic item to begin with. Yes, they are more efficient than buffing with scrolls - but the initial cost is the prohibitive part of the equation. And if you didn't start at ECL5 as a full wizard or ECL6 as a cleric, and you relied on expendables to begin with, then you probably already spent a fair coin on scrolls. The problem with wands comes in, at least from what I can tell of points made so far, when you have a wand that produces a spell that is not reduced by a saving throw and one that is not easily defended against. However, this isn't really true. Any wizard probably has access to the shield spell, while everyone else has access to the brooch of shielding (a fairly cheap 1500gp - and it is unlikely that your opponents will even use a wand of magic missiles against you, let alone a memorized spell. Any energy producing spell that doesn't have a save (energy ray or scorching ray for instance) can easily be reduced or negated with a casting of Resist Energy or Energy Adaptation. Spells that require saving throws might be reasonably effective at lower ECLs (Ego Whip, Hold Person) - but the save DCs won't be able to help you at higher ECLs. What is left are spells that you use 1-2 times per fight (buffing) and the Cure spells. On the former, I don't see a lot of people using wands of Mage Armor or Bull's Strength; on the latter - that is only an issue if you are engaged in a ranged combat and have no method to disarm, sunder or otherwise remove the wand semi-reliably. Anyway, I restate that I have little to no problem with wands/dorjes being exempt from the expendables rule. If it were changed to apply them in there however, I would strongly support a proposition to allow wands to be had for no credits (those that aren't on the list) and that they could be had for 25 charges for credits.
McJarvis 01-02-07, 04:28 PM	The shield brooch is largely a joke: 1,500gp is too much for something that is so easily destroyed. Macbrea has already shown in the past that this item is easily melted by overwhelming it with magic missiles. Also, take into consideration this calculation: 1,800gp(command word) x 1x1(CL 1 shield) = 1,800gp. Reduce AC bonus from +4 to +0 for balance reasons and you have an unlimited brooch of magic missile blocking for 1,800gp which is not overpowered.(but does not have a meltdown when dealt damage) Anyway, such statements are all speculation anyway-> I'm sure that every wand has a counter in the game(I wasn't saying that they were unblockable), but rather that they are expendible and should be treated as such. If it were changed to apply them in there however, I would strongly support a proposition to allow wands to be had for no credits (those that aren't on the list) and that they could be had for 25 charges for credits. I would like to see these kinds of changes, except that crafted wands/dorjes should still be required to have 50 charges.(as per core rules)
hogarth 01-02-07, 04:39 PM	McJarvis, the one thing I've noted is that people are slow to believe that a rule is unbalanced...until they have to face it in an actual battle! So if you really want to show that wands rock the Casbah, keep using the Artificer and winning battles. That's (sort of) what I did with my character Reginald Molehusband, and now some of his shenanigans (like bringing a couple of grappling horses to an ECL 3 fight) have been outlawed (due in part to public outcry, I think). Just my $0.02.
Macbrea 01-02-07, 04:39 PM	I would be all for wands created as wands rules. Not just restricting them to the table. The wands themselves on the table are just meant to be examples. The rest of the wands don't require any more thought then tattoos or powerstones do. What has happened is you can freely pick and choose psionic items because their isn't a list for them. But on potions, wands and scrolls. You are required to use the chart. This makes psionics artificually powerful for items.
TelinArtho 01-02-07, 05:17 PM	Well, unless the expendable cap is grown by quite a bit, we would see wand use decrease by a fair amount. A CL1 wand of Magic Missile isn't available until ECL4? CL3 wand of Magic Missile until ECL5 if you had the ability to craft them. A wand with a 2nd level spell in it (4500gp market, 2250gp if you craft it) - you wouldn't see one until ECL 7 (if the user can craft it) or ECL 10 (if the user can't craft it). Wands with 3rd or 4th level spells just wouldn't have a change of existing... Your calculation - while interesting - has little value. Since the brooch of shielding exists - we have an item to base items duplicating its effect on. Therefore, a continuous item that forever protects from magic missiles would be priced for more than the brooch - and probably by quite a bit. As to the 1500gp - I think it is very much worth it. 101 points of protection is enough to block 4 full strength magic missiles at CL9. If I have bought an item such as that to protect me from magic missiles, I will do my darned best to end the fight long before I get to the point of needing to worry about it. At levels under ECL9, magic missiles will take progressively longer to whittle through that 101 points. A CL1 wand user wouldn't even think of it - nor would a user of CL3 or 5 wand. CL7 (12.5points on average) would be using 8+ charges to get through. Anyway - wands are treated as expendables, they just aren't a portion of the expendable cap. They still are restricted by ECL.
SauroGrenom 01-02-07, 06:19 PM	McJarvis, What you are describing is a couple realizations that I've come to a while ago. Some wands are very usefull at particular levels. The wand of MM CL9 and the CLW wand dominate at particular levels. The CLW wands are great at low to mid levels where the average 5.5hp/round is greater than the average damage you take each round. Only in situations like this does using a wand help you get ahead of the damage. In all other situations it's a delay that burns cash on the way to the inevitable death. The MM wands are great at higher levels where the damage per charge averages 17.5hp@CL9. But at this point you are spending 135gp/charge. That adds up fast. If you go for lower CL wands of MM, then your damage output drops with cost. Only at CL5 with 7hp/charge does the MM wand do more damage than the CLW wand heals, and at this time you are spending 75gp/charge. Even if you are crafting you own wands, you are spending more gp/hp damage on the MM wand than a CLW wand will heal/gp. We've had wand slingers in CoCo before. I'm having trouble remembering the name of the character, but I know there was a red wizard at about the same time as Archie Longbow. These builds work to some extent, but consistant expendible use drags your character down in the end. I've run the numbers, to maintain parity with character created at your ECL, you need to spend less than 5% of your winnings on expendibles. Crafting Free Activities helps to some extent, but even there the effect is concentrated at low levels. At ECL3 your crafting income is large compared to your winnings. As levels increase the crafting income grows slightly superlinearly (assuming you keep investing skill points) while gold rewards for battles grows exponentially. So crafting income becomes tiny compared to winnings by the time you reach ECL16. The net effect is that crafting your own expendibles and using them in every battle and paying for it using crafting free actions is a good idea at low to mid levels. At higher levels, it's a strategy that drags your character down in wealth. In any case wand wielders of all types have weaknesses, and if your character is unable to exploit those weaknesses, then it's not the fault of the rules that you loose. If your character cannot bring melee or devastating ranged attacks to the flying wizard with the MM wand, then *shrug* you got beat. About the guilds and RP, I'm sorry for the hurt feelings. This is what you get when you make a competitive game where some players are looking for cooperative RP. This kind of thing is unavoidable due to the basic game elements that drive the guild system. The leadership things is something we have talked up and down over and over. I'd like to see a few changes, but we use an ECL based pairings system. Switching to EL is probably a better way of making fair matchups. But this is never going to happen, because the shift is too large. This kind of change would effect everything, and it's too much to take. The only thing we can do is make allies not so "good". There are little things we can do that can be effective. Leadership is not nearly as bad as Diplomacy and HA allies (use CR instead of ECL). However a discussion of the allies issue is a bit off track right now. You all are talking about wands.
hogarth 01-02-07, 06:46 PM	The net effect is that crafting your own expendibles and using them in every battle and paying for it using crafting free actions is a good idea at low to mid levels. At higher levels, it's a strategy that drags your character down in wealth. Note, however, that this sidesteps the fact that, unless you're interested in running your gladiator through frozen quests & miniquests, there's no penalty for being flat broke at 10th level (since you can't currently advance beyond that point). I think it's a little silly to say "It'll hurt you at higher levels" when there are no higher levels!
McJarvis 01-02-07, 09:17 PM	The net effect is that crafting your own expendibles and using them in every battle and paying for it using crafting free actions is a good idea at low to mid levels. At higher levels, it's a strategy that drags your character down in wealth. Well, lets see. Assuming I win every time I go into the arena(a safe assumption given how amazing I am ;) [actually, it's just more realistic since you could lose and just spend 0 expendibles....), and I'm also going to assume a crafting wizard/psion build(which I realize is not the majority of CoCo, but it is the particular build I'm currently working with).... here are some ratios to chew over: ECL 3: (invest 200gp in skill magic item= ~6.7% of total wealth) Craft +14 (6 Ranks, 5 Int, 2 tool, 1 magic tool) Knowledge +12 (6 ranks, 5 int, 1 magic tool) Money Earned: 80.64 gp [(14+10)*3*1.12] % of gp earned per winning fight: ~9% (80.64/900) ECL 16: (invest 18,291 in skill magic items= 6% of total wealth) Craft + 39 (19 ranks, 8 int, 2 tool, 10 magic tool) Knowledge + 36 (19 ranks, 8 int, 9 magic tool) Money earned: 1,066.24 gp [(39+10)*16*1.36] % of gp earned per winning fight: ~4% (1,036.8/28,000) Take into account the craft wand feat you likely have at this level: You're still getting 8% in expendible spending power per fight. That isn't that high of a difference(1%), though I suppose you are right in that eventually exponential climbing makes the difference larger... but as Hogarth mentioned, we don't currently have a 16th ECL bracket...so the combination of crafting & free activity money making still wins out enough to matter. In regards to other comments: I understand on the guild thing...as stated, I was expressing frustration but have no answer to the problem myself. Leadership/Teams: It is well known that I'm a critic of leadership, but this line of thinking was more centered around making the teams rewards//gp functionalilty into something that works. We'll see how it runs in the future with tessero/myself before I comment further on it...perhaps I jumped the gun on talking about it.
Zevox 01-02-07, 10:45 PM	Note, however, that this sidesteps the fact that, unless you're interested in running your gladiator through frozen quests & miniquests, there's no penalty for being flat broke at 10th level (since you can't currently advance beyond that point). I think it's a little silly to say "It'll hurt you at higher levels" when there are no higher levels! Don't forget thats changing soon anyway though - when the World Event ends, the Iron Man begins; and when that ends, the upper leagues thaw. Anyway, wands: in brief, no, I don't consider any of them a problem. Some are more effective than others, none of them are so effective its worth restricting them further than they already are, not even the oh-so-dreadful CL 9 MM wands (and I've been on the receiving end of one before - see Asran vs The Harvester). Telin's suggestion to let wands outside of the list in without credits is one I'd be fine with. We already let any old dorje be made and yet the world hasn't ended from that getting abused, I don't think its a big deal if wands are opened up likewise. A few unusually potent ones, like True Strike, will surface, but I doubt any are really any worse than the Vigor dorjes we're already okay with. That's (sort of) what I did with my character Reginald Molehusband, and now some of his shenanigans (like bringing a couple of grappling horses to an ECL 3 fight) have been outlawed (due in part to public outcry, I think). Eh, not to burst your bubble, but the grappling horse thing was an issue well before Reginald showed, and he wasn't the only one doing it during his time either (see Usernamer's characters). If anything he might have been a force behind the removal of Forgery's use, but not so much with grappling horses. Zevox
McJarvis 01-02-07, 11:09 PM	In essence-> it's rather strange that we have one-charge wondrous items be counted as expendibles, but not 50 charge wands that will be completely used up in ten fights or so(which I understand is one or two levels of combat & several months, but is a short time over the life of a fully-fleshed out character nonetheless.) As I said before, I would expect any effect that lasts for less than 1 min/level is expendible in nature. If using expendibles is actually bad for characters, then we should remove the expendible cap completely since expendibles apparently make character less powerful. Regardless, this isn't a topic I'm terribly interested in pushing since three of my builds currently use & abuse wands/dorjes. Since no one seems interested in putting restrictions on wands/dorjes that are in place for other expendibles, there is no reason for me to continue arguing.
Vathelokai 01-02-07, 11:28 PM	1) Wands... 2) RP value of the Guild system. LOY was intercepted this week by TAO for no forseeable reason from a game perspective. While I fully understand why Vath felt he had to do this(the artifact is important to him), I must confess the event has sucked my desire to send LOY after this artifact. Metagame hurts my mind-> though I'm not sure at all how to fix it....unfortunately for this one I have no fix in mind :(. 3) Teams//leadership...I feel pretty bad about that still. One of the larger problems I have with the guild system is that the RP and strategy game portions mix like oil and water most of the time. The RP idea I'm working on now is that TAO dosn't yet know of LOY and figured they were random NPC treasurehunters. As I mentioned, as soon as the crazyness at TAO calms down I'll get that story running. In other news(and not really related to complaints), I've officially decided(after a few months of thought) that the elders were in error picking Poe for the stealthy part of Uncon and I will be retiring him. Listen checks being what they are(2 DC0 listen checks to snipe with a spell), there is no reasonable way to snipe with spells if the character has no access to the silence spell-> which is the ONLY reason I developed the character the way it is. I could probably rebuild him to do something else, but it wouldn't be fun for me anymore. 2 DC 0 listens? One can be nulled by a rod of silence; what's the other one?
Zevox 01-02-07, 11:32 PM	In essence-> it's rather strange that we have one-charge wondrous items be counted as expendibles, but not 50 charge wands Um, they aren't. Only potions, scrolls, tattoos, and powerstones count towards the expendable cap. None of those are wondrous items. Zevox
McJarvis 01-03-07, 12:47 AM	2 DC 0 listens? One can be nulled by a rod of silence; what's the other one? One for casting a spell, one for attacking. Only thing that can get rid of the listen DC for attacking is the silence spell itself, which Poe has no access to. When I built Poe I was unaware of this-> If I had been I might have built some sort of Cleric 1(magic domain)/Rogue X build. Um, they aren't. Only potions, scrolls, tattoos, and powerstones count towards the expendable cap. None of those are wondrous items. Zevox Unless something has changed without me looking, things like Elixers of Hiding & whatnot(any 1-use wondrous item) counts towards expendibles. edit-> Apparently something changed when I wasn't looking...I could have sworn 1-time-use wondrous items were covered under expendibles(I remember being dissapointed when building earlier version of Mort that I couldn't afford elixers of hiding)
Sutro 01-03-07, 12:49 AM	I see where McJarvis is coming from. I think the whole "Oh, he heard it, that counts as aware!" thing for deflect arrows and sneak attack is crap. There's such a huge and unrealistic difference between hearing something like a arrow or scorching ray spell and actually being "aware" of it (in the former, not unless you're Neo post-ascenscion, in the latter, not unless you have spellcraft.) Regardless, both take place in what is considered an "instant" in D&D - under 4 seconds. Skip Williams in Rules of the Game made (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a) the intent of sneak attack (and its companion in this argument, deflect arrows) very clear. If the attacker has total concealment relative to the defender, it's a sneak attack. No listen check involved. I know a lot of people take exception to Skip's articles but this one I wholeheartedly agree with.
McJarvis 01-03-07, 12:53 AM	I see where McJarvis is coming from. I think the whole "Oh, he heard it, that counts as aware!" thing for deflect arrows and sneak attack is crap. There's such a huge and unrealistic difference between hearing something like a arrow or scorching ray spell and actually being "aware" of it (in the former, not unless you're Neo post-ascenscion, in the latter, not unless you have spellcraft.) Regardless, both take place in what is considered an "instant" in D&D - under 4 seconds. Skip Williams in Rules of the Game made (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a) the intent of sneak attack (and its companion in this argument, deflect arrows) very clear. If the attacker has total concealment relative to the defender, it's a sneak attack. No listen check involved. I know a lot of people take exception to Skip's articles but this one I wholeheartedly agree with. I'm not talking about whether poe gets sneak attack dice when he attacks or not-> I'm talking about whether his location is easily pinpointable(DC 20 listen check + distance mods)
Zevox 01-03-07, 01:03 AM	Unless something has changed without me looking, things like Elixers of Hiding & whatnot(any 1-use wondrous item) counts towards expendibles. edit-> Apparently something changed when I wasn't looking...I could have sworn 1-time-use wondrous items were covered under expendibles(I remember being dissapointed when building earlier version of Mort that I couldn't afford elixers of hiding) Um, nothing has changed. The expendable cap has never included wondrous items. The reason a low-level character couldn't get elixirs would be due to the CL = ECL cap on charged items counting for them - maybe thats what you're thinking of. I think the whole "Oh, he heard it, that counts as aware!" thing for deflect arrows and sneak attack is crap. Then you'll be happy to know it was overturned by a recent FAQ update. MWB posted that in the tavern not too long ago. Zevox
Sutro 01-03-07, 01:06 AM	(shrug) I still disagree with the DC being lowered by 20. The Listen description for the DC 0 is "people" talking - not person. I know this was gone over before at length and the DC 0 was agreed upon because there is no game mechanic to support "quiet" casting, but it's still bothersome to me.
Sutro 01-03-07, 01:08 AM	Then you'll be happy to know it was overturned by a recent FAQ update. MWB posted that in the tavern not too long ago. Zevox Ah, cool. I was reading over some of the fights and I saw the Maelosh fight got significantly hampered because of it; I thought it was still an active line of thought.
McJarvis 01-03-07, 01:09 AM	(shrug) I still disagree with the DC being lowered by 20. The Listen description for the DC 0 is "people" talking - not person. I know this was gone over before at length and the DC 0 was agreed upon because there is no game mechanic to support "quiet" casting, but it's still bothersome to me. The DC I'm having problems with is the listen DC created by any "attack"-> even by a silenced spell.
hogarth 01-03-07, 05:16 AM	Eh, not to burst your bubble, but the grappling horse thing was an issue well before Reginald showed, and he wasn't the only one doing it during his time either (see Usernamer's characters). If anything he might have been a force behind the removal of Forgery's use, but not so much with grappling horses. I didn't mean that I invented anything, I just meant that I saw something already existing (Usernamer's grappling horse, Forgery, etc.) that I thought was dumb and I tried to pour more fuel on the fire so that the Elders couldn't continue to use the popular "Well it's a stupid rule, but almost nobody is taking advantage of it so we'll leave it as-is." My point was just that some people need to see data first-hand before deciding whether a rule is really unbalancing or not.
Caterane 02-21-07, 10:00 AM	The Council, long time no see. As brought up, I have an issue with the elder ruling of unimpeded winged flight. We created the maps for a reason, to have different enviroment that both favor and handicap most builds; at least the broad categories. Asides from that physical laws are still in effect in Othalla so a griffon with 35ft wingspan just cannot fly in a 10ft tunnel. The question is how to put that in rules. We could say that anytime you fly, your base doubles vertically. This wuold surely be the most realistic way to handle flight although I've heard complaints that it increases pitlord work too much. Another suggestion was to just limit flight to a certain base size, eg no large+ flyers in the sewer. The problem here is that you could still fly without problem in the cavern and temple. We came up with the rule of half movement in the forest. Maybe we can use that in underground maps too? Other ideas? Until we have found a better solution, we assume that a winged creature needs twice it's base (vertically only) to pass an obstacle or fly down a narrow passage. That's on a provisional basis. Additionally, I'll add a clarification to the rules that disallows what became known as the "Zero Touchdown" theory. It means that an average or worse flyer just lands on the ground to make free changes in direction to circumvent using the rules for turning from the DMG p20. This is effective immideately.
Hirumajoe 02-21-07, 10:57 AM	As brought up, I have an issue with the elder ruling of unimpeded winged flight. We created the maps for a reason, to have different enviroment that both favor and handicap most builds; at least the broad categories. If this is intended to handicap a particular build, flight, out of curiosity why are we limiting ourselves to winged flight? Certainly the forest doesn't distinguish between winged and magical flight. Although if you're arguing from a realism standpoint, that I can understand better. But does that imply we should change the maps, to better reflect the balance we desire? If you're aiming to handicap flight, then it should affect flight, not just a particular type of flight. We could say that anytime you fly, your base doubles vertically. This wuold surely be the most realistic way to handle flight although I've heard complaints that it increases pitlord work too much. Why only vertically? I didn't think non-square monsters was 3.5 compatible (since it was intended as a simplification measure). It'd also certainly be a general house rule rather than a map specific rule. I presume you are refering to winged flight and not magical flight. (Although, I don't see how a pegasus or griffon can physically fly unassisted magically if you're invoking physical laws, but that's an entirely different realism problem. :) ) What about simply spreading their wings but not actually physically flying? Does this allow somone to essentially extend their base for free (upwards if only vertically) without any movement and suddenly make a full attack, then retreat back down to normal size afterwards? From a realism stand point, I can not see why this sudden extension with wings wouldn't be allowed (assuming the base doubles vertically when flying). And it could come up on the forest map. Can you fly sideways/upside down? I know I've seen birds bank or dive straight down, so presumably you'd have to keep track of the "vertical" direction (in the case of a vertical dive, it'd be horizontal to the rest of the world).. What about short periods of time when you pull your wings in? Can you essentially let momentum pull you past a narrow point while you fall 5-10'? I know birds aren't flapping continually and can actually dive with their wings retracted. Btw, I'm not saying the above is a bad idea, but I do want to know the ramifications of such a ruling. Another suggestion was to just limit flight to a certain base size, eg no large+ flyers in the sewer. The problem here is that you could still fly without problem in the cavern and temple. And the city. And the arena. All of which contain various spots with very little space. Either down narrow streets or between columns. We came up with the rule of half movement in the forest. Maybe we can use that in underground maps too? Other ideas? That could work. Do you apply it to all flyers or just winged flyer or just large and bigger winged flyers? Until we have found a better solution, we disallow winged flight in the sewer for large creatures, and the cavern entrances cannot be passed with winged flight either. That's on a provisional basis. The cavern enterances are 15' wide diagonally. There are streets on the city map which are that narrow. The arena also has sections where the columns are only spaced 10-15' apart. If the cavern enterances get excluded, those other areas should also get excluded (eventually). Edit: Just noticed Cat edited the post so the above doesn't apply. I think you need to be slightly careful here, in both reasons you use to justify the loss of flight and on how many maps that would apply. Having winged flight impeded on 6 out of the 7 maps might not be the balance that you're looking for. Anyways, this is mostly to show the style of questions that I think need to be answered by any solution eventually settled on.
TelinArtho 02-21-07, 11:12 AM	The Council, long time no see. As brought up, I have an issue with the elder ruling of unimpeded winged flight. We created the maps for a reason, to have different enviroment that both favor and handicap most builds; at least the broad categories. Asides from that physical laws are still in effect in Othalla so a griffon with 35ft wingspan just cannot fly in a 10ft tunnel. The question is how to put that in rules. We could say that anytime you fly, your base doubles vertically. This wuold surely be the most realistic way to handle flight although I've heard complaints that it increases pitlord work too much. Another suggestion was to just limit flight to a certain base size, eg no large+ flyers in the sewer. The problem here is that you could still fly without problem in the cavern and temple. We came up with the rule of half movement in the forest. Maybe we can use that in underground maps too? Other ideas? Until we have found a better solution, we assume that a winged creature needs twice it's base (vertically only) to pass an obstacle or fly down a narrow passage. That's on a provisional basis. Additionally, I'll add a clarification to the rules that disallows what became known as the "Zero Touchdown" theory. It means that an average or worse flyer just lands on the ground to make free changes in direction to circumvent using the rules for turning from the DMG p20. This is effective immideately. As I mentioned before, flight is already complicated for a pitlord to handle. Given the dwindling numbers of pitlords - making something even more difficult for them to handle (as in - needing to figure out just where a flying participant can go) with a house rule is not something I'm keen on agreeing with. If you want to make a blanket rule saying large-size flyers with wings cannot fly in the sewer, I can agree with that. If you want to limit flying in the city map - make it so that large-size flyers with wings cannot fly in the 10ft wide alleyways. Same would go for other small areas. Effectively increasing a monster's "space" on the map is not going to help the situation. it just makes things more complicated with very little benefit. If it is something that makes it even more daunting to pitlord - you are only going to drive away pitlords with this ruling. I'd like to see the wording on the new "no zero touchdown" rule - but I'll reserve comment until I see it.
hogarth 02-21-07, 11:17 AM	The Council, long time no see. As brought up, I have an issue with the elder ruling of unimpeded winged flight. We created the maps for a reason, to have different enviroment that both favor and handicap most builds; at least the broad categories. Asides from that physical laws are still in effect in Othalla so a griffon with 35ft wingspan just cannot fly in a 10ft tunnel. If we insist on treating wingspans "realistically", does that mean that a wizard can polymorph into a griffon and then make touch attacks with a reach of 20 feet? Personally, I think it's tedious to go through every creature type, figure out its exact shape and size and then figure out what is "realistic" for that particular (mythical) being. Can it realistically hold a wand? Can it realistically climb a tree? Can it realistically be ridden as a mount? Should it get a penalty to crossing the stepping stones in the Forest map because of its feet (or lack thereof)? How high can it realistically reach, based on its height and arm length? Since creatures can get improved cover in "chest deep" water, how deep is "chest deep"? Ad nauseum, ad infinitum. I prefer the unpalatable but consistent solution of assuming everything is a homogeneous cube shape, but neither method is very lovable.
Caterane 02-21-07, 11:23 AM	You misunderstand. We only consider the base being larger for purposes of passing narrow passages. Otherwise, we handle flight normally and the base is not really extended for all other purposes (like attacking or being targeted). For example, you ignore the wingspan unless the creature enters a narrow passage at which point you check wether it's possible or not to move in there. You don't have to record that in the mapper or anywhere else. You likewise do not really extend the base so that others can attack the wings or such things. It's pretty simple: you immideately see where you can fly and where not. Sewer: no except maybe a short trip over the acid pool Cavern: not in the entrances of the caves and between the statues. Temple: same thing, not between the statues. City: not into narrow alleys. Arena: not into the central pillars complex Forest: maybe there are trees that are closer than 20ft towards each other Plains: unimpeded. I haven't even looked at the maps to come up with that list.
TelinArtho 02-21-07, 11:35 AM	So I'm plotting the movement for a flying character and a non-flying one. The flying character is following closely behind the non-flying one. The non-flying one ducks down an alley. The flying one, now needs to adjust his movement to account for the more narrow space - I either need to have him land (where he suddenly shrinks) or fly up higher (if possible) to avoid the problem. Moving in three dimensions is really the issue with flying. When a flyer is staying at one elevation, the pitlord can easily work with that. When moving in three dimensions, especially with obstacles like buildings in the way - it becomes more complicated. Compound this with a sudden "growth" in size as the flying character turns a corner and it gets even worse. This is complicated and I suspect many pitlords will have an issue getting through the logistics of it - especially if it is just a one-line entry in the House Rules section and not something that we specify with the map. I think the more elegant way to handle this is to specify it on the map: 1. Large-size or larger flyers with wings cannot fly in the sewer. 2. In the cavern map, large-size flyers need to land to navigate between the entrances and the statues, but otherwise can fly normally. Huge-size flyers cannot fly in the starting areas, but can fly freely in the main center area. 3. Temple map - large size flyers cannot fly between or over the statues, but can fly freely in the center area. Huge-size flyers can only fly in the center area. 4. City map - alleys where the buildings (not the hedges) are less than 20ft apart are not an option for large-size or larger flyers. 5. Arena map - Large-size flyers cannot fly in the central pillar complex or in the four lesser pillar complexes. 6. Forest map - all flight is impeded to half-movement. Large flyers cannot navigate between trees that are closer than 20ft apart. 7. Plains - no flight restrictions. It will take longer to explain this way, but it also clearly identifies where the flight issues are and how to handle them. I would like to note that this is still a house rule. The rules do not specify that a flying creature cannot "squeeze" (see Combat II portion of the SRD). I would much rather keep the house rules minimized, and more place it as a condition of the map rather than a condition of flying.
SauroGrenom 02-21-07, 11:57 AM	I think the best and simplest answer is to just say winged creatures of size large or greater cannot fly in the sewers. If we do anything more complicated, we'll probably get into trouble with unexpected results. It's not unreasonable to allow flight in the temple or cavern. If we look at real world physics (the basis of this whole discussion to change the rules), then we see that a creature's vertical dimension is not dramatically increased as it flies. Take a bat for example... While flying it's body bobs up and down within the vertical range of motion of the wings. The result is that bats can fly into areas that are rather cramped relative to their vertical dimension when standing. From a game balance perspective, the idea of a restriction on natural flight that doesn't apply to supernatural flight is giving a tremendous advantage to supernatural flight in coco on several (not just one) maps. Effectively supernatural flight on a large creature (only two or three particular mounts I can think of in the whole arena and all are Cat's characters) becomes a tremendous advantage since the flight is unrestricted on 3 maps where natural flight is restricted on mounts. I don't think we should make supernatural flight so powerful relative to natural flight. As for the "Zero Touchdown" strategy, we can simply state that changing movement types can only take place at the transition between move actions. If you think about this, it makes sense, and it prevents all sorts of nasty things from happening.
TelinArtho 02-21-07, 12:08 PM	As for the "Zero Touchdown" strategy, we can simply state that changing movement types can only take place at the transition between move actions. If you think about this, it makes sense, and it prevents all sorts of nasty things from happening. I would disagree with this. Taking flight out of the equation, why shouldn't a regular walker, who also has a climb speed, climb as part of the move action. For example: Person is staring at a 10ft high ledge, he climbs up 10ft using 1/2 of his 20ft of climb movement with a move action. Why should he lose the other half of his move action, just because the ledge wasn't that high? I would be fine with a restriction that says that switching from Flight to Regular to Flight should cost movement for maneuverability average and lower fliers (equal to the cost it would take if they were flying), but not one that says you must end one move action if you want to change movement modes.
SauroGrenom 02-21-07, 12:27 PM	I think there's nothing unreasonable at all about "loosing" half of your move action in that case. It takes some of your time to get on the wall, and then get yourself situated to start running again. Think of it this way... Should a white dragon like Lord Frost be able to fly 40' burrow 10' under a wall and then fly out of the hole for another XX'. Talk about making things complicated. In your suggestion the pitlord is required to calculate fractions of a move action... so the burrow speed is x and he only burrows for y feet, so that 1/z of a move action and he's got 0.33 of a move action left that he can use with his fly speed... ridiculous. There is no such thing as a fractional move action. A move action is a move action. You move with some movement type at some given speed using a move action. We shouldn't invent houserules to have fractional move actions. That's not in the rules, and it creates headaches to pitlord, and totally unreasonable things can happen.
TelinArtho 02-21-07, 12:40 PM	There's a question in the FAQ about tumbling that addresses this kind of shift. The question asked if the tumbling character moves at half speed for the entire move, or if it is just the portion that requires tumbling where the movement speed is halved. The answer is much in line with what I said. That said, I agree that it could be confusing for someone who has trouble with fractions. That said, I generally assume that fractions are an easier concept to grasp than simple trigonometry (which would be required for 3d movement like flight). My assumption may be incorrect, that is true, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that part. I would not like to see this implemented, but I suppose I can rescind my argument for the sake of simplicity. That said, I still very much oppose a flying character who "grows" during narrow situations...
SauroGrenom 02-21-07, 12:46 PM	There's a question in the FAQ about tumbling that addresses this kind of shift. The question asked if the tumbling character moves at half speed for the entire move, or if it is just the portion that requires tumbling where the movement speed is halved. The answer is much in line with what I said. That said, I agree that it could be confusing for someone who has trouble with fractions. That said, I generally assume that fractions are an easier concept to grasp than simple trigonometry (which would be required for 3d movement like flight). My assumption may be incorrect, that is true, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that part. I would not like to see this implemented, but I suppose I can rescind my argument for the sake of simplicity. That said, I still very much oppose a flying character who "grows" during narrow situations...The way I read the thing in the FAQ is a bit different. There is effectively a movement penalty for a fraction of the move when you tumble through an area. Also note that the Tumble skill specifically states that you tumble at half speed for part of your movement. This example is more like a character moving on the forest map into some undergrowth and moving part of the move action on the road. The movement penalty isn't applied for the whole movement, just the part where the penalty applies.
McJarvis 02-21-07, 12:46 PM	Note that a climb speed is a bit unique as far as special movement modes go. I was supprised to find that it doesn't give you a spider-climb like effect, but rather just lets you take 10's on climb checks & make climb checks at the speed indicated instead of whatever the normal modification on your movement is for them. In essence-> Flight speed lets you fly, something that you couldn't do otherwise. Climb speed gives you bonuses and advantages to climbing-> something you _could_ do before. I would strongly discourage all alterier-modes of movement be judged on this "you change movement modes, you end your move" since they are all unique. There are not so many that we couldn't just make a list of ones that count as regular land-speed and ones that are unique & need their own movement.
MindWandererB 02-21-07, 04:04 PM	I don't think there's any "fix" for the zero-touchdown strategy unless you prohibit changes in movement modes mid-move in all cases. If you change it for flight only, you're being inconsistent. This would not apply to cases where you use the same movement mode, but your speed changes, such as when you tumble. You're still using your land speed in that case, you're just taking a penalty. Plus, figuring out movement with multiple modes is just a pain in the butt. Say you have a land speed of 30 and a climb speed of 20. You are 10 feet away from a 10-foot-tall ledge. If you want to climb the ledge and keep moving at the top, how far can you get in a single move? A double move? There's no formula for the conversion. We could invent one, but that would be a house rule, too--and it would be a big pain in the butt. As for the wings issue, I think a compromise is in order: a winged creature cannot fly in an area less than twice its space. By phrasing it that way, we don't mess with the actual space, and creatures don't get in the way. Only small areas on the maps are affected (almost all of them in the sewers, only a few in the arena, some in the forest, city, cavern, and temple). It also covers Huge and larger flying creatures, when the issue comes up. And personally, I think it makes a ton of sense that if a Large flyer wants to follow a walking character into an alley, it would have to land or fly overhead.
Guildmaster_LOY 02-22-07, 07:22 PM	By the way: I'm not really sure when it happened(since I've been somewhat AFK for a while), but I really like the changes to the guild system as far as missions go. The added emphasis to PC's in the guild married with limitations of the guild's current assets is a really nice mix.(and being able to trade/sell PTS is really nice too, since they have a tendency of over-flowing in LOY's storage tanks :) )
Hirumajoe 02-23-07, 09:11 PM	I would like to suggest that the wording in the Scouting (attack) skill package needs to be cleared up or changed. Survival or Search (vs Track DC) Use Rope (vs Escape artist) Knowledge Geography . Task: You have to pass the Track DC (Indoor: Dc15; Outdoor: Dc10; plus modifiers on PHB p101). Your Use Rope value must be higher than your opponent's escape artist. You need at least 5 ranks in each skill. . Effect: You gain one free prebuff round just before the fight for every 5 points in Knowledge Geography. . Note: Without the track feat, you can only find tracks up to DC 10. Is it intended for this Track DC to be beaten with a take 10 or a roll? If its intended to to be a take 10, can that be made explicit in the description, as most pitlords I've had have rolled for it. If its intended as a roll, then I respectfully suggest that it be changed to a take 10. Tracking is a non-combat activity that is done in a non-threating environment. Which would meet the requirements to be able to take 10 on a skill check. It would certainly speed of the writing of tactics for those with the package, since they wouldn't need to prod their pitlord for a roll (since it isn't exactly obvious like a monster fight right off to bat). Thanks for your consideration, Hirumajoe
Tellish_of_Ket 02-23-07, 09:14 PM	When using any skill outside of a fight or encounter, you're always assumed to be taking 10... Always use taking 10. The individual skill doesn't require it to be noted, because it is stated in the first two lines of that particular rules thread that you are assumed to be taking 10 (unless you can't like UMB and such). Tellish
MindWandererB 02-23-07, 10:23 PM	Then there's a contradiction:As described above, Skill Packages are combinations of skills which create certain effects if used jointly. Attack/Defend Skill Packages are just that but they require no Free Activity to activate. Instead, they are automatically activated anytime you fight. There are, however, some restrictions: You need at least 5 ranks in each skill mentioned, and you can only use it in a 1 vs 1 Battle of Gladius (ie no Multiplayer fights, quests, etc). If that's the case, then just check the 'Task' required. If all task requirements are fulfilled, the activity is executed. If there are rolls involved, the pitlord sets them up before you send tactics. Which implies not taking 10.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-24-07, 04:41 AM	Yes, i agree...very contradictory. What to do, what to do? Since you are not in combat at the time of tracking, you do have the choice of taking 10 regardless, by simple virtue of raw. Inform your pitlord you are taking 10 on that particular non-combat related activity and you should be fine. But that's just my opinion though. Tellish
TheMagister 02-26-07, 02:46 AM	I rolled two noble salamanders (double standard treasure, 15 HD creatures) for Jonathon and Anixx. NO TEAM (NOT ONE!) could've competed realistically in that encounter. I'll run it again on a lark; pick anyone you want. I request that we re-examine, each and severally, the following points: A) a questlord/missionlord-s authority to pick encounters of appropriate EL to tailor to his/her quests and put it to an elder vote, and; B) allow a questlord/missionlord the authority to declare a rolled encounter an "auto-loss" situation for the questors and re-roll on the appropriate chart, and; C) Discontinue the "Roll on the next highest EL" option currently present on the charts. That wasn't a mission. It was a slaughter. TM
Tellish_of_Ket 02-26-07, 03:12 AM	I rolled two noble salamanders (double standard treasure, 15 HD creatures) for Jonathon and Anixx. NO TEAM (NOT ONE!) could've competed realistically in that encounter. I'll run it again on a lark; pick anyone you want. I request that we re-examine, each and severally, the following points: A) a questlord/missionlord-s authority to pick encounters of appropriate EL to tailor to his/her quests and put it to an elder vote, and; B) allow a questlord/missionlord the authority to declare a rolled encounter an "auto-loss" situation for the questors and re-roll on the appropriate chart, and; C) Discontinue the "Roll on the next highest EL" option currently present on the charts. That wasn't a mission. It was a slaughter. TM I was just looking at your Monster fight charts Monster Fights 1-10 and i didn't see an option to roll on higher el. There is a roll on EL 7 and add half-dragon template...but that's about it. Tellish
Zevox 02-26-07, 03:52 AM	I was just looking at your Monster fight charts Monster Fights 1-10 and i didn't see an option to roll on higher el. There is a roll on EL 7 and add half-dragon template...but that's about it. Tellish Thats because those are charts we've custom-made for the arena. The EL 11+ ones haven't been redone like that, since those leagues have been frozen. Its about they get redone though, I think, since the Iron Man will thaw the upper leagues soon and we have Guild stuff at ELs higher than 10 going on. Zevox
TheMagister 02-26-07, 03:52 AM	It was a result of "94" on the EL 11 chart.
Zevox 02-26-07, 03:55 AM	@ TM - Just so you know for the future, for missions with two characters like that, you could roll twice on the EL 9 chart instead of once on the EL 11 one. Zevox
MindWandererB 02-26-07, 02:00 PM	And as for "no chance," I disagree. Most of Cat's characters could have done it. Flight + Deflect Arrows could have done it, with a bit of luck (returning weapons can only be used once per round)--one of the builds in my backpocket even allows three deflections per round (Defkect Arrows + Shield of Deflecting + Return Shot). But yeah, we will be "fixing" those tables. No more rolling on the next higher one. Just an elite troll weretyrannosaurus. ;)
TheMagister 02-26-07, 06:46 PM	Yeah, sure MWB. And they could deflect 6 10d6 fireballs and 6 walls of fire and 2 dispel magics while they're at it.
Guildmaster_LOY 02-26-07, 08:20 PM	Regarding Leaders (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7890153#post7890153) and guilds: Looking over the list, I can not help but think of a few things that are off. 1) TLT should have Druids/Rangers as their spellcasters/warriors. Rangers are, after all, the woodsy fighter. 2) Barbarians obviously don't fit with LOY, however. LOY just needs a lawful fighter...and there you go, the fighter. 3) That leaves WAR with the barbarian, which fits WAR's semi-chaotic theme nicely. I'll admit now, I have not thought of balance issues that revolve around this.(and realize even as I write it that perhaps it would weaken LOY...but surely not that much)
Abyssal Stalker 02-27-07, 08:29 AM	And as for "no chance," I disagree. Most of Cat's characters could have done it. Flight + Deflect Arrows could have done it, with a bit of luck (returning weapons can only be used once per round)--one of the builds in my backpocket even allows three deflections per round (Defkect Arrows + Shield of Deflecting + Return Shot). But yeah, we will be "fixing" those tables. No more rolling on the next higher one. Just an elite troll weretyrannosaurus. ;) Remember that most of Cat's characters are frozen. That gives them a really big advantage. Just think about Ix's symbols of Pain and Sleep (or whatever symbols he had, the key is that they cost a lot). How lightly would you use them if you knew that they wouldn't be recovered after the 3FC? And I'm not yet counting in the fact that all of them come with an army of allies. I'm not trying to say anything about Cat's characters. I'm saying that being frozen gives an advantage. Yes, my character is probably crappy, but still I'd like to have even the slightest chance in a quest. I'm putting a lot of effort in the CoCo, but this stops being fun really fast if I only get to fight things that I don't stand a chance. Just look at the world event, and what happened. It was kinda boring to watch people getting slaughtered by monsters that they stood no chance every week. If Cat's characters are the only ones that should be able to beat the missions, then fine.
Erithmu 02-28-07, 04:19 PM	I would like to bring the following issue before the council for consideration: The Forest Map 80% of the time a fight is run on this map some arbitrary ruling has to be made as to the nature of the map conditions. Additionally the map does not promote fighting in any fashion. While this is good for sneaky types, the sneaky types always hit delay penalty. I would like to see a pitlord friendly revision of the map, and remove it from rotation while it is revised.
MindWandererB 02-28-07, 04:36 PM	I would like to bring the following issue before the council for consideration: The Forest Map 80% of the time a fight is run on this map some arbitrary ruling has to be made as to the nature of the map conditions. Additionally the map does not promote fighting in any fashion. While this is good for sneaky types, the sneaky types always hit delay penalty. I would like to see a pitlord friendly revision of the map, and remove it from rotation while it is revised.I would support this idea. Not only are there frequent, arbitrary rulings, but the pitlord nearly always has to "cheat" by ignoring Hide checks through the concealment-granting undergrowth, or by having the characters miraculously head directly toward each other. However, I do think a forest map should be around in some form or another. Here would be the changes I would make: 1) The map be made smaller in general. It doesn't need to be a forest and a swamp; we don't need that much water. If we create more of a clearing in the middle, it will allow non-sneaky builds to actually find and fight each other. 2) The trees be reduced in size to the rules in the DMG. This will both follow the RAW more closely and permit more interaction. 3) The path be increased in size to 10'. Large characters and horses take forever to get anywhere as it is. Better yet, maintain a 10' path, but have some other squares that are not covered in undergrowth (again, as suggested by the DMG). 4) That absurd and completely made-up impeded flight rule be eliminated. Seriously, there is nothing in the rules to support this--it came 100% out of Cat's imagination that you shouldn't be able to fly fast in a forest. 5) Undergrowth should be given a fixed height value. That's jsut off the top of my head. Unfortunately, Cat is the big obstacle on this one--I made most of these arguments to him when we were first designing the maps. He originally had trees 25' in diameter....
SauroGrenom 02-28-07, 04:44 PM	Although I agree with you about the forest map being kind of a pain in the arse to pitlord, I question your stats. You say that 80% of the time this map has problems? Can you back that up? Yes the map is obviously intended for sneaky types. Specifically forest gnome druids do well in that map. Almost everyone else has a tough time. When I run that map I've always sort of "cheated" by having the players serendipitously move toward each other instead of randomly determining the search patters (as I do on the arena map). I'd like to see that map redone a bit so that it's easier for opponents to find one another, but I'm not sure how much of a problem it is right now.
TelinArtho 02-28-07, 04:50 PM	I'll back up MWB's any assertion that 80% of the fights on that map have had some sort of trouble associated with it... Frankly, I'd assert with more confidence that it has single-handedly removed pitlords from pitlording more than any other factor. Running a fight on that map, with all of its quirkiness leads to fights that take much longer to run, much longer to interpret and to resolve (in terms of criticisms after the fact).
MindWandererB 02-28-07, 05:04 PM	It was Rith's assertion, not mine. I'd estimate it at less than 80%, due to the availability heuristic, but still unacceptably high. And mostly, it's just a pain in the butt. Two players in the forest is easily equal to three on any other map in terms of the amount of time it takes.
Macbrea 02-28-07, 05:06 PM	I take quite awhile to run a fight. I am very particular about the method in which I do it. On an arena map or any of the other maps. It takes me about 4-6 hours to run the fight. My last three forest fights have each taken me over 10 hours to run. This is with making 'random' decisions that would result in the characters heading the the correct direction.
Erithmu 02-28-07, 05:40 PM	80% is probably high, but it is still more than it is worth. But consider some of the following: - Skill requirements for Character sheets (in combination with the City map) - Cover from water (Hood vs ???Relenx?) - Drowning rules and considerations --> How tall is a 7 ft human in a 5 ft square? - Entangle as a 3D effect (or not, or maybe, or ...) - A sneaky map for sneakers that would allow Macbrea's Troglodyte the ability to hide and move silent. - Slow moving mounts - Eternal fights due to miss chance from undergrowth (which is also fun for sneakers who have their Sneak attack negated). - More die rolling than is probably worth for a pitlord in running a fight. (Skill checks, hide checks) I'm sure there are more. I think this map has turned more into a forest marsh map (with focus on the marsh and quagmire aspects than the forest aspects). It just seems to me that the CoCo cannot go a month (feels more like every 2 weeks) without needing to redefine the forest map and its attributes, or at the very least discuss them.
TelinArtho 02-28-07, 06:07 PM	I would like to address formally the use of Lesser Planar Ally to gain outsiders with huge wealth with regard to their CR. Jur is the inciting reason for this post, but it is only because he is the 2nd one to use LPA since my joining of the CoCo (with me being the first). Jur is using LPA to gain a Bralani. The question is - does the bralani come with: a) the standard and minimal equipment listed in the monster entry b) no equipment at all c) reasonable equipment based on its CR The bralani is probably the worst offender for LPA because it holds 2 pieces of equipment: a Holy +1 Scimitar (18315gp value) and a Holy +1 Mighty (+4 Str) Composite Long Bow (18800gp value). As a CR 6 monster that "should" only have 5600gp - doubled to 11200gp for having "double goods" - this is out of the stratosphere of "reasonable." I think it is more reasonable to rule that LPA's come with either no equipment, or the minimal amount of weaponry/armor that they have in their listing while still keeping within the limits of their wealth. So in the case of the bralani, he could keep both the magical bow and scimitar, just without the holy enchantments, etc. This certainly becomes more of a pain to keep track of, but it at least keeps it reasonable. [EDIT] Reviewing all of the LPA eligible creatures, the bralani is the only one with magical equipment. All of the others either have no equipment listed or make use of non-magical weapons and armor. This needs to be addressed before the iron man (even if it is only to say that LPA's have the equipment of the monster entry), so that there's no confusion after it starts.
SauroGrenom 02-28-07, 07:20 PM	Whoa... How many things are on the plate right now? I've lost track. About the map, it sounds like there is a general consensus that the forest map is a bit too much of a pain in the ass. I suggest a PM directed at Cat. He is the "decider". I wouldn't object to a decision to suspend use of the forest map till it can be revised. About the LPA: Getting stuff for free is something we try to avoid around here. That's why we nerfed True Mind Switch and Polymorph any Object. So I think that we should plug this hole as well. How to do it is a hard question to answer. Since the equipment on the creature is tied to CR, it makes sense that the creature should have some equipment if the CR remains the same for the purpose of our ally rules. Perhaps what we ought to do is require the player to choose if his ally has a bow or scimitar? That cuts the equipment in half and brings it much closer to the allowable stuff for a monster of that CR. Other than that, we choose new weapons that are within the limits. Or we ban this ally.
MindWandererB 02-28-07, 07:25 PM	I'll send that PM. Regarding Leaders (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7890153#post7890153) and guilds: Looking over the list, I can not help but think of a few things that are off. 1) TLT should have Druids/Rangers as their spellcasters/warriors. Rangers are, after all, the woodsy fighter. 2) Barbarians obviously don't fit with LOY, however. LOY just needs a lawful fighter...and there you go, the fighter. 3) That leaves WAR with the barbarian, which fits WAR's semi-chaotic theme nicely. I'll admit now, I have not thought of balance issues that revolve around this.(and realize even as I write it that perhaps it would weaken LOY...but surely not that much) Missed this one before. I think the current choices are as they are in order to give the guilds some variety. For instance, if TLT had rangers instead of barbarians, we would have two classes with nature-related abilities and d8 hit dice.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-28-07, 07:37 PM	I would like to address formally the use of Lesser Planar Ally to gain outsiders with huge wealth with regard to their CR. Jur is the inciting reason for this post, but it is only because he is the 2nd one to use LPA since my joining of the CoCo (with me being the first). Jur is using LPA to gain a Bralani. The question is - does the bralani come with: a) the standard and minimal equipment listed in the monster entry b) no equipment at all c) reasonable equipment based on its CR The bralani is probably the worst offender for LPA because it holds 2 pieces of equipment: a Holy +1 Scimitar (18315gp value) and a Holy +1 Mighty (+4 Str) Composite Long Bow (18800gp value). As a CR 6 monster that "should" only have 5600gp - doubled to 11200gp for having "double goods" - this is out of the stratosphere of "reasonable." I think it is more reasonable to rule that LPA's come with either no equipment, or the minimal amount of weaponry/armor that they have in their listing while still keeping within the limits of their wealth. So in the case of the bralani, he could keep both the magical bow and scimitar, just without the holy enchantments, etc. This certainly becomes more of a pain to keep track of, but it at least keeps it reasonable. [EDIT] Reviewing all of the LPA eligible creatures, the bralani is the only one with magical equipment. All of the others either have no equipment listed or make use of non-magical weapons and armor. This needs to be addressed before the iron man (even if it is only to say that LPA's have the equipment of the monster entry), so that there's no confusion after it starts. Option A is the only option. It's what is within the limits of the spell. A bralani isn't as powerful as Leadership Ally of the equivalent CR, becuase it gets class levels, it gets access to it's masters loot of ECL 8. imho, there is absolutely nothing abusive about a brelani. There are restrictions that must be met. Must be chaotic good (i'd rather be true neutral), and his weapons only get the bonus against EVIL creatures. Then what happens with planar ally, greater planar ally? augmented summons of the same level, are stronger. So should we also say, you can't augment summons above summon monster V? Because i can get a "free" brelani with SM VI....but using planar ally costs me...both gold and xp. Besides, i can assure you it will be the last time i use it, as i'm getting my dragon zombie...so that will suck up all of my maxCA for my fights. But, besides the point, there is nothing abuse about LPA. Not even the brelani. He has poor AC and low hp compared to other options. Besides, summoned creatures appear as the MM entry. In this case it's a calling, but still. Tellish
Tellish_of_Ket 02-28-07, 07:46 PM	Nighmare is far more abusive. You get to ride ethereally and buff for 9 full rounds without interruption, move and appear out of range wherever you want. That seesm more powerful than a +1 holy bow to me. l :duel: :hides: lol Tellish
Tellish_of_Ket 02-28-07, 11:23 PM	Come to think of it...what language does a nightmare speak? Tellish
NiQil 02-28-07, 11:34 PM	Come to think of it...what language does a nightmare speak? Tellish Do nightmare's speak?
Erithmu 02-28-07, 11:41 PM	Do nightmare's speak? w/ 13 int I would think so.
MindWandererB 02-28-07, 11:52 PM	w/ 13 int I would think so. Int isn't the only thing you need. It has to have the right apparatus. Griffons, for instance, can understand Common but can't speak it.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-28-07, 11:58 PM	It's actually a very important question. I can't find anything indicating they are able to communicate. It's not infernal, that's lawful evil outsiders abyssal is chaotic evil outsiders ignan is firebased, and it doesn't have the fire subtype. So, what means does it have to communicate? Tellish
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 12:07 AM	If it doesn't have a language listed, it doesn't speak a language. That's my opinion, anyway.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 12:20 AM	If it doesn't have a language listed, it doesn't speak a language. That's my opinion, anyway. OK, so i guess now with the final enigma. LPA: "You must be able to communicate with the creature called in order to bargain for its services." Is it safe to assume then, that unless i can use telepathy, i cannot call a nightmare with LPA? Tellish
TelinArtho 03-01-07, 09:33 AM	OK, so i guess now with the final enigma. LPA: "You must be able to communicate with the creature called in order to bargain for its services." Is it safe to assume then, that unless i can use telepathy, i cannot call a nightmare with LPA? Tellish That would be safe to say. I swear I remember seeing a language for it. Kraegin will have it changed before the iron man.
hogarth 03-01-07, 09:42 AM	OK, so i guess now with the final enigma. LPA: "You must be able to communicate with the creature called in order to bargain for its services." Is it safe to assume then, that unless i can use telepathy, i cannot call a nightmare with LPA? Here's what it says in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm): Intelligence A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise).
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 01:43 PM	Here's what it says in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm): Yeah, but the communication has to be 2-way for it to negotiate with you.
Macbrea 03-01-07, 02:28 PM	So, if you talk to it in common and it responds in gestures. Is not communications possible? Evil Stevie: Tap once if two souls and a virgin will be good for this task! Nightmare: Tap, Tap.... Evil Stevie: Darn, your a hard barganer. Ok, two souls, a virgin and a couple of beers! Nightmare: Tap...
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 02:40 PM	That would be safe to say. I swear I remember seeing a language for it. Kraegin will have it changed before the iron man. Like i suggested, pick up a helm of telepathy. You have WAY too many pearls. More than any sane and healthy individual should own. LOL. Cash one in and grab a helm of telepathy. And to be honest, it's really worth it. A nightmare is a highly SUPER-POWERED ally to have. Tellish
TelinArtho 03-01-07, 02:49 PM	Well, a helm of Telepathy is 27k and I can't craft it (I don't have Detect Thoughts) - I would have to trade in way too many pearls for that... And I like having those pearls - it makes Kraegin nastily effective throughout his 3FC...
Hirumajoe 03-01-07, 03:01 PM	Can't you just use summon monster to summon up a telepathic demon/devil to do the translating for you? Or how about cast Tongues on the Nightmare? Since it gives the ability to speak any language, irregardless if the creature could speak with a voice in the first place. Its on the cleric spell list as a 4th level spell. I mean, the guy is a cleric with a ton of spells at his disposal, he should be able to find away around being able to talk to an intelligent horse...
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 03:04 PM	Well, a helm of Telepathy is 27k and I can't craft it (I don't have Detect Thoughts) - I would have to trade in way too many pearls for that... And I like having those pearls - it makes Kraegin nastily effective throughout his 3FC... NPC spellcasting? That's a cheap enough alternative. Tellish
TelinArtho 03-01-07, 03:24 PM	NPC spellcasting doesn't allow for NPCs aiding you in crafting items - that has been in the rules thread for as long as I remember. Temporary aids in language barriers are not valid (also in the rules thread), so a spell that has a finite duration wouldn't help. So unless I want to pay to get detect thoughts/telepathy made permanent or pay for a helm of telepathy I would suspect that the nightmare is out for Kraegin.
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 04:12 PM	Can't you just use summon monster to summon up a telepathic demon/devil to do the translating for you? Or how about cast Tongues on the Nightmare? Since it gives the ability to speak any language, irregardless if the creature could speak with a voice in the first place. Its on the cleric spell list as a 4th level spell.I don't think either option is viable if the creature in question lacks the vocal apparatus to speak at all. Granted, the writers never considered casting Tongues on such a creature, but I think the intent is obvious.
Caterane 03-01-07, 07:26 PM	I'll catch up on everything. One thing at a time. I would like to suggest that the wording in the Scouting (attack) skill package needs to be cleared up or changed. Survival or Search (vs Track DC) Use Rope (vs Escape artist) Knowledge Geography . Task: You have to pass the Track DC (Indoor: Dc15; Outdoor: Dc10; plus modifiers on PHB p101). Your Use Rope value must be higher than your opponent's escape artist. You need at least 5 ranks in each skill. . Effect: You gain one free prebuff round just before the fight for every 5 points in Knowledge Geography. . Note: Without the track feat, you can only find tracks up to DC 10. Is it intended for this Track DC to be beaten with a take 10 or a roll? If its intended to to be a take 10, can that be made explicit in the description, as most pitlords I've had have rolled for it. If its intended as a roll, then I respectfully suggest that it be changed to a take 10. Tracking is a non-combat activity that is done in a non-threating environment. Which would meet the requirements to be able to take 10 on a skill check. It would certainly speed of the writing of tactics for those with the package, since they wouldn't need to prod their pitlord for a roll (since it isn't exactly obvious like a monster fight right off to bat). Thanks for your consideration, Hirumajoe It is always Take 10. The player needs to know in advance wether this was a success or not; it's also quicker to handle for the pitlord and doesn't involve any additional communication (although a roll would be much cooler).
Caterane 03-01-07, 07:31 PM	I rolled two noble salamanders (double standard treasure, 15 HD creatures) for Jonathon and Anixx. NO TEAM (NOT ONE!) could've competed realistically in that encounter. I'll run it again on a lark; pick anyone you want. I request that we re-examine, each and severally, the following points: A) a questlord/missionlord-s authority to pick encounters of appropriate EL to tailor to his/her quests and put it to an elder vote, and; B) allow a questlord/missionlord the authority to declare a rolled encounter an "auto-loss" situation for the questors and re-roll on the appropriate chart, and; C) Discontinue the "Roll on the next highest EL" option currently present on the charts. That wasn't a mission. It was a slaughter. TM The monster charts from EL 11+ are still not updated but that's all we have for now. We should just ignore the rolls on higher or lower leagues (reroll them) because that's not a matched encounter anymore. I hope we soon find some volunteers to type up monsters for the upper leagues. 2 Credits per league!
Caterane 03-01-07, 07:34 PM	Regarding Leaders (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7890153#post7890153) and guilds: Looking over the list, I can not help but think of a few things that are off. 1) TLT should have Druids/Rangers as their spellcasters/warriors. Rangers are, after all, the woodsy fighter. 2) Barbarians obviously don't fit with LOY, however. LOY just needs a lawful fighter...and there you go, the fighter. 3) That leaves WAR with the barbarian, which fits WAR's semi-chaotic theme nicely. I'll admit now, I have not thought of balance issues that revolve around this.(and realize even as I write it that perhaps it would weaken LOY...but surely not that much) Awesome idea! I've edited the rules. Here's the new chart: O~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~O |GUILD| TYPE A | TYPE B | O~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~O | CEF | CLERIC | PALADIN | | EHT | SORCERER | ROGUE | | LOY | BARD | FIGHTER | | PSI | PSION | PSIWARRIOR| | TAO | WIZARD | MONK | | TLT | DRUID | RANGER | | WAR | WILDER | BARBARIAN | O~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~O
Caterane 03-01-07, 07:40 PM	I would like to bring the following issue before the council for consideration: The Forest Map 80% of the time a fight is run on this map some arbitrary ruling has to be made as to the nature of the map conditions. Additionally the map does not promote fighting in any fashion. While this is good for sneaky types, the sneaky types always hit delay penalty. I would like to see a pitlord friendly revision of the map, and remove it from rotation while it is revised. Ok I agree with this. We cannot however change the map layout just like that. It's a pain to redo it, and I have to get Dracazar to recode the mapmaker (he's not even around anymore). So we should leave that to changes in the rules of the map, not changes to the graphic itself!
Hirumajoe 03-01-07, 07:55 PM	I don't think either option is viable if the creature in question lacks the vocal apparatus to speak at all. Granted, the writers never considered casting Tongues on such a creature, but I think the intent is obvious. I actually read the intent to allow anything that is the spell's subject to speak, assuming it has the intelligence. And how do you know the writers never considered casting it on something like a pegasus or nightmare? They're both capable of making whinneys and neighs, how is that any different for a language of barks and yowls of a blink dog? How about explaining how a creature made out of rock and earth speaks like an Earth Elemental. I think you're letting reality get in the way of magic. Compare it the next higher equivalent spell, Telepathic bond. That spell provides instaneous long range communication regardless of silence and isn't interceptable. I think its very reasonable for a 4th level spell (one level lower) to give an intelligent horse a voice. I mean, you have illusions of 0th level which can make sound come from nothing, so why can't the Tongues spell allow something like a horse to make sounds like a human?
Macbrea 03-01-07, 08:23 PM	Ok I agree with this. We cannot however change the map layout just like that. It's a pain to redo it, and I have to get Dracazar to recode the mapmaker (he's not even around anymore). So we should leave that to changes in the rules of the map, not changes to the graphic itself! I agree with this one. The map would be more useful if you did the following. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=forest;a=test,M,1,64;b= othe,M,64,1;style=s Paths = Normal Green is Grass = Open Dark brown = 5ft high underbrush, Concealment Log = Balance check. Large Trees = Conifer Trees 40ft high, May be climbed DC 5. Provide Concealment Small Trees = Conifer Trees 20ft high, May be climbed DC 5. Provide Concealment Blue = Stream 5ft deep, No Current Light Green = Bog, with Bog rules Crevasses = 5ft deep trench, Cover Rocks = Balance check to cross Don't add double listen penalty to hear someone. Map plenty large without it. People want to fly above the trees let them. A good snipe hider will sit in a tree and tear them apart up there. This results in a setting that favors the hide types without crippling everyone else. It means if your close you can hear your opponent. And there is oddly even a chance to be able to see your opponent. The style tree I am talking about: http://www.domtar.com/arbre/image/album/p_epsit.jpg
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 08:27 PM	Ok I agree with this. We cannot however change the map layout just like that. It's a pain to redo it, and I have to get Dracazar to recode the mapmaker (he's not even around anymore). So we should leave that to changes in the rules of the map, not changes to the graphic itself! In this case, let me make the following proposals: Impeded Flight -> Gone. Trees just be considered to be smaller than they look. The bigger trees are "massive" and the smaller ones are normal. Grassy-looking tiles be considered grass. The dark-brown tiles and the edges of the massive trees be considered undergrowth. This would mean no deep undergrowth, but oh well. While we're at it, Entangle works on any target standing in grass, or in or adjacent to any tree, undergrowth, or the canopy.I think this is probably the best we can do without a new map. Opinions? Edit: My proposal is close to Macbrea's. The main differences are the lack of canopy, the 2 different types of tree, and the Listen penalty. Although the Listen is a pain, it's straight out of the DMG, and I'd like to follow the RAW as closely as possible. I can see both sides of the canopy argument; I'd like to hear other opinions.
Macbrea 03-01-07, 08:32 PM	The tree I showed in the picture is at least 35' at it's base. The large trees are about 15' on the map. I think if we use them as Conifers it would result in a fair representation.
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 08:40 PM	The tree I showed in the picture is at least 35' at it's base. The large trees are about 15' on the map. I think if we use them as Conifers it would result in a fair representation. I could go with that, if we opted to not have a canopy. However, I would argue in favor of the trees going by the book: Trees: The most important terrain element in a forest is the trees, obviously. A creature standing in the same square as a tree gains a +2 bonus to Armor Class and a +1 bonus on Reflex saves (these bonuses don’t stack with cover bonuses from other sources). The presence of a tree doesn’t otherwise affect a creature’s fighting space, because it’s assumed that the creature is using the tree to its advantage when it can. The trunk of a typical tree has AC 4, hardness 5, and 150 hp. A DC 15 Climb check is sufficient to climb a tree. Medium and dense forests have massive trees as well. These trees take up an entire square and provide cover to anyone behind them. They have AC 3, hardness 5, and 600 hp. Like their smaller counterparts, it takes a DC 15 Climb check to climb them.The edges of the massive trees could actually be heavy undergrowth--basically, within the tree's branches.
Macbrea 03-01-07, 08:57 PM	That is fine. That follows the rules well, and means that if people want to they can hang out in the trees and fight. It also, might result though in some crazy effects. If a fireball does enough damage to the tree is it assumed gone? Or on fire?
Macbrea 03-01-07, 08:59 PM	I also think removing the canopy really only has the effect of allowing quick movement across the map. Granted two people on pegasus might decide to duel in the air above the trees to the death. But who the heck cares, easy fight for the pitlord.
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 09:23 PM	I also think removing the canopy really only has the effect of allowing quick movement across the map. Granted two people on pegasus might decide to duel in the air above the trees to the death. But who the heck cares, easy fight for the pitlord. Well, it also has the effect of allowing flying creatures to move around just as freely here as on the plains. But it might be different enough, in that folks on the ground can get cover and even concealment in the forest, but not in the plains. If an attack does 150(!) damage to a tree, it's gone. Keep in mind that since fire does half damage to objects, plus they have hardness, that would have to be one heck of a fireball. More likely that a power-attacking, adamantine-wielding warrior will chop it down. I'd actually like to see such a character cut down a tree that a sniper was hiding in.
Erithmu 03-01-07, 09:29 PM	I like Macbrea's option for the Forest map. I would agree to remove the canopy, but maybe insert a height limit like we have with the city. (maybe 60-70ish feet) Options for motivation could be -- Great Wyrm aged dragon of choice -- Still within Gladius Forest Patrol
Macbrea 03-01-07, 10:18 PM	The problem with that limit by the way is the guy with telekinesis auto-wins on the city map. I would prefer not having two maps that can occur on. Do you really want to have someone make a character who is viable on the following tactics: 1) Ready to grapple target with telekinesis. 2) Use move in grapple to move opponent to 50ft height Note: at 50ft height according to map an epic wizard will capture and take opponent away. I win. The city map has already made that tactic an easy win for the person that build the character to play that way.
hogarth 03-01-07, 10:30 PM	As discussed elsewhere, I believe that the 2x CR 2 entries in the EL 3 monster table should be replaced with a CR 2 + CR 1 combination. Here's my proposed version of the last part of the EL 3 table. 79: 1 Bugbear and 1 Gnoll [CR2 & CR1] 80: 1 Choker and 1 Drow Warrior1 [CR2 & CR1] 81: 1 Lantern Archon and 1 Human Paladin1 [CR2 & CR1] 82: 1 wyrmling bronze dragon [CR3] 83: 1 wyrmling copper dragon [CR3] 84: 1 Dire Badger and 1 Krenshar [CR2 & CR1] 85: 1 Dire Bat and 1 Darkmantle [CR2 & CR1] 86: 1 Dire Weasel and 1 Kobold Expert4 [CR2 & CR1] 87: 1 Hippogriff and 1 Small Air Elemental [CR2 & CR1] 88: 1 Satyr and 1 Grig [CR2 & CR1] 89: 1 Shocker Lizard and 1 Homunculus [CR2 & CR1] 90: 1 Skum and 1 Troglodyte [CR2 & CR1] 91: 1 Rat Swarm and 1 Lacedon Ghoul [CR2 & CR1] 92: 1 Bat Swarm and 1 Small Animated Object [CR2 & CR1] 93: 1 Thoqqua and 1 Small Earth Elemental [CR2 & CR1] 94: 1 Triton and 1 Nixie [CR2 & CR1] 95: 1 Vargouille and 1 Grimlock [CR2 & CR1] 96: 1 Imp and 1 Lemure [CR2 & CR1] 97: 1 Worg and 1 Wolf [CR2 & CR1] 98: 1 Celestial Black Bear and 1 Celestial Light Warhorse [CR2 & CR1] 99: 1 Celestial Bison [CR3] 00: 1 Fiendish Boar and 1 Fiendish Hyena [CR2 & CR1]
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 10:47 PM	That list has my endorsement. I like the kobold....
Zevox 03-01-07, 10:55 PM	Jesus things are going quick around here... If I may, about the Forest: please leave the canopy! Its such a fun thing for the few roguish characters we have around here to use. Perhaps have it no longer give cover and concealment (just one or the other? Neither?), but its a nice attribute and doesn't make things any harder to pitlord, unlike the current immense slowing caused by impeded flight and the undergrowth. Zevox
Zevox 03-01-07, 11:01 PM	I hope we soon find some volunteers to type up monsters for the upper leagues. 2 Credits per league! Ooo, I'll take those! I needed a quick way to earn credits to get my rebuild of Annalina up. Lets see if I can get the first up for folks to criticize tonight. :) Zevox
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 11:04 PM	Ooo, I'll take those! I needed a quick way to earn credits to get my rebuild of Annalina up. Lets see if I can get the first up for folks to criticize tonight. :) Zevox Bah, I was hoping everyone would wait until I had time. I love trying to make monsters viable opponents that wouldn't ordinarily be... like making oozes fly, or giving aquatic creatures land speeds. And adding templates you wouldn't think would be legal, like the half-celestial otyugh. But I'm sure Zev will do a fine job.
Zevox 03-02-07, 03:08 AM	Wheh, that took a while! I see why these are 2 credits each. Well, heres an EL 11 table for everyone to look over. I might have gone a little heavy on certain types of creatures, but I tried to go with themes in the groups, so that happens. 11th-Level Monster Encounters 01: Elder Air Elemental [CR 11] 02: Hezrou (Demon) [CR 11] 03: Retriever (Demon) [CR 11] 04: Hamatula (Barbed Devil) [CR 11] 05: Devourer [CR 11] 06: Elder Earth Elemental [CR 11] 07: Elder Fire Elemental [CR 11] 08: Elder Water Elemental [CR 11] 09: Cloud Giant [CR 11] 10: Stone Golem [CR 11] 11: Twelve-Headed Hydra [CR 11] 12: Dread Wraith [CR 11] 13: Phrenic Spirit Naga [CR 11] 14: Half-Dragon Roc (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 11] 15: Half-Dragon Triceratops (Dinosaur; roll 1d10 for type) [CR 11] 16: Celestial Eight-Headed Pyro or Cryo Hydra (roll 1d2 for type) [CR 11] 17: Fiendish Yrthak [CR 11] 18: Fiendish Frost Giant [CR 11] 19: Half-Fiend Tyrannosaurus (Dinosaur) [CR 11] 20: Half-Celestial Elder Xorn [CR 11] 21: Half-Fiend Gray Render [CR 11] 22: Fiendish Caller in the Darkness [CR 11] 23: Half-Dragon Fiendish Aboleth [CR 11] 24: Phrenic Efreeti [CR 11] 25: Half-Celestial Stone Giant [CR 11] 26: Half-Celestial Dire Tiger [CR 11] 27: Young Adult Dragon (Blue, Green, or Copper; roll 1d3 for type) [CR 11] 28: Phrenic Juvenile Dragon (Blue or Green; roll 1d2 for type) [CR 11] 29: Phrenic Young Adult White Dragon [CR 11] 30: Ettin Afflicted Were-Legendary Bear [CR 11] 31: Ogre Mage Were-Dire Bat [CR 11] 32: Phernic Ogre Were-Roc [CR 11] 33: Celestial Half-Dragon Black Pudding (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 11] 34: Phrenic Half-Fiend Gray Glutton [CR 11] 35: Phrenic Vampire Medusa [CR 11] 36: Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 7 [CR 11] 37: Ghost Sea Hag Psion 5 [CR 11] 38: Half-Dragon Centaur Barbarian 6 [CR 11] 39: Phrenic Ghost Drider [CR 11] 40: Half-Dragon Fiendish Chuul [CR 11] 41: 2 Phrenic Succubi (Demons) [CR 9] 42: 2 Night Hags [CR 9] 43: 2 Rocs [CR 9] 44: Twelve-Headed Hydra [CR 11] 45: Ten-Headed Pyro or Cryo Hydra (roll 1d2 for type) [CR 11] 46: 2 Androsphinxes [CR 9] 47: 3 Erinyes (Devils) [CR 8] 48: 2 Zelekhuts (Inevitables) [CR 9] 49: 1 Greater Fire Elemental and 1 Greater Air Elemental [CR 9] 50: 2 Yrthaks [CR 9] 51: 2 Spirit Nagas [CR 9] 52: 2 Vrocks (Demons) [CR 9] 53: 1 Rakshasa and 1 Efreeti [CR 10 and CR 8] 54: 1 Coautl (Psionic) and 1 Elder Arrowhark [CR 10 and CR 8] 55: 3 Morghs [CR 8] 56: 3 Aboleths and 5 Skums [CR 7 and 2] 57: 3 Efreeti [CR 8] 58: 1 Half-Celestial Human Paladin 9 [CR 11] 59: 1 Troll Hunter [CR 11] 60: 3 Hellwasp Swarms [CR 8] 61: 1 Gnoll Ranger 5, 2 Invisible Stalkers, 1 Greater Shadow [CR 6, CR 7, and CR 8] 62: 1 Half-Celestial Athach [CR 11] 63: 1 Erinyes (Devil) and 4 Bearded Devils [CR 8 and 5] 64: 1 Vrock and 2 Babaus (Demons) [CR 9 and CR 6] 65: 1 Avoral Guardianal and 2 Bralani Eladrins [CR 9 and CR 6] 66: 1 Half-Fiend Human Ranger 6/Blackguard 3 [CR 11] 67: 1 Young Adult Black Dragon and 3 Half-Black Dragon Centaurs [CR 9 and 5] 68: 1 Wood Elf Druid 9 and 2 Dire Bears [CR 9 and 7] 69: 1 Gnome Abjurer 8 and 2 Shield Guardians [CR 8] 70: Maenad Psion 5/Psion Uncarnate 6 [CR 11] 71: Duergar (Psionic) Fighter 7/Dwarven Defender 4 [CR 11] 72: 1 Osyluth (Bone Devil) and 3 Fiendish Young White Dragons [CR 9 and 3] 73: 1 Half-Fiend Chimera and 2 Half-Fiend Manticores [CR 9 and 7] 74: 1 Vampire Annis Hag and 4 Phrenic Vampire Spawns [CR 8 and 5] 75: 1 Tiefling Necromancer 10 and 1 Flesh Golem [CR 10 and CR 7] 76: 1 Drow Cleric 9 and 2 Driders [CR 9 and CR 7] 77: 2 Half-Dragon Remorhazes [CR 9] 78: 1 Rakshasa and 2 Tigers [CR 10 and CR 4] 79: Phrenic Half-Celestial Chaos Beast [CR 11] 80: 3 Half-Red Dragon Bearded Devils with 3 Nightmare mounts [CR 5] 81: 1 Kobold Sorcerer 7 and 1 Half-Dragon Gorgon (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 10 and CR 7] 82: 1 Erinyes (Devil) and 1 Nessian Warhound [CR 8 and CR 9] 83: 2 Half-Fiend Nymphs [CR 9] 84: 1 Noble Salamander and 3 Fire Mephits [CR 10 and CR 3] 85: 1 Half-Celestial Dragonne and 1 Young Gold Dragon [CR 9] 86: 1 Human Werewolf Druid 8 and 2 Winter Wolves [CR 10 and CR 4] 87: 3 Half-Celestial Belkers [CR 8] 88: 1 Sahuagin Ranger 7 and 2 Chuuls [CR 9 and CR 7] 89: 1 Guardian Naga and 1 Water Naga [CR 10 and CR 7] 90: 3 Formian Taskmasters and 4 Formian Warriors [CR 7 and CR 4] 91: Phrenic Troll Were-Elasmosaurus [CR 11] 92: 1 Greater Air Elemental and 1 Elder Arrowhawk [CR 9 and CR 8] 93: 1 Kobold Cleric 9 and 2 Young Blue Dragons [CR 9 and 6] 94: 2 Half-Dragon Phasms (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 9] 95: 4 Spectres [CR 7] 96: 4 Hill Giants [CR 7] 97: Fire Giant Blackguard 1 [CR 11] 98: 3 Behirs [CR 8] 99: Celestial Androsphinx [CR 11] 00: Half-Fiend Goblin Rogue 7/Shadowdancer 2 [CR 11] Zevox
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 03:15 AM	Very deadly...very very deadly. One problem... Half-Dragon Fiendish Aboleth [CR 11] I would tend not to put anything with the "aquatic" subtypes, since it would generally mean an encounter underwater of sorts. You have a few such entries where they are of the aquatic sub-types. Other than that..man...those are going to be VERY tough encounters to face. **Edit** If your starting from 11th on up, i'll start on 20th on down. ToK
MindWandererB 03-02-07, 03:28 AM	Well, some of it I like very much. The ettin werelegendarybear is neat--and I see you tossed Sir Zeev in there, sort of. The one "theme" I'd recommend changing is the low-CR critters. 3 Aboleth and 5 Skum are just a pain in the butt--8 monsters (imagine if this were a team fight), 5 of which are so weak as to be negligible at ECL 11, and 3 of which have no land speed. Anything CR 6 or less should probably get switched out, as well as anything involving more than about 5 monsters. Other mistakes: The Ogre wereroc is illegal. +/- 1 size category only, and a roc is Gargantuan. Also, some of your CRs are off, with the class levels. The Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 7 is CR 10, the Ghost Sea Hag Psion 5 is CR 10 (actually 9.5), and the Duergar (Psionic) Fighter 7/Dwarven Defender 4 is CR 12. I only checked the ones with class levels, though. And while I like the idea of applying a template and some class levels when I have to run a monster fight, I don't think everyone is going to agree... it's a lot of work. This should probably only happen when that's the only monster in the fight; building that critter and then running a 9-creature battle is way too much work for a credit.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 03:37 AM	The one "theme" I'd recommend changing is the low-CR critters. 3 Aboleth and 5 Skum are just a pain in the butt--8 monsters (imagine if this were a team fight), 5 of which are so weak as to be negligible at ECL 11, and 3 of which have no land speed. Anything CR 6 or less should probably get switched out, as well as anything involving more than about 5 monsters. Uh...i guess i better substitute the one entry i have in the EL 20's box, of "13 Beholders"...LOLL OLOL ToK
Zevox 03-02-07, 03:57 AM	Well, some of it I like very much. The ettin werelegendarybear is neat--and I see you tossed Sir Zeev in there, sort of. Actually, the Half-Celestial Paladin was just one I pulled out of the existing EL 11 chart. I did put two of my characters, or rather tributes to them, in there though. Try to guess which two ;) . The one "theme" I'd recommend changing is the low-CR critters. 3 Aboleth and 5 Skum are just a pain in the butt--8 monsters (imagine if this were a team fight), 5 of which are so weak as to be negligible at ECL 11, and 3 of which have no land speed. That was another one I took out of the existing chart - guess I should've looked into it more, because you're right, it shouldn't be in there. Anything CR 6 or less should probably get switched out, as well as anything involving more than about 5 monsters. Probably right about that. I'll use those as guidelines for some revision tomorrow. The Ogre wereroc is illegal. +/- 1 size category only, and a roc is Gargantuan. Ah right, forgot about that. A pity - I liked that one. Also, some of your CRs are off, with the class levels. The Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 7 is CR 10, the Ghost Sea Hag Psion 5 is CR 10 (actually 9.5), and the Duergar (Psionic) Fighter 7/Dwarven Defender 4 is CR 12. I only checked the ones with class levels, though. Huh - might I ask why those are? I'm not sure how you got those numbers. Zevox
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 04:10 AM	Not likely this chart will ever see use, but here goes... 20th Level Monster Encounter Chart 01-02: 20th level Necromancer 03-04: 20th level fighter 04-05: 20th level ranger 05-06: 20th level cleric 06-08: 36 HD, advanced half-fiend Assassin Vine [CR 20] 08-10: 12th lvl Barbarian Athach [CR 20] 10-13: 4 Hound Archon Heros [CR 20] 13: 28HD Advanced Nalfeshnee [CR 19] 14-18: 1 Balor [CR 20] 18-20: 2 mariliths [CR 19] 21: 1 Chichimec (cannot summon today) [CR 21] 21-24: 1 Pit-Fiend [CR 20] 25: 1 Tarrasque [CR 20] 26-28: Wyrn Black Dragon [CR 20] 29: Ancient Blue Dragon [CR 21] 30: Ancient Green Dragon [CR 21] 31: Great Wyrm White Dragon [CR 21] 32: Old Red Dragon [CR 21] 33-34: Very Old Bronze Dragon [CR 20] 35: Old Gold Dragon [CR 21] 36-39: 20th level Drow Wizard [CR 20] 40-44: 14th Barbarian Ettin [CR 20] 45-49: 2 Formorian Quees [CR 20] 50-53: 9th Cleric Cloud Giant [CR 20] 53-56: 7th Fighter Storm Giant [CR20] 57-59: 15th lvl Monk Girallon [CR 20] 60-63: 20th lvl Psion [CR 20] 64-66: 20th Kobold Druid [CR 20] 67-69: Advanced, 60-HD Kraken [CR 20] 70-73: 18th lvl Lich Wizard [CR 20] 74-77: 12th lvl Sorcerer Mind Flayer [CR 20] 78-81: 15th lvl Cleric Mummy Lord [CR 20] 82-85: 1 Nightcrawlers [CR 20] 86: Advanced, 42-HD Nightwalker [CR 20] 87-92: 20th lvl Aasimar Bard 93-95: 10th lvl Sorcerer Rakshasa 96: 1 Titan [CR 21] 97-98: 18th lvl Monk Vampire 99-00: 11 Ranger/5 Monk Xill I stayed away from template abuse, because it would cause too many headaches to add them in. I tried to keep the chart simple and fun. ToK
MitzaVolchenko 03-02-07, 04:54 AM	I also think removing the canopy really only has the effect of allowing quick movement across the map. Granted two people on pegasus might decide to duel in the air above the trees to the death. But who the heck cares, easy fight for the pitlord. I've always wondered why the map that is supposedly a pixie's native terrain more or less nerfed the pixie...as well as the amny other winged forest denizens. On the ceiling, yeah that needs to go. The city map is silly enough with it, though it does prevent abuse by flyers.
hogarth 03-02-07, 06:46 AM	And while I like the idea of applying a template and some class levels when I have to run a monster fight, I don't think everyone is going to agree... it's a lot of work. This should probably only happen when that's the only monster in the fight; building that critter and then running a 9-creature battle is way too much work for a credit. Personally, I'd rather see some creatures advanced with monster hit dice in there (e.g. a 26 HD athach) -- it's an easy way of creating a monster of the appropriate CR instead of stacking on a bunch of templates (which gets a bit repetitive, IMO) or class levels (which take more thought to build). Just my 2 cents.
hogarth 03-02-07, 06:53 AM	On the ceiling, yeah that needs to go. The city map is silly enough with it, though it does prevent abuse by flyers. I vote for keeping some sort of ceiling! Maybe not as low as the city map, but I don't want some flying bozo with a longbow picking up the Far Shot feat and winning by extreme tedium vs. any slower foe.
Rauul 03-02-07, 07:14 AM	I vote for keeping some sort of ceiling! Maybe not as low as the city map, but I don't want some flying bozo with a longbow picking up the Far Shot feat and winning by extreme tedium vs. any slower foe. So you believe in limiting feats, Since thats what far shot is? Besides in the forest the slower foe find full cover and waits for the archer to move in closer, so he can get a shot.. Sure it's harder, but thats what the game is about.. overcoming your downfalls, and making your opponent do what they don't wanna do..
Zevox 03-02-07, 01:06 PM	Okay dokey, heres an edited version of the EL 11 chart. I cut down on it to 1 monster per 2 numbers on the rolls, since I felt the Half-etc and Phrenic templates were overused and didn't want to toss in a ton of advanced creatures in their place (IMO thats a harder way to alter a creature, and makes them a lot tougher than the templates do, as we've seen from our diplomacy allies). So, hows this one look? 11th-Level Monster Encounters 01-02: Elder Air Elemental [CR 11] 03-04: Hezrou (Demon) [CR 11] 04-05: Retriever (Demon) [CR 11] 05-06: Hamatula (Barbed Devil) [CR 11] 06-07: Devourer [CR 11] 08-09: Elder Earth Elemental [CR 11] 10-11: Elder Fire Elemental [CR 11] 12-13: Elder Water Elemental [CR 11] 14-15: Cloud Giant [CR 11] 16-17: Stone Golem [CR 11] 18-19: Twelve-Headed Hydra [CR 11] 20-21: Dread Wraith [CR 11] 22-23: Phrenic Spirit Naga [CR 11] 24-26: Half-Dragon Triceratops (Dinosaur; roll 1d10 for type) [CR 11] 27-28: Advanced (11 HD) Cerebrilith [CR 11] 29-30: Fiendish Caller in the Darkness [CR 11] 31-32: Phrenic Efreeti [CR 11] 33-34: Young Adult Dragon (Blue, Green, or Copper; roll 1d3 for type) [CR 11] 35-36: Phrenic Young Adult White Dragon [CR 11] 37-38: Ettin Afflicted Were-Legendary Bear [CR 11] 39-40: Ogre Mage Were-Dire Bat [CR 11] 41-42: Celestial Half-Dragon Black Pudding (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 11] 43-44: Phrenic Half-Fiend Gray Glutton [CR 11] 45-46: Vampire Elite Medusa Fighter 1 [CR 11] 47-48: Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 8 [CR 11] 49-50: Ghost Sea Hag Wilder 6 [CR 11] 51-52: 2 Phrenic Succubi (Demons) [CR 9] 53-54: 2 Night Hags [CR 9] 55-56: 2 Rocs [CR 9] 57-58: Ten-Headed Pyro or Cryo Hydra (roll 1d2 for type) [CR 11] 59-60: 2 Androsphinxes [CR 9] 61-62: 3 Erinyes (Devils) [CR 8] 63-64: 2 Zelekhuts (Inevitables) [CR 9] 65-66: 1 Greater Fire Elemental and 1 Greater Air Elemental [CR 9] 67-68: 2 Yrthaks [CR 9] 69-70: 2 Spirit Nagas [CR 9] 71-72: 2 Vrocks (Demons) [CR 9] 73-74: 1 Rakshasa and 1 Efreeti [CR 10 and CR 8] 75-76: 1 Coautl (Psionic) and 1 Elder Arrowhark [CR 10 and CR 8] 77-78: 3 Morghs [CR 8] 79-80: 3 Efreeti [CR 8] 81-82: 1 Half-Celestial Human Paladin 9 [CR 11] 83-84: 1 Troll Hunter [CR 11] 85-86: 1 Gnoll Ranger 5, 2 Invisible Stalkers, 1 Greater Shadow [CR 6, CR 7, and CR 8] 87-88: 1 Half-Fiend Human Ranger 6/Blackguard 3 [CR 11] 89-90: 1 Wood Elf Druid 9 and 2 Dire Bears [CR 9 and 7] 91-92: 1 Gnome Abjurer 8 and 2 Shield Guardians [CR 8] 93-94: 1 Half-Fiend Chimera and 2 Half-Fiend Manticores [CR 9 and 7] 95-96: 1 Tiefling Necromancer 10 and 1 Flesh Golem [CR 10 and CR 7] 97-98: 2 Half-Dragon Remorhazes [CR 9] 99-100: 1 Kobold Sorcerer 7 and 1 Half-Dragon Gorgon (roll 1d10 for type) [CR 10 and CR 7] Zevox
hogarth 03-02-07, 01:09 PM	I cut down on it to 1 monster per 2 numbers on the rolls, since I felt the Half-etc and Phrenic templates were overused and didn't want to toss in a ton of advanced creatures in their place (IMO thats a harder way to alter a creature, and makes them a lot tougher than the templates do, as we've seen from our diplomacy allies). Advancing creatures by adding hit dice is trivial as long as the extra hit dice don't involve a size change. You just have to pick a couple of feats, add some hit points and BAB, maybe increase some save DCs and you're good to go. It's certainly 100 times easier than picking out spell lists and equipment for monsters with character levels!
Zevox 03-02-07, 01:16 PM	Advancing creatures by adding hit dice is trivial as long as the extra hit dice don't involve a size change. You just have to pick a couple of feats, add some hit points and BAB and you're good to go. It's certainly 100 times easier than picking out spell lists and equipment for monsters with character levels! True, but you'll note I kept the number of those low as well, and a few of the monsters with character levels just have Fighter or Ranger levels, meaning few or no spells. And besides, with equipment, most monsters get that anyway, since few have "none" for treasure. And anyway, I'd argue adding templates is a lot easier than advancing them, and advancing them (as our Diplomacy allies show) makes them a lot tougher than their CR would indicate. Zevox
hogarth 03-02-07, 01:21 PM	And anyway, I'd argue adding templates is a lot easier than advancing them, and advancing them (as our Diplomacy allies show) makes them a lot tougher than their CR would indicate. I'd be interested in seeing which Diplomacy allies (advanced with hit dice, but not changing the creature's original size) you're referring to. At higher CRs, extra hit dice and BAB don't add much too much to a monster's toughness, IMO.
TelinArtho 03-02-07, 01:28 PM	Sauro's favorite example is the griffon who becomes an absolute powerhouse. Any of the allies that increase in CR by 4HD/1 CR is probably a sufficient example. An athach for instance would be CR 11 with 26 HD. This would lead to 3 more ability points to distribute, a BAB of +19 (I believe), a Poison DC of (10+26/2+5 = 28, assuming the ability points weren't put into Con), and 4 more feats.
Zevox 03-02-07, 01:34 PM	Sauro's favorite example is the griffon who becomes an absolute powerhouse. Any of the allies that increase in CR by 4HD/1 CR is probably a sufficient example. An athach for instance would be CR 11 with 26 HD. This would lead to 3 more ability points to distribute, a BAB of +19 (I believe), a Poison DC of (10+26/2+5 = 28, assuming the ability points weren't put into Con), and 4 more feats. Aye, not to mention how much hp the thing would have with that many HD. Hundreds - far more than even a straight barbarian Dwarf with max con could get at that level. That alone is reason enough for me. Zevox
hogarth 03-02-07, 01:41 PM	Sauro's favorite example is the griffon who becomes an absolute powerhouse. ...if it goes up in size. A 10 HD griffon (CR 5) is almost identical to a hieracosphinx (CR 5). Aye, not to mention how much hp the thing would have with that many HD. Hundreds - far more than even a straight barbarian Dwarf with max con could get at that level. That alone is reason enough for me. Wait -- you have no problem with an ettin were-legendary-bear with 30 hit dice and 24 Con, but you do with an athach with 26 hit dice and 21 Con? :confused: The athach would have slightly more hp than an elder earth elemental or a half-fiend tyrannosaurus but with fewer immunities (and no Summon Monster IX!).
TheMagister 03-02-07, 01:46 PM	I'd like to chime in just a wee bit and point out that half-dragon/half-planar Athaches fly, and have additonal ranged punch plus immunities and buffs. Advanced Athaches (thankfully) don't fly. Give me an advanced Athach any day. (I'm still kinda scared of the Phrenic Ettin. Anything that can mind blast me twice a round scares the tee-waddly outta me.) :eek: TM
SauroGrenom 03-02-07, 01:46 PM	I'd be interested in seeing which Diplomacy allies (advanced with hit dice, but not changing the creature's original size) you're referring to. At higher CRs, extra hit dice and BAB don't add much too much to a monster's toughness, IMO.Wow. I can only hope that you've never worked though any examples to the limits... The most egregious inflation of the power of a creature relative to CR is when you advance a creature through size changes. Especially so when the creature is a magical beast or monstrous humanoid. That's 3hd/CR with a magical beast. That's +3BAB/CR. Oozes, Dragons, Outsiders and Undead "only" have +2 BAB/CR. For most monstes advancement in the racial HD is better than advancement in class levels as long as CR is the measuring stick to choose what PC's the monster is paired with. I like to bring up the griffon because of our ally rules that use CR. A fully advanced griffon has an epic feat, but is only CR 10 (CR11 if elite). As a cohort this is an ECL 24 ally available in an ECL26 fight, but as a diplomacy ally it's fighting in an ECL14 fight. If you want to talk about something in CoCo that's imbalanced beyond everything else, then look at diplomacy allies and the terrible things you can do with handle animals.
hogarth 03-02-07, 01:47 PM	Wow. I can only hope that you've never worked though any examples to the limits... The most egregious inflation of the power of a creature relative to CR is when you advance a creature through size changes. Read my exact comment above. I said "Are there any egregious examples WITHOUT SIZE CHANGES?".
Macbrea 03-02-07, 01:50 PM	Ah, no Half-Dragon Fiendish Black Pudding in there! The more you divide the more chance it will blow you to bits!
Zevox 03-02-07, 01:56 PM	Wait -- you have no problem with an ettin were-legendary-bear with 30 hit dice and 24 Con, but you do with an athach with 26 hit dice and 21 Con? :confused: The athach would have slightly more hp than an elder earth elemental or a half-fiend tyrannosaurus but with fewer immunities (and no Summon Monster IX!). *shrugs* I never said I spot-checked everything on the list already to make sure there weren't comparable creatures in it already. The Ettin Were-Legendary Bear was mostly because I remembered the uproar about the Troll Were-T-Rex and figured something like that would be a quick way to get a creature on the list, and since MWB mentioned he liked it I kept it in the revision. The Elder Elementals are already powerful, but at least they're predictable in that they don't have new feats and extra ability points being given to them by the pitlord, and said pitlord can just use them straight out of the SRD. Zevox
TelinArtho 03-02-07, 01:57 PM	I'd like to chime in just a wee bit and point out that half-dragon/half-planar Athaches fly, and have additonal ranged punch plus immunities and buffs. Advanced Athaches (thankfully) don't fly. Give me an advanced Athach any day. (I'm still kinda scared of the Phrenic Ettin. Anything that can mind blast me twice a round scares the tee-waddly outta me.) :eek: TM So you think that a potion of Fly is out of the Athach's reach? Or how about its ranged capability (for which deflect arrows need not apply...)? At +19 BAB, and a +1 dex bonus, it has 3 rocks to throw each round at +14/+14/+14 for 2d6+8 and 2d6+4 on the latter two, or if it picks up Quickdraw and Improved Multiweapon fighting, that would be (+14/+9/+4)/(+14/+9)/(+14/+9) And that's with a range increment of 120ft most likely (its not listed, but the giants have 120ft or 140ft (for cloud and storm giants)). Give the athach some armor with SR on it and it is starting to look mighty mean...
TheMagister 03-02-07, 02:13 PM	So you think that a potion of Fly is out of the Athach's reach? Or how about its ranged capability (for which deflect arrows need not apply...)? At +19 BAB, and a +1 dex bonus, it has 3 rocks to throw each round at +14/+14/+14 for 2d6+8 and 2d6+4 on the latter two, or if it picks up Quickdraw and Improved Multiweapon fighting, that would be (+14/+9/+4)/(+14/+9)/(+14/+9) And that's with a range increment of 120ft most likely (its not listed, but the giants have 120ft or 140ft (for cloud and storm giants)). Give the athach some armor with SR on it and it is starting to look mighty mean... {Judiciously} You can't Dispel natural wings. A normal Athach can't hit what it can't see, while a fiendish/celestial/dragontype is smart enough to make educated guesses and can use its powers to make avoidance difficult. I'm just sayin' - give me big and stupid over big and smart any day of the week. How can you not agree with that? (I know you're just playing devil's advocate. I'm bored, too.)
hogarth 03-02-07, 02:15 PM	One brief comment: half-fiend is not a valid template to apply to a tyrannosaurus (the base creature needs 4+ Int).
SauroGrenom 03-02-07, 02:29 PM	Read my exact comment above. I said "Are there any egregious examples WITHOUT SIZE CHANGES?".OK... Let me see... Look at the Allip. You can advance it 8 HD for only +2 CR. The resulting creature has a DC of 20 on it's babble ability. It's BAB is three times higher (+6 incorporeal touch attack). It's skills are through the roof. Add in an extra 3 feats (spring attack out of the wall anyone). Give it an additional 52hp (total 78). But on an extra +2 into any ability score. Now keep in mind that you've got an incorporeal undead with 12HD and it's only CR5. That's looking through the list and stopping at AL... how about we continue down the monster list for creatures with lots of HD advancement (atleast twice base HD) and no size increase... I see next is the Athach we've already discussed. Also is the Avoral, but since it's an outsider the CR grows rather quickly. Still we can see what happens... You can advance this outsider 7 HD with only increasing CR by 3 to a new total of CR12. You add in +2 to stats (strength and Dex), and double the HP, and increase all the attack mods by +8 and the damage by +1, now add in +4 to the save DC's on all the spell like abilities and fear aura, now add in two more feats (quickened MM obviously), double all the skill points, and finish off by doubling the healing ability of the creature. That's not particularly bad considering it's CR12, I'm sure we can find something worse... The Bralani is simulr to the Avoral, so we'll skip that one and go on to the Bullete... We can advance it with 7HD to get CR9, but considering that it's huge and cannot fly its highly limited at that level no matter the preposterous HP and melee ability. Here's an interesting one... Advance the choker by 3HD and it's still CR2! It's twice the HD and all the goodies that go with, and the CR remains the same... Good luck to the little ECL4 character that runs up against two of those. A Delver is another of those Huge Abberations that can be advanced to double the HD and only increase from CR9 to CR 12. That creature would have over 300hp, although no ability to fly. It would rule in the Sewer Map with 30HD and an extra 5 feats (4 of them epic). The Destrican is another abberation that can be advanced to double it's normal 8 HD with going only from CR 8 to CR10. This creates a monster with double the HP and nearly double the feats and skills. I've made it to the D's here. I suppose I could keep going, but I've already found many creatures that can be advanced to twice their HD with only minor CR increases and sometimes acquiring epic feats at ECL12 or less. The advancing of monsters by racial HD is stated in the SRD to be something that DM's do carefully. It's very easy for things to get out of hand. I agree in principal with you. Template after template gets booring. Also class levels are lots of work for pitlords to put together on one fight, pluss it's hard for pitlords to do fairly since they've already seen the opponent's sheet. You might want to use some HD advancement, but it's like Dave's Insanity Sauce (a little goes a long way). I'd say that on a random monster list, always advance by the number of HD necessary to increase CR, and never increase CR by more than one using racial HD advancement.
hogarth 03-02-07, 02:41 PM	I agree in principal with you. Template after template gets booring. Also class levels are lots of work for pitlords to put together on one fight, pluss it's hard for pitlords to do fairly since they've already seen the opponent's sheet. You might want to use some HD advancement, but it's like Dave's Insanity Sauce (a little goes a long way). I'd say that on a random monster list, always advance by the number of HD necessary to increase CR, and never increase CR by more than one using racial HD advancement. I agree with everything you said in this last paragraph (although I don't think increasing CR by 2 would be totally out of line in some cases). The person compiling the list of monsters should use his better judgment, of course, but I just don't think adding hit dice is something we should be exaggeratedly afraid of.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 02:49 PM	That's what i did with the EL 20 list. Not much by way of templates, mostly just advanced or pc-class versions of critters. It will ease the strain on the pitlords, which was my first priority in making my EL 20 list. Not that we'll ever see much action on it, but just in case. ToK
Zevox 03-02-07, 02:57 PM	One brief comment: half-fiend is not a valid template to apply to a tyrannosaurus (the base creature needs 4+ Int). Okay, changed to an 11 HD Cerebrilith. Zevox
MindWandererB 03-02-07, 08:13 PM	One brief comment: half-fiend is not a valid template to apply to a tyrannosaurus (the base creature needs 4+ Int). Save it for a higher CR, then--make a fiendish phrenic half-fiend tyrannosaurus! Or even an ooze--the combination of fiendish + phrenic gets around almost any Int restriction. Cat's not going to like only 50 monsters, but you can try.Huh - might I ask why those are? I'm not sure how you got those numbers.Vampire Sahuagin Cleric 7: CR 2 to begin. +6 for 7 unassociated class levels, the first two of which only add +1/2 CR each. Vampire adds +2, total 10. Ghost Sea Hag Psion 5: Sea Hag is CR 4, +4 for 5 unassociated class levels, the first three of which add only +1/2 CR each, rounded up. Ghost adds +2, total 10. Duergar (Psionic) Fighter 7/Dwarven Defender 4: Duergar starts off at CR 1, not CR 1/2 like most 1-HD humanoids. So its CR is equal to its class levels +1.
Hirumajoe 03-03-07, 10:10 PM	This is something I suggested over in the Tavern in regards to the Monster roll charts which received mostly good responses, although at least one convern over variety. I was wondering if it would be worth it create a "Beastiary of Gladius" thread. You do something like the following: Each week create a Monster of the Week thread (kinda like the fights of the week). Somone posts a certain number of monsters (2-4?) which are up for design that week picked directly off the monster charts, which haven't been done yet. People propose full monster sheets (you'd probably want a default monster sheet, similar to the character sheet available to help standardize this). At the end of the week you hold a vote if there are multiple versions proposed, with the Elders holding a veto option on any monster. You could also have a seperate weekly discussion thread, so that only posts and votes are in the primary thread. The winning monster(s) are then added to the Bestiary of Gladius thread (presumably by a CoCo account so that these could be edited later in case mistakes are found after the fact) and their posts are linked in the monster roll charts directly. Then, when a pitlord rolls a monster fight, they have a completely ready monster just by clicking on the link on the chart. Possibly even with default tactics and a short background. Also, monsters created by pitlords running monster fights that don't have a monster sheet yet could also be directly added, avoiding duplicate effort in the long run. Pros: Reduces Pitlord work for monster fights. Reduces Pitlord error in creating monsters for monster fights. Monster fights are more balanced between each other as the monsters don't vary from one incarnation to the next, possibly with better or worse options selected. Overall quality of monsters in monster fights improve, leading to harder fights. Allows people who might otherwise not get a chance to mess around with high level ideas to do so. Adds to the history of Gladius and lets people leave a mark (even if only in the form of Bob, the Troll were-Tyrannosaurus, a wandering outcast from the Northlands feared by his tribe for unnatural affliction). Cons: Reduces variety in monsters. Complete information on the monsters is available, leading to easier fights. Its an extra task that somebody needs to put effort into. (Selecting the monsters, counting votes, and then copy/pasting into the beastiary thread, and updating the links to said post, and correcting any errors found over time). Some additional suggestions made were make this optional to be used in fights and/or having multiple equipment sets or even multiple monster sheets with differently tuned versions of the same monster.
TelinArtho 03-06-07, 12:09 PM	I would like to propose a change in the wording on the maps that include water. I would like to see it changed to include wordings on creatures with swim speeds and whether or not they can take advantage of the water. For instance, the rivers and marsh in the forest map would be ideal. How small a creature do you need to be to be able to move at your swim speed through these areas? Also, same thing for the sewer map. Is the 1ft deep water too shallow to take advantage of swim speed for a a) large creature, b) medium creature, etc, etc. Snakes are a specific creature that might or might not enjoy special benefits here. This will help remove on-the-spot rulings from pitlords about characters trying to use these methods of movement.
MindWandererB 03-06-07, 12:44 PM	Sounds good to me.
hogarth 03-06-07, 02:45 PM	[With regards to talking to a nightmare] Yeah, but the communication has to be 2-way for it to negotiate with you. Here's a question, then: how can a gladiator get a shadow Diplomacy ally? A shadow can't speak, and it's immune to mind-affecting effects so mindlink or a helm of telepathy won't work to open up the lines of communication. It can't even hold a pencil to write down a message!
MindWandererB 03-06-07, 04:46 PM	Here's a question, then: how can a gladiator get a shadow Diplomacy ally? A shadow can't speak, and it's immune to mind-affecting effects so mindlink or a helm of telepathy won't work to open up the lines of communication. It can't even hold a pencil to write down a message! That's pretty funny. I never considered being undead to grant you "immunity" to a helm of telepathy. However, for Diplomacy, they only have to be able to understand you, not talk back. Planar Binding/Ally requires 2-way negotiation, though.
hogarth 03-06-07, 04:55 PM	That's pretty funny. I never considered being undead to grant you "immunity" to a helm of telepathy. They're immune to Detect Thoughts, and without Detect Thoughts the helm's telepathic message doesn't work. A devil's telepathy might work, though (since it doesn't say it's a mind-affecting effect). However, for Diplomacy, they only have to be able to understand you, not talk back. Planar Binding/Ally requires 2-way negotiation, though. Where are you getting these negotiation requirement from? MWB's patented Bag of Wild-Assed Guesses? ;) (just kidding) You must be able to communicate with the creature called in order to bargain for its services. You must be able to communicate with your allies.
MindWandererB 03-06-07, 05:02 PM	Hm. That's a pretty good point. No, I got that from the precedents we've been using thus far, and I can't imagine negotiating a price with something that can't talk.
TelinArtho 03-07-07, 01:06 PM	I would like to propose a change in the wording on the maps that include water. I would like to see it changed to include wordings on creatures with swim speeds and whether or not they can take advantage of the water. For instance, the rivers and marsh in the forest map would be ideal. How small a creature do you need to be to be able to move at your swim speed through these areas? Also, same thing for the sewer map. Is the 1ft deep water too shallow to take advantage of swim speed for a a) large creature, b) medium creature, etc, etc. Snakes are a specific creature that might or might not enjoy special benefits here. This will help remove on-the-spot rulings from pitlords about characters trying to use these methods of movement. Any further comment on this? Here's the specific things I am addressing with this proposal: The Stream: The water stream is 5ft deep. There are several ways to cross it. You can jump or fly over it, you can use the slippery stones with a Dc15 Balance check, or the fallen log with a Dc10 Balance check. Anyone failing by 5 or more falls into the water. ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed. The Swamp: The swamp (light green squares in the center) is 5ft deep and counts as Deep Bog (medium and larger PCs need 4 squares of movement per square; small PCs must swim; Move silently Dc+2; provides cover; see DMG p88; huge and larger creatures treat it as difficult terrain only). ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed. The Water: The murky green water is 1ft deep and counts as difficult terrain. Since large creatures use up four squares, they are always affected by the water. ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed. If a large creature has a swim speed, it moves at the slowest speed between normal movement and swimming movement, but without the hampered terrain. Larger creatures are still considered squeezing, but can also make use of the swim speed to not further hinder their speed. The Sludge: In the center is a 5ft deep pool of sludge. It counts as Deep Bog (medium and larger PCs need 4 squares of movement per square; small PCs must swim; Move silently Dc+2; provides cover; see DMG p88) and because of its toxic nature deals 2d6 acid damage per round to anyone standing in such a square. ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed. The Pond: The pond is a body of clear water, 1ft deep. It counts as difficult terrain (half movement). A fire area effect that hits the water creates a steam cloud (treat as obscurring mist in every square it hits) that extends to the ceiling and dissipates after 1 round. It is possible to 'drown' someone by holding his head below the water. This requires a pin, and the pin must be held each round. On a round when the pin is not maintained, the suffocation count begins from anew. ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed.
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 01:12 PM	Any further comment on this? Here's the specific things I am addressing with this proposal: The Stream: The water stream is 5ft deep. There are several ways to cross it. You can jump or fly over it, you can use the slippery stones with a Dc15 Balance check, or the fallen log with a Dc10 Balance check. Anyone failing by 5 or more falls into the water. ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed. The Swamp: The swamp (light green squares in the center) is 5ft deep and counts as Deep Bog (medium and larger PCs need 4 squares of movement per square; small PCs must swim; Move silently Dc+2; provides cover; see DMG p88; huge and larger creatures treat it as difficult terrain only). ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed. The Water: The murky green water is 1ft deep and counts as difficult terrain. Since large creatures use up four squares, they are always affected by the water. ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed. If a large creature has a swim speed, it moves at the slowest speed between normal movement and swimming movement, but without the hampered terrain. Larger creatures are still considered squeezing, but can also make use of the swim speed to not further hinder their speed. The Sludge: In the center is a 5ft deep pool of sludge. It counts as Deep Bog (medium and larger PCs need 4 squares of movement per square; small PCs must swim; Move silently Dc+2; provides cover; see DMG p88) and because of its toxic nature deals 2d6 acid damage per round to anyone standing in such a square. ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed. The Pond: The pond is a body of clear water, 1ft deep. It counts as difficult terrain (half movement). A fire area effect that hits the water creates a steam cloud (treat as obscurring mist in every square it hits) that extends to the ceiling and dissipates after 1 round. It is possible to 'drown' someone by holding his head below the water. This requires a pin, and the pin must be held each round. On a round when the pin is not maintained, the suffocation count begins from anew. ADD: If a creature has a swim speed, the creature may swim across at its normal swim speed. Well, according to the DMG, in 4 feet of water, Medium creatures can swim if they want, and Small or Smaller creatures must swim. This is close enough to the 5 feet in the Forest, both the river and the swamp (and in fact, they originally had 4'). It works for anyone who wants to swim in the Temple's lava, too, as well as the sewer's Sludge. By that logic, I would say that for the 1' deep water in the Sewer and Cavern, a Tiny character can swim if they like, and Diminutive and Fine creatures must swim. (1 foot is 1/4 of 4 feet, and a Tiny creature is 1/4 the size of a Medium one.)
hogarth 03-07-07, 01:22 PM	Well, according to the DMG, in 4 feet of water, Medium creatures can swim if they want, and Small or Smaller creatures must swim. This is close enough to the 5 feet in the Forest, both the river and the swamp (and in fact, they originally had 4'). It works for anyone who wants to swim in the Temple's lava, too, as well as the sewer's Sludge. By that logic, I would say that for the 1' deep water in the Sewer and Cavern, a Tiny character can swim if they like, and Diminutive and Fine creatures must swim. (1 foot is 1/4 of 4 feet, and a Tiny creature is 1/4 the size of a Medium one.) What about levels for improved cover (where the requirement is "chest-deep" water)? I proposed having my druid turn into a small viper or a small octopus in the sewer map to get improved cover, but I was overruled by Telin. Logically, I'd think a 5' snake could hide in 1' of water, but this is D&D-land, not logic-land. :D
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 01:25 PM	As near as I can tell, if you can swim, you can get improved cover. I'd really rather not start creating exceptions for snake-shaped creatures. I'd allow it in a home game in a second, but here, that way lies madness.
sonofzeal 03-07-07, 01:35 PM	As near as I can tell, if you can swim, you can get improved cover. I'd really rather not start creating exceptions for snake-shaped creatures. I'd allow it in a home game in a second, but here, that way lies madness. Since there's already something of a game mechanic for "long" vs "tall", could it be ruled that a "long" creature of one size larger than necessary to swim can gain improved cover? This would cover a centaur in the forest stream, or a small viper in the sewers or cavern pond.
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 02:43 PM	Problem is, we have a rule that a creature's space is a perfect cube. It makes no sense for a creature with a 10' tall space to get improved cover from 5' of water.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-07-07, 08:34 PM	Q: Should those who've invested i the Craft Wands metamagic feat be able to craft wands with spells in their repetoire credit free? Votes: 1) YES - 1 2) NO - 1 Votes: Sauro/MWB So far it's a tie. ToK
McJarvis 03-07-07, 08:46 PM	To summarize the debate that ToK isn't linking: Someone or another things Wands shouldn't cost credits. This is because of the following: The Core Rules clearly have a formula by which we can generate costs of wands. This formula is presented in the same way the one for dorjes is. The "Craft Wands" feat clearly states that you can create a wand with any spell of ?th spell level or lower Wands costing credits effectively makes psionics more powerful, which is why we have so many gimpy-psions in CoCo There are others who think Wands should still cost credits. This is because: If we devalue credits it will only add to the lack-of-pitlords problem Custom wands are not in the Core Rules-> only in optional crafting rules There actually is no balance issue-> Psionics is just as powerful as Magic as-is The only reason Dorjes don't cost credits is it would be _impossible_ to own a dorjes without credits. Wands, on the other hand, have clear tables with example wands which are accessible for free. If it ain't broke don't fix it-> Little is to be gained from the removal of credit costs from wands Regardless of Elder Voting, this decision is Cat alone's to make. [[He is in charge of the black market]]
Rauul 03-07-07, 09:10 PM	Sorry for the post in the courtroom... you all type to fast... Someone said Show me... So page 245 of the DMG 3.5 A wand is a thin baton that contains a single spell of 4th level or lower. Each wand has 50 charges when created, and each charge expended allows the user to use the wand’s spell one time. A wand that runs out of charges is just a stick. then it goes on about activation and then... yes then it has a Chart.. for randomly found wands.. even has 3 charts of Minor, Medium and Major.. Now there is also a chart for Scrolls in the DMG on page 239, and potions on page 230, yet the only chart you choose to use is the wand chart.. As for the feat.. a level 5 feet.. that costs credits.. i honestly don't think taking the 2-5 credits away from a wand is gonna cause the Board and Pitlords to collapse.. Or keep the credits and unless someone has the Create Dorje feat, charge them 5 credits a Dorje.. But in reality it's about Balance.. when a new charater ECL 3 can start with 1 Dorje of ANY level 1 power, and another ECL 3 charater fresh meat, can start with 1 wands that has to be off a list.. Who has the advantage... the ecl 3 wizard with his level 1 wand of magic missle or the ecl 3 psion with his maximized dorje of crystal shards that psi shot.. (lets not forget the 1500 gold item that negates a magic missile 101 damage)..
Macbrea 03-07-07, 10:18 PM	I guess the real question here is why are we choosing to ignore the chart for scrolls and keep the chart for wands?
Zevox 03-07-07, 10:45 PM	Wands: To quote some slightly old posts of mine for my opinion on it: Dorje's and powerstones are allowed w/o credits so long as the CL/ML is within the limits imposed by the character's CL/ML. Wands not listed in the SRD have always cost credits. Which is what Rauul is asking we consider repealing. You know, making so you can make wands of any CL of any spell they're allowed to have within the limit of you CL? Same as with Dorjes? Personally, I'm with him. I just can't see why we limit them to that chart when its pretty clearly spelled out that they're intended to allow any spell level 4 or below. Especially for those with the Craft Wand feat, which outright says "You can create a wand of any 4th-level or lower spell that you know." ZevoxBut back to wands... I don't think the wands thing is so much an issue of credits conferring an advantage as it is that the restriction really has no reason to exist to begin with. Its certainly not going to be unbalancing to allow wands to be made with any spell they're capable of holding - the only one I can think of that may be a problem is a Wand of True Strike, and even then we have a character who got one of those via credits now, and hes a Failure. Certainly I wouldn't bat an eye at wizards nabbing CL 2 Wands of Shield or CL 1 Wands of Mage Armor because they're cheaper in the long run than all the scrolls they'd normally purchase of those two spells, which I suspect would be the only major effect of this (perhaps not the Mage Armor though, since many just nab Extend Spell so they can cast that once and be done with it). It just doesn't seem like a necessary or beneficial restriction, especially in light of the necessary lack of such a restriction on dorjes. Zevox If I may add, I would like to point out that, contrary to what Sauro has claimed in the Courtroom, the Core rules do not say anything about wands being limited to the table; and in fact they say both in the Craft Wand feat and the description of wands in general that any spell of 4th level or lower can be put into a wand. And as Macbrea says, we already don't force these tables down people's throats for scrolls, else nothing above minimum CL would be allowed for those. Personally, I'd say this is the way to go. Clearly the types of spells that are allowed in each of the types of items (wands, potions, and scrolls) are spelled out in the core rules, and by those rules types of them beyond minimum CL and of spells not on the charts are allowed. There is no benefit by ignoring this and using the charts alone, so why do it? Just as a clarification, I believe the credit requirement should be lifted for all wands, not just those who can craft them. Theres no benefit from lifting them from only that either, unless we want to encourage taking that feat for some reason. Zevox
Tellish_of_Ket 03-07-07, 11:04 PM	Just as a clarification, I believe the credit requirement should be lifted for all wands, not just those who can craft them. Theres no benefit from lifting them from only that either, unless we want to encourage taking that feat for some reason. Zevox I'll disagree with that. I don't think it should be lifted for all wands, just for those that have invested in the feats and time to craft them. So far though, only two elders have voted on the subject matter. I guess the others are still weighing all the options. ToK
NiQil 03-07-07, 11:07 PM	I'll disagree with that. I don't think it should be lifted for all wands, just for those that have invested in the feats and time to craft them. So far though, only two elders have voted on the subject matter. I guess the others are still weighing all the options. ToK I really don't have an opinion one way or another until Cat chimes in. He's the only one that can change it, so until I hear the logic behind the rule, I can't really respond positively or negatively. So until Cat chimes in, I will reserve my opinion.
Zevox 03-07-07, 11:07 PM	I'll disagree with that. I don't think it should be lifted for all wands, just for those that have invested in the feats and time to craft them. Why? As I said, the Core rules don't limit them to that chart. The feat is already quite useful, particularly since at lower levels wizards have few good feats to choose from other than the crafting feats, so I don't see why we would want to encourage taking it that way. Dorjes, their psionic equivalent, are already, by necessity, totally open to everyone. Why should wands not be likewise? Zevox
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 11:28 PM	I will clarify my stance, seeing as how we have three opinions: Credits for all non-table wands: 1 vote Credits for purchased non-table wands, but not crafted ones: 0 votes Credits for no wands: 1 vote (that's me.)
MitzaVolchenko 03-08-07, 03:11 AM	Cat's opinion is the only one that counts here, but the imbalance between wands and dorjes is more than a little unfair. At the least, those with craft wand should get them without credits. Ipersonally favor making them credit-free at all times and relying on the prohibitive cost to even things out.
TelinArtho 03-08-07, 10:31 AM	I think I'm in the same boat as NiQil here and will reserve my opinion until Cat has spoken on the issue.
McJarvis 03-08-07, 10:33 AM	With two opposed votes & two elders deciding to wait until Cat decides, we really need to get Cat in here...
Caterane 03-08-07, 02:08 PM	I can see the arguments to allow custom wands if you have the craft wand feat. You have the feat, you have the spell, why the heck can't you create a wand thereof? For the same reason you cannot create any other custom item in the blackmarket. At a gaming table there are no credits so any argument using 'logic' or 'why can't I' doesn't take the special enviroment of CoCo into consideration. I too would dream of a board where we need no pitlords and in turn no credits but that's not the situation; infact we're much closer to the opposite - a State of Emergency - weekly. Another argument was that dorjes are credit-free aswell. The main reason is of course the coco rule that anything not specifically printed in the book is considered custom (unless it's a mundane item) but in addition to that I also don't think it's unfair. A Wizard with craft wand can basically craft any spell into a wand while a psion only those he knows which is despite his un-restricted range of credit-free dorje crafting still more limited than a wizard by his known powers. Finally, I don't see this issue as big or broken enough to change it.
TelinArtho 03-08-07, 02:17 PM	Can I get a ruling on whether Advanced/Elite creatures are allowed to be summoned with Lesser Planar Ally? Its a grey area that hasn't been addressed yet, and I'd like to know for when I prepare Kraegin since he won't be able to have his Nightmare... EDIT, and just in case there's questions of balance here, remember that LPA is limited by the number of hit dice - so nothing more than 6HD total would be allowed anyway, and then there's also the CR limitations of what allies you can bring in to the arena.
Macbrea 03-08-07, 02:23 PM	Cat why are scrolls, which have their own charts in the DMG not required to use that chart?
hogarth 03-08-07, 02:41 PM	Can I get a ruling on whether Advanced/Elite creatures are allowed to be summoned with Lesser Planar Ally? I would prefer the answer to be "no". Same with templated outsiders [e.g. no half-dragon howlers or phrenic barghests] or outsiders with class levels [e.g. no 6th level aasimar clerics].
TelinArtho 03-08-07, 02:44 PM	I would prefer the answer to be "no". Same with templated outsiders [e.g. no half-dragon howlers or phrenic barghests] or outsiders with class levels [e.g. no 6th level aasimar clerics]. Just for the record, templated and class-leveled allies have already been said as a no-go. I just want this for the record. People with diplomacy/handle animal allies can get advanced allies - I just want to know if I can use a spell to gain one as well. Bear in mind that the ally is restricted in that it can't be more than 6HD, and gives a few more options to an otherwise very restricted list.
hogarth 03-08-07, 02:46 PM	Just for the record, templated and class-leveled allies have already been said as a no-go. I just want this for the record. People with diplomacy/handle animal allies can get advanced allies - I just want to know if I can use a spell to gain one as well. Bear in mind that the ally is restricted in that it can't be more than 6HD, and gives a few more options to an otherwise very restricted list. Advanced allies cost credits, though. How many credits do you propose it should cost to get an advanced planar ally?
TelinArtho 03-08-07, 02:57 PM	I figured the same amount - since they only persist for the cycle, getting it multiple times requires more expenditure in credits (and therefore more help towards the CoCo...)
Rauul 03-08-07, 04:01 PM	Another argument was that dorjes are credit-free aswell. The main reason is of course the coco rule that anything not specifically printed in the book is considered custom (unless it's a mundane item) but in addition to that I also don't think it's unfair. A Wizard with craft wand can basically craft any spell into a wand while a psion only those he knows which is despite his un-restricted range of credit-free dorje crafting still more limited than a wizard by his known powers. Finally, I don't see this issue as big or broken enough to change it. Umm Cat, a wizard/Sor who crafts wands has to KNOW the spell, Sor's are limited on what spells they know, and wizards who have a larger Number of known spells, still have to Buy thier spells and learn them before they can use them to make anything with.. and you have a very strict policy on swapping out known spells.. So again how is this any different from a Psion making a Dorje Honestly.. if you can use a Dorje, for the same 750gp each you can now own one of every power level 1 in your list (thats 50 charges) usable without penalty (no pp activation), allowing you to Do buffs from memory.. at No Credit cost what so ever.. Same charater as a Wizard.. can't have any of the wands that aren't on the list without spending credits... So Basicly your saying.. with 100% honestly.. Play a Psionic Charater if you don't wanna Pitlord or Tear apart charater sheets when you get up in levels, since to use your wizard/cleric available feats, you need 5 credits Per every time you use the feat... (basicly made taking the feat useless Imho) Well they say hindsight is 20-20, i remeber the poll taken back in the late 80's when us DM's at GenCon were asked about random magic item charts such as scrolls, wands, potions, to be put to the NEW 2nd AD&D and i remeber it sounded like a helpful tool for DM's to use on random or Quick encounters... and i voted for it.. Never expected it to be the end all guide to crafting wands tho.. I hope this dosn't come off sounding hurtful in anyway.. I am just attempting write down My Personnel opinion without sounding hostile
Caterane 03-08-07, 04:19 PM	@Telin: For now, no custom planar allies. Maybe later. @Rauul: For 125 gp extra, a wizard can add any 1st level spell to his spellbook and craft a wand out of it plus he now has access to the spell. A psion cannot do that. With Boccobs book it's riddiculously cheap to get any spell you want into your spellbook for a little extra cost. And while the sorcerer has fewer spells than a wizard he has still more than a psion, and MUCH more than his equivalent, the wilder. And of course, the main argument is that we need stuff cost credits or coco doesn't work. In a time when we are close to a State of Emergency every week, removing credit-costs is the least thing we should do.
McJarvis 03-08-07, 04:24 PM	@Cat: you forgot about the nightmares involved in Clerics/Druids taking craft wand & having access to every spell on their spell list. (for which there IS no psionic equivilant) *shudder at the thought of the mighty CoD*
Rauul 03-08-07, 04:46 PM	@Rauul: For 125 gp extra, a wizard can add any 1st level spell to his spellbook and craft a wand out of it plus he now has access to the spell. A psion cannot do that. With Boccobs book it's riddiculously cheap to get any spell you want into your spellbook for a little extra cost. And while the sorcerer has fewer spells than a wizard he has still more than a psion, and MUCH more than his equivalent, the wilder. And of course, the main argument is that we need stuff cost credits or coco doesn't work. In a time when we are close to a State of Emergency every week, removing credit-costs is the least thing we should do. For a wizard yes.. for any other class no.. so basicly you are removing a feat that just 1 or 2 class can use to it's full purpose.. it's no big deal but if you want to make people spend credits.. charge them 5 credits for a dojre that augmented... as for a Boccobs blessed book... thats how much gold to own? Price 12,500 gp, 6,250 if crafted?).. Yes it makes it easier for a WIZARD.. to create a wand.. the same wizard who at level 7 may have 36 hp's and can't wear armor.. Who can craft without credits most of the wonderious items, yet he can't use a feat to craft a wand thats not on his chart.. So he creates scrolls of ANY of his spells without credit costs..(oh but then they are limited to Expendable caps) All i am Suggesting is that if they have the feat.. Not to charge them the credit costs for making a Wand, if they don't then make them pay the cost.. Same with Dorje,(basicly.. if they have the feat Dorje's are at cost.. if they don't then all Augmented Dorje have a credit cost)
SauroGrenom 03-08-07, 04:55 PM	So Basicly your saying.. with 100% honestly.. Play a Psionic Charater if you don't wanna Pitlord or Tear apart charater sheets when you get up in levels, since to use your wizard/cleric available feats, you need 5 credits Per every time you use the feat... (basicly made taking the feat useless Imho) If you don't want to pitlord, then you need to find some other way to make credits. That's all. You can audit characters, you can be the asst guildmaster and get credits when the primary guildmaster is unavailable. You can run quests. You can run a campaign. There are sometimes little projects that Cat gives out credits for. Shoot. There's lots of ways you can contribute and make credits. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to contribute in any way to making this place run, then you cannot complain about anything.
MitzaVolchenko 03-08-07, 04:57 PM	I can see the arguments to allow custom wands if you have the craft wand feat. You have the feat, you have the spell, why the heck can't you create a wand thereof? For the same reason you cannot create any other custom item in the blackmarket. At a gaming table there are no credits so any argument using 'logic' or 'why can't I' doesn't take the special enviroment of CoCo into consideration. I too would dream of a board where we need no pitlords and in turn no credits but that's not the situation; infact we're much closer to the opposite - a State of Emergency - weekly. Another argument was that dorjes are credit-free aswell. The main reason is of course the coco rule that anything not specifically printed in the book is considered custom (unless it's a mundane item) but in addition to that I also don't think it's unfair. A Wizard with craft wand can basically craft any spell into a wand while a psion only those he knows which is despite his un-restricted range of credit-free dorje crafting still more limited than a wizard by his known powers. Finally, I don't see this issue as big or broken enough to change it. Okay I am seeing two arguments in your ruling. The first seems to be that if wands were credit-free, we would have fewer pitlords. I would be interested in a show of hands for the pitlords that actually spend their credits on wands. *looks around without raising her own hand* I don't think that is a particularly valid consideration. Next, how many pitlords have wizards/clerics/bards/sorcerers just waiting to buy that feat and abuse it? *looks around again without rasiing her hand* Next how many have psionic characters with craft dorje? *looks around yet again without raising her hand* There doesn't seem to be much of a worry about pitlord defection for the wands being freed. Actually, we might see a few less craft wondrous item feat users and abusers if they could choose wands instead. f anything not specifically listed in a book and not "mundane" ie. it has a power ability in it costs credits, why are dorjes free? There is no list. They should cost credits by that logic. Lets break down what wands take to make. One feat+having the spell (either natural list or paying to scribe it in the case of a wizard)+paying the cost. That gets hefty particularly considering that the caster has to foot a bill that gets ever larger. Wizards, due to their main class feature, are the only class that will ever get the option to buy and scribe a spell they don't already have. Everyone else is stuck in the same boat as a psionic character. Another note, A Psi Warrior is in essence a fighter, but he can create his own wands er..dorjes for free essentially expanding his utility in the same way that wands would if they were more open for use, while the caster who should be able to can't. Ever count up how many wands are on the chart for druids? I guess I am not seeing some potential abuse (note that I don't really want to face a battery of wands, but it is fair that I should do so). I have a known dislike for psionics, perhaps that is why I want to see the wands freed...let the normal caster types take their revenge! Nah, I am not that emotionally invested in it. Honestly, what am I missing that makes freeing the feat to be played as written a bad thing?
MitzaVolchenko 03-08-07, 05:01 PM	If you don't want to pitlord, then you need to find some other way to make credits. That's all. You can audit characters, you can be the asst guildmaster and get credits when the primary guildmaster is unavailable. You can run quests. You can run a campaign. There are sometimes little projects that Cat gives out credits for. Shoot. There's lots of ways you can contribute and make credits. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to contribute in any way to making this place run, then you cannot complain about anything. That was not his point. As for guildmasters and Cat's projects, those are not a viable source of credits for the average new guy. It is pitlord or questlord or prison work (and the average new player would be hard pressed to correctly find some violations due to CoCo's everchanging rules...the average new guy would overlook that crafted non-standard wand :P ) For the record, Rauul has been pitlording more or less since he got here as have I. In my case I have seen my credits devalued, and my secondary source of credits removed. Not too encouraging, heyla?
hogarth 03-08-07, 05:11 PM	Okay I am seeing two arguments in your ruling. The first seems to be that if wands were credit-free, we would have fewer pitlords. I would be interested in a show of hands for the pitlords that actually spend their credits on wands. *looks around without raising her own hand* Who thinks Cat is going to change his mind based on logical arguments? *looks around without raising his own hand* Look, this is just one of Caterane's ideas like: "Allowing stuff from Unearthed Arcana will increase the number of pitlords and will encourage more bard characters." "Adding traps to the Core Coliseum will encourage rogue characters." "Adding a bunch of new skill packages will encourage bard/rogue characters." "Every skill has to have some use in the arena (except for Decipher Script)." Arguing against his ideas is like arguing about religion: pointless (except if you like arguing).
MitzaVolchenko 03-08-07, 05:17 PM	I have to add a wee addendum just because I wouldn't be me if I made a completely bloodless argument based only on rules...why are we trying to force people over a barrel to pitlord? I have enough credits stored now that I could sit around playing my characters...perhaps only one per week if in State of Emergency...and not touch another fight for a year. Why do pitlords do it? Is it because of credits? Probably yes in some cases ( I certainly track my credits to know when I can afford to put something crazy like Pestilencia or Willowmoon on the board). I think in most cases it is because we love the board and want to see it continue. Why do I do my best to get fights in on time? Is it because I care if I lose credits? Nope. Doesn't matter to me. I try to be on time because I want my fellow CoCoians? CoCoites? CoCos? to be able to continue their game and enjoy it. Perhaps I am too altruistic...I think that pitlords would probably continue to pitlord with or without credits just to see the board thrive.
MitzaVolchenko 03-08-07, 05:22 PM	Who thinks Cat is going to change his mind based on logical arguments? *looks around without raising his own hand* Look, this is just one of Caterane's ideas like: "Allowing stuff from Unearthed Arcana will increase the number of pitlords and will encourage more bard characters." "Adding traps to the Core Coliseum will encourage rogue characters." "Adding a bunch of new skill packages will encourage bard/rogue characters." "Every skill has to have some use in the arena (except for Decipher Script)." Arguing against his ideas is like arguing about religion: pointless (except if you like arguing). *sighs* Yeah, things I forget...oh well. *goes to see if there are any new bards for Sybil to play with*
TelinArtho 03-08-07, 05:24 PM	Credits help maintain sanity if nothing else. If we removed credits from the equation, I would be worried less about a lack of pitlords, but much more about a lack of "control." Take for instance the number of people who come here for one week, put on three or four custom items and gets paired up. Since the items don't cost credits, they just add them wily-nilly - and a potentially "broken" concept comes up - without a method to check it, approve it and limit it. Credits allows us to have some non-core things while limiting them to the people who actually provide some of the legwork in the CoCo. Limiting them gives the air of "exclusivity" and has the side benefit of slowing abuse down somewhat so that it doesn't get out of control.
MindWandererB 03-08-07, 05:29 PM	While I agree with credits in concept, balance is a key issue. I've always hated the +1 ability bonus items. "Hey, I have credits, so I get a bonus for 1000 gp instead of 4000!" :yuck: Wands aren't a balance issue between the haves and the have-nots, but they are an issue between psionics and magic. There just isn't any reason to allow any dorje in existence (including the ultra-cheap Enlarge), while restricting wands to list-only. And even Cat is ignoring the issue of why we don't pay any attention to the Scrolls list. ------ In other news: There seem to be two opinions as to how Knowledge works with templated monsters. 1) If you have the right Knowledge for the creature's actual type, you know stuff. If not, you know nothing. 2) If you have the right Knowledge for the creature's actual type, you know which template it has; if you have the right Knowledge for the creature's original type, you know what the base creature is. You might know one, both, or neither. Personally, I like option 2, but there's nothing official. Can I get a consensus?
MitzaVolchenko 03-08-07, 05:37 PM	While I agree with credits in concept, balance is a key issue. I've always hated the +1 ability bonus items. "Hey, I have credits, so I get a bonus for 1000 gp instead of 4000!" :yuck: Wands aren't a balance issue between the haves and the have-nots, but they are an issue between psionics and magic. There just isn't any reason to allow any dorje in existence (including the ultra-cheap Enlarge), while restricting wands to list-only. And even Cat is ignoring the issue of why we don't pay any attention to the Scrolls list. ------ In other news: There seem to be two opinions as to how Knowledge works with templated monsters. 1) If you have the right Knowledge for the creature's actual type, you know stuff. If not, you know nothing. 2) If you have the right Knowledge for the creature's actual type, you know which template it has; if you have the right Knowledge for the creature's original type, you know what the base creature is. You might know one, both, or neither. Personally, I like option 2, but there's nothing official. Can I get a consensus? I am not sure how much use the knowledge checks really are at all...most folks just go and look up what possibly fits the description given and write tactics for it. Given your options, option 2 makes the most sense. You might recognize that it is a duergar but not a half-fiend duergar. At the least you get to prepare for duergar.
SauroGrenom 03-08-07, 05:41 PM	Yea option two makes the most sense. Otherwise it's possible to not know that a Destrican is, but you do know what a half fiend Destrican is. That's rather funny.
TelinArtho 03-08-07, 05:48 PM	I would agree with option 2 as well, though I would prefer if it was harder to identify a template (hmm - how do you identify someone as Phrenic...?) as some of them are barely perceptible changes (such as Celestial/Fiendish/Lycanthrope in humanoid form). Though - that again isn't universal since a lycanthrope in hybrid form (assuming you can identify the template) is pretty obvious, as is half-fiend, half-celestial and half-dragon...
SauroGrenom 03-08-07, 05:55 PM	I think some of those templates don't change the type at all. So I suppose that means that if you know what a treant is, you know what a fiendish treat is. At a table, I'd go for your idea Telin. I'd put an ad-hoc +5 DC on the knowledge check. But here, that's probably not something we want to do. It's just another complication that makes monsters tougher (for players to know and for pitlords to handle correctly), and it offers little or no benefit to us a game environment.
TelinArtho 03-08-07, 05:57 PM	Yeah - that's why I just mentioned it as an aside... Honestly, I'd like to have some false positives too... nothing like "correctly" identifying your opponent as a bear only to have it wind up being a were-bear...
Tellish_of_Ket 03-08-07, 06:07 PM	Credits help maintain sanity if nothing else. If we removed credits from the equation, I would be worried less about a lack of pitlords, but much more about a lack of "control." Take for instance the number of people who come here for one week, put on three or four custom items and gets paired up. Since the items don't cost credits, they just add them wily-nilly - and a potentially "broken" concept comes up - without a method to check it, approve it and limit it. Credits allows us to have some non-core things while limiting them to the people who actually provide some of the legwork in the CoCo. Limiting them gives the air of "exclusivity" and has the side benefit of slowing abuse down somewhat so that it doesn't get out of control. Actually what your suggesting that ppl might do with wands, HAVE been done with psionics and is still being done. And i do mean exactly what you are saying. I'm not suggesting to make ALL wands credit free...and to be honest, i can't see anything BROKEN about crafting wands, but then again, i haven't thought about it. I'm only suggesting that those that invest in the craft wands feat gain the ability to craft non-list wands without paying credits. That isn't a lot to ask for, especially since i don't think there ANY gladiators with craft wands. As for the bolded part i highlighted....untrue. Crafting wands of any spell in your repetoire (up to 4th) is COMPLETELY core. Core all the way. Psionics in fact are NOT core. So we are giving away unlimited psionics crafting (non-core), and penalizing craft wands (core). Maybe i miss-understood what you said, it's possible. But still, removing credits for CORE craft wands is all i'm suggesting. And craft wands metamagic is 5th caster level pre-req. I'm not sure how you see that some guy can come barging in with a broken wand build without credits to make a 5th level caster off the bat. He'd have to invest a good amount of time to get to 5th level. I honestly don't see the danger or the abuse. And if can be more candid without being offensive, i don't believe this is the real issue anyhow. If i may be allowed to speak freely, i believe the issue is about standing pat and not "rocking the boat" and has actually nothing to do with abusing wands or losing pitlords or credits or anything like that. The hard truth??? Some ppl are afraid of change and progress. I know it sounds cruel and condesending and i don't mean it that way, but i haven't seen any arguments make sense as to why to dissallow them. As far as i know we only ever had ONE wand abuser and it got shut down. HE bought 50 wands of 1 charge each. I say give peace a chance. lol....i mean, give wands a chance. ToK
Rauul 03-08-07, 06:34 PM	Please note.. that Dorjes are not limited to 1-4th powers as wands are... they can have up to 9th level powers.. for the right gold.. Only limit to use. is they have to be on the manifesters list of powers he can learn..To make the Psionic charater has to know the power.. Is a huge difference in powers of Wands vs Dorjes.. Wands can only be crafted by Wizards/sor/bard/druids/clerics/rangers/paladins of 5th level caster ability.. Dorjes can be crafted by any psionic class of 5th level manifester.
McJarvis 03-08-07, 07:37 PM	On the template stuff-> The issue I'm seeing right now(since I'm involved in a MQ with something templated as fiendish) is a bit more complicated than MWB is implying. Fiendish only gives the magical beast template if the base creature is animal or vermin. Is the template "associated" with magical beast & thus identifiable regardless of creature it is put on?
MindWandererB 03-08-07, 08:07 PM	What I was thinking was that it's not based on "associations," but purely on type. If you have Knowledge (arcana), then you could identify a fiendish displacer beast as such (magical beast), a fiendish spider as fiendish but not as a spider (magical beast now, vermin before), and a fiendish elf as nothing (humanoid).
Tellish_of_Ket 03-08-07, 09:17 PM	I've been watching the talks about using knowledge checks on templates and i honestly can't see what others are talking about in the difficulty in adjudcating it. Fiendish Dire Rat (1 HD) small magical beast (augmented animal, extraplanar) DC 11 Knowledge arcana do identify the magicl beast properties (fiendish) DC 11 Knowledge nature to identify the animal parts (dire rat) I'm not sure where all the confusion is coming from. DOOWD has Knowledge Arcana check 26. He recognizes the parts and machinations of something fiendish. He beats the DC 15 and gets to know 3 other bits of information about it; such as SR, Resistance to cold/fire, and DR 0/-. He knows enough about fiendish beings that something this small doesn't have any DR. Now, DOOWD hates the outdoors, and has no ranks in Knowledge Nature. He doesn't know he's facing a dire rat or the risk of diseases that it carries, nor is he aware that it will be able to scent him out. DM DESCRIPTION in monster fight. DOOWD vs Small Fiendish 4 legged critter (augmented ???, extraplanar). ToK
McJarvis 03-08-07, 09:27 PM	Ok...another issue that just came up. "Psionic" is not a creature type exactly, but our knowledge rules apply it as such. What kind of knowledge checks would be required for.... Human Xeph Elan Human with Wild Talent feat Human with level of Psion Mule with Phrenic template.
SauroGrenom 03-08-07, 09:55 PM	From what I understand Psionic is a subtype. So the knowledge check will allow you to identify any creature with that subtype.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-08-07, 10:38 PM	Well, the key to knowing if a creature is psionic is the have a high enough knowledge check on the base parts and the Pitlord could part with that information if he felt like it, or he could give you other information not relevant to psionics if you don't have high enough knowledge skill. Just having the knowledge skill isn't enough. To find out all the minutia it needs to be really high. Remember you only get 1 relevant piece for every 5 pts above the DC. ToK
MitzaVolchenko 03-08-07, 10:43 PM	Well, the key to knowing if a creature is psionic is the have a high enough knowledge check on the base parts and the Pitlord could part with that information if he felt like it, or he could give you other information not relevant to psionics if you don't have high enough knowledge skill. Just having the knowledge skill isn't enough. To find out all the minutia it needs to be really high. Remember you only get 1 relevant piece for every 5 pts above the DC. ToK Actually you get: * No Ranks: Size and rough description (like 'huge monster') * 1+ Ranks: Size, Type, Description (huge magical beast with many heads) * Dc0+CR: Race (7-headed hydra) * Dc5+CR: Race, Subtypes, Class levels (7 headed Cryo-Hydra, no classes) * Dc10+CR: Race, Subtypes, Class levels, Equipment, Specials * Dc15+CR: All plus Tactic We don't really roll checks it is based only what knowledge level you have.
Zevox 03-08-07, 11:59 PM	@ Cat, Re: Wands - I'm sorry, but do you seriously believe what you just said there? That any wand not on that list is a custom item? That removing them from costing credits would cause us to lose pitlords? I'm sorry again, but neither of those seem like realistic arguments to me at all. Wands not on that list are in no way custom items. The rules about wands (both just before that list and in the craft feat for them) state that any spell 4th level or lower are allowed in wands. On the reverse side, no rules state that the list is the be-all-end-all of wands. So why call wands not from that list custom items? As for the credits, I'd you ask to take a realistic look at that. How many characters in the arena actually bother to pay for those? I can name only 2 right now with credit-payed wands (Vath's Hassan and his True Strike wand and Sunwolf's Telveran and his Shield wand), and I'm fairly sure both of them got those items before I even joined. I honestly cannot say I've ever seen anyone pay credits for a wand while I've been here. I can't say I would ever pay credits for such a wand (paying credits for expendables doesn't strike me as a good idea). I can honestly say I'd not stop pitlording if wands were made freely available (and I'd ask if anyone at all actually would, that they speak up here as such). We have so many other things that get bought with credits so much more often - UA material, starting at higher levels, odd-numbered bonus ability items, custom skill boost items, allies of various sorts, custom wondrous items, and I could probably go on - so do you honestly think that removing this restriction on wands is going to affect pitlording or how much people want credits at all? I know I don't. @ ToK - What Telin was referring to with that statement was the Unearthed Arcana material. Patently non-core, yet allowed at a credit cost. Zevox
Tellish_of_Ket 03-09-07, 12:15 AM	I honestly cannot say I've ever seen anyone pay credits for a wand while I've been here. Wand of Spectral Hand (CL 3) – 50 charges 2° [0 lbs][4500gp] Spectral hand and true strike wands in fact are fairly popular. I think Cat is under the presumption that we open up ALL wands to be credit free. And in fact many ppl are asking for that. I don't agree with that portion. I only ask that those that invest in the feat "Craft Wand" be allowed...that's it. Nothing more. ToK
MindWandererB 03-09-07, 12:21 AM	As for the credits, I'd you ask to take a realistic look at that. How many characters in the arena actually bother to pay for those? I can name only 2 right now with credit-payed wands (Vath's Hassan and his True Strike wand and Sunwolf's Telveran and his Shield wand), and I'm fairly sure both of them got those items before I even joined. I honestly cannot say I've ever seen anyone pay credits for a wand while I've been here. FYI, Zero had a credit-paid wand of See Invisibility during his short life. I will probably also buy a custom wand of Sonic Substituted Shocking Grasp [CL 5] for Silis at some point. And I don't part with my credits easily.
Zevox 03-09-07, 12:46 AM	Ah, indeed, missed those two. Still, the point stands I think. Its incredibly rare for those sorts of wands to be bought, and nearly all credits spent around here go to other things. I cannot see it impacting how much folks want credits or pitlord at all. Zevox
MindWandererB 03-09-07, 12:52 AM	I wonder... exactly what proportion of credits do go into what expenses? It's probably based on scale (those who earn only a few credits spend them on character options and a couple of key items, and those who earn more spend them on multiple items, including expendables). If we really want to make credits attractive, it should be by adding options, not making restrictions. One thing we might be ready for is the open-source 3.5-compatible material on the WotC website, such as the Psychic Theurge. UA has gone over fairly well, after all. Perhaps?
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 01:00 AM	I wonder... exactly what proportion of credits do go into what expenses? It's probably based on scale (those who earn only a few credits spend them on character options and a couple of key items, and those who earn more spend them on multiple items, including expendables). If we really want to make credits attractive, it should be by adding options, not making restrictions. One thing we might be ready for is the open-source 3.5-compatible material on the WotC website, such as the Psychic Theurge. UA has gone over fairly well, after all. Perhaps? As much fun as that would be, that adds a lot more material for a pitlord to cover. Honestly the primary use for credits seems to be level advancement to skip the more tedious and useless phases of builds that really only get interesting at higher ECL's or to buy in with higher LA base types. The wands argument seems to be ending with "Because Cat says so." I am still interested in his response regarding the scroll table and why it is okay to put no real limit on something made with a feat that wizards get for free, but it is not okay to allow free use of something that they pay for.
Abyssal Stalker 03-09-07, 02:29 AM	I don't adjust my amount of pitlording based on the need of credits. I do it because I think it's fun and choose a suitable amount of fights that I have time to run. Running MQs and quests is even more fun. I rarely use credits. That's probably because I'm such a crappy player that I don't come up with fancy ideas and mostly lose my fights (at least lately) and don't run my characters so much anymore. My biggest credit dump has been Jonathon Raven, and that was mostly because he started at level 9.
Caterane 03-09-07, 04:35 AM	I wonder... exactly what proportion of credits do go into what expenses? It's probably based on scale (those who earn only a few credits spend them on character options and a couple of key items, and those who earn more spend them on multiple items, including expendables). If we really want to make credits attractive, it should be by adding options, not making restrictions. One thing we might be ready for is the open-source 3.5-compatible material on the WotC website, such as the Psychic Theurge. UA has gone over fairly well, after all. Perhaps? Hehe actually I had thought about it from the time we added UA material. I think this material can serve another purpose. You'll see when Telin pitlords his 100th fight ;)
Abyssal Stalker 03-09-07, 06:37 AM	Hey, I'm up to flat 50! Do I get a cookie?
hogarth 03-09-07, 10:30 AM	Ah, indeed, missed those two. Still, the point stands I think. Its incredibly rare for those sorts of wands to be bought, and nearly all credits spent around here go to other things. I cannot see it impacting how much folks want credits or pitlord at all. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." (John 20:29) ;)
McJarvis 03-09-07, 10:44 AM	More to the point(though I appreciate hogarth's sentiments): Any one item on the black market won't make people stop pitlording. If you suddenly said "The rogue-fighter feat variants in UA no longer cost 10 creds" I severely doubt anyone would stop pitlording, but this isn't a good case for removing the credit cost on that particular class.
TelinArtho 03-09-07, 10:51 AM	Hehe actually I had thought about it from the time we added UA material. I think this material can serve another purpose. You'll see when Telin pitlords his 100th fight ;) I got news for you Cat, I'm well over 100 fights... that tally you have on the Active Pitlords post is just the count since, what, January of last year? Before that point, I was already up to 40+ I think...
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 01:07 PM	Hey, I'm up to flat 50! Do I get a cookie? No! No cookies! Like Telin said, that total isn't correct. Cat just decided at some point to start tracking late fights and put annoying red tags after the names of folks that were late more than x %. Percentage is either 10% or 20%, don't remember. It is enough that I won't lose my late tag for another 2-3 years and so get to continue being annoyed by the red tag. Now that I think of it, I find that red tag not only annoying but a depressing reminder that real life gets in my way from time to time. Aside from no cookies, you can have *hugs* from me. You are appreciated as are all pitlords even when we (the players) get grumpy and grousy and confrontational.
Abyssal Stalker 03-09-07, 01:19 PM	No! No cookies! Like Telin said, that total isn't correct. Cat just decided at some point to start tracking late fights and put annoying red tags after the names of folks that were late more than x %. Percentage is either 10% or 20%, don't remember. It is enough that I won't lose my late tag for another 2-3 years and so get to continue being annoyed by the red tag. Now that I think of it, I find that red tag not only annoying but a depressing reminder that real life gets in my way from time to time. Aside from no cookies, you can have *hugs* from me. You are appreciated as are all pitlords even when we (the players) get grumpy and grousy and confrontational. :invasion:
Caterane 03-09-07, 01:25 PM	I got news for you Cat, I'm well over 100 fights... that tally you have on the Active Pitlords post is just the count since, what, January of last year? Before that point, I was already up to 40+ I think... If we take all fights from the beginning of coco into consideration I am surely well over 200. However, we started tracking no earlier than 11. Jan 2005 and that's what matters. I think an additional reward/incentive for pitlords with many fights - something even more exclusive than credits - would be a fair thing. The material on the WotC website is one option; custom spells (checked and approved by Elder majority) is another option. Maybe we should give that out for every 50 fights you have pitlorded. For every late fight however your count is considered to be 10 less.
hogarth 03-09-07, 01:32 PM	I think an additional reward/incentive for pitlords with many fights - something even more exclusive than credits - would be a fair thing. The material on the WotC website is one option; custom spells (checked and approved by Elder majority) is another option. Maybe we should give that out for every 50 fights you have pitlorded. For every late fight however your count is considered to be 10 less. I'd agree -- if everyone starts at a base of zero. After all, if long-time members can get this benefit with no work in the future, how is it an incentive for them to pitlord in the future?
McJarvis 03-09-07, 01:53 PM	I'd agree -- if everyone starts at a base of zero. After all, if long-time members can get this benefit with no work in the future, how is it an incentive for them to pitlord in the future? If this is the case, I would encourage it to be a # of times per year kind of thing. This would encourage the "here and now" Pitlords.
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 02:06 PM	If we take all fights from the beginning of coco into consideration I am surely well over 200. However, we started tracking no earlier than 11. Jan 2005 and that's what matters. I think an additional reward/incentive for pitlords with many fights - something even more exclusive than credits - would be a fair thing. The material on the WotC website is one option; custom spells (checked and approved by Elder majority) is another option. Maybe we should give that out for every 50 fights you have pitlorded. For every late fight however your count is considered to be 10 less. Scenario coming to a CoCo near you: "Without Mitza we'd already be in a state of emergency." Followed by: Sorry, Mitz, you have had real world issues so you are actually 100+ fights in the hole toward winning your uber-spiffy scout badge of pitlordy goodness. Newflash, if I am sitting at max fights and have a real world issue, the late number skyrockets in a single week. It is a risk that is taken when you rely on a few pitlords running at max to avoid state of emergency. Other than the annoying red number, the onlyimpact for me is feeling bad that I let people down. That aside, no. Heck no! NO NO NO For the last few days most pitlords have chimed in with statements that they don't need to be thrown treats to keep pitlording. Yes, credits are nice, but the majority seem to feel that they are pitlording for the enjoyment and betterment of the board. Now you are talking about adding yet another dimensional twink as a reward for being here longest (and to a degree working hardest, though not necessarily in recent times as there are some pretty high credit balances on some long inactive pitlords). Meanwhile you are overruling a change that the majority thinks should happen (in one form or another) with regards to wands and ignoring the question of why scrolls get a double standard. So continue nerfing something that is Core in favor of handing out treats that are non-Core. I am not trying to be mean or evil or awful, but I am getting seriously mixed messages and starting to feel like the magic show where we hold out something shiny over here so that you forget about what the other hand is doing.
TelinArtho 03-09-07, 02:15 PM	Meanwhile you are overruling a change that the majority thinks should happen (in one form or another) with regards to wands and ignoring the question of why scrolls get a double standard. Careful there - unless you have real stats on what the majority is - you are merely making a generalization here. Only 2 elders have posted responses to the matter, while two others are abstaining (or at least have abstained from voting thus far) and the remaining one is absent. If you are talking about the public of the CoCo, you should qualify that statement as the majority of the vocal public, and even there, back it up with some numbers rather than a generalization. All that said - I don't think Pitlording is in need of more perks, and as far as I can tell, the method to gain more pitlords is not necessarily uses for credits or whatever. I still am of the opinion that the problem with our number of pitlords lies in our methods to produce a fight, quirkyness of some map(s) (ie forest map), the tight deadlines we deal with, and the natural ebb and flow of the forum itself.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-09-07, 02:35 PM	@Mitza: Well, i just blew about 50 to 60 credits (out of 90'ish) upon my return (because my 4 currently undefeated gladiators would not level enough for IT). Do you know how many fights i had to pitlord to get those? Lots. Time? Lots. I think what Cat is proposing very fair, but could use some tweaking. Which is what i'm currently pondering. So before jumping all over us about having lots of credits, just keep in mind that we've actually put in the time and effort. PLUS i disagree with you on another point. I pitlord fights because i actually love it. I truely enjoy running fights. I don't do it to gather oodles and oodles of credits to buy nice big shiny objects to super-power my characters. With the exception of Jur, i probably (and it's just a guess right now, i didn't actually look or count), that i spend at most 3 to 5 credits on any one gladiator, and even those are frivilous, but hey, i got them so use them right? I know you aren't trying to be evil or awful but we can't make a quick and hasty ruling/decision because a few vocal ppl speak out. The adage "The squeaky wheel always gets the grease" doesn't apply here. Real change takes time and takes thought. That's why we have elders. Elders aren't just ppl who are vocal or boisterous, or cliquie or anything. They have a lot of experience with the CoCo, they are pensive and sometimes philisophical. Looking at the current elders, i really like the make up. (trust me, you'd have a coniption in the past when there were like 9 elders and it was a brawl every week to get anything done). So if some of the elders are reserving their judgement and vote, i would ask that you be patient with them as they have their own reasons for doing so. Change takes time. We've already accomplished quite a bit in just two weeks. So let them breathe and ponder the craft wand situation some more. They are doing a fantastic job. ToK
Rauul 03-09-07, 02:37 PM	Careful there - unless you have real stats on what the majority is - you are merely making a generalization here. Only 2 elders have posted responses to the matter, while two others are abstaining (or at least have abstained from voting thus far) and the remaining one is absent. If you are talking about the public of the CoCo, you should qualify that statement as the majority of the vocal public, and even there, back it up with some numbers rather than a generalization. All that said - I don't think Pitlording is in need of more perks, and as far as I can tell, the method to gain more pitlords is not necessarily uses for credits or whatever. I still am of the opinion that the problem with our number of pitlords lies in our methods to produce a fight, quirkyness of some map(s) (ie forest map), the tight deadlines we deal with, and the natural ebb and flow of the forum itself. All you have to do is read each of the 3-4 threads that we have been discussing wands in for the last week and a half.. it's not just in 1 thread we kept getting kicked out of places and moved it to others... for the record.. 2 elders votes, and you said voting didn't matter since Cat's vote as she runs the Blackmarket is the only vote that counts... So Cat Chimed in and nothing was changed... I will live with the rules and still accomplish what i want with my charaters.. and if you think i am pitlording for the credits to buy items.. you are Dead wrong (My charaters take feats to create items.. why should i use my Pitlording time to buy an item for a charater that by ever rule in the game can make it (pitlord 5 fights and be able to make a wand with a feat you took at 5th level and paided 20 credits to activate the charater!!!))... Yea that makes me wanna Pitlord every morning when i wake up...
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 02:43 PM	Careful there - unless you have real stats on what the majority is - you are merely making a generalization here. Only 2 elders have posted responses to the matter, while two others are abstaining (or at least have abstained from voting thus far) and the remaining one is absent. If you are talking about the public of the CoCo, you should qualify that statement as the majority of the vocal public, and even there, back it up with some numbers rather than a generalization. Sorry, you are right that is merely an observation regarding those that have weighed in on the topic. List of folks that have spoken in favor of freeing the wands in some form or another: MWB-Elder Tellish-Pitlord (former elder?) Macbrea-Pitlord Zevox-Pitlord/Guildmaster Mitza-Pitlord Rauul-Pitlord McJarvis-Pitlord/Guildmaster False Keraptis-Player Hirumajoe-Pitlord (inactive) hogarth?-Pitlord (I couldn't tell there, though the expression of faith inspired me on the topic.) List of folks against freeing the wands: SauroGrenom-Elder Caterane-GM Refused to voice an opinion that wouldn't matter until Caterane made the call anyway: NiQil-Elder/Prisonlord Telin-Elder Totals: 10 for freeing the wands in some form, 2 against, 2 abstain I may have missed some folks in there as I had to fish through a few threads looking.
Macbrea 03-09-07, 02:45 PM	Well, it's not exactly a majority.. Name Abyssal Stalker Caterane <-- No Etiquette_Gnome Eluria Erithmu False_Keraptis Hirumajoe Horatius Iced LaundryGnome Macbrea <--- Yes Milov Maraxus McJarvis <--- No MindWandererB <--- Yes MitzaVolchenko <--- Yes MysticMonk2005 NiQil <--- No Opinion Never_On_Time Pittbull Papapeperoni Rauul <--- Yes Ravashack Sunwolf SoulLord SauroGrenom <-- No Sindorin Sutro TaggIIV TelinArtho <--- No Opinion Tellish_of_Ket <--- Partially TheMagister UserNamer Vathelokai Yitzi Zevox <--- Yes hogarth nickbeat orsono renlim sonofzeal templer10 waywreth But as has been said. One person has veto power and has said no. And therefore, it's no.
TelinArtho 03-09-07, 02:48 PM	All you have to do is read each of the 3-4 threads that we have been discussing wands in for the last week and a half.. it's not just in 1 thread we kept getting kicked out of places and moved it to others... for the record.. 2 elders votes, and you said voting didn't matter since Cat's vote as she runs the Blackmarket is the only vote that counts... So Cat Chimed in and nothing was changed... I will live with the rules and still accomplish what i want with my charaters.. and if you think i am pitlording for the credits to buy items.. you are Dead wrong (My charaters take feats to create items.. why should i use my Pitlording time to buy an item for a charater that by ever rule in the game can make it (pitlord 5 fights and be able to make a wand with a feat you took at 5th level and paided 20 credits to activate the charater!!!))... Yea that makes me wanna Pitlord every morning when i wake up... Believe it or not - I have read every single thread of discussion about the whole wand issue, and I still have not placed a vote one way or the other about it - as ToK said - I am thinking about it. I do want to point out that I did not say "voting didn't matter since Cat's vote as she runs the Blackmarket is the only vote that counts" - point of fact, if the elders feel strongly enough that a change is needed, that change will come down. On the matter of the wands, its not a landslide either way, so I don't see why the perception is that "everyone" wants the change. As I said above, the "vocal" majority may want the change. Doing things according to the vocal majority is not always in the best interest of the CoCo though.
Macbrea 03-09-07, 02:55 PM	I disblieve, we have said we didn't really want things before and they have been put in. At random, if something looks good to Cat he changes it to what he wants. If he doesn't want something it gets changed. I don't believe if the Elders all got behind any one object and Cat was against it that it would change. Cat has veto power and that is a fact.
McJarvis 03-09-07, 02:57 PM	List of folks that have spoken in favor of freeing the wands in some form or another: McJarvis-Pitlord/Guildmaster Please note that I actually argued against the freeing up of wands, but then noted that I have everything to gain from them being freed up. (Since Artificer is going to be taking Craft wand as his 5th level feat) As far as Pitlording & credits rewards go-> I would gladly pitlord without a credit cost if it wasn't for the forest map & stupid players with long tactics & tons of arguements about decisions I had to make up on the spot. The credits make up for the human side of it-> though not completely. (stupid end users!)
hogarth 03-09-07, 03:00 PM	As far as Pitlording & credits rewards go-> I would gladly pitlord without a credit cost if it wasn't for the forest map & stupid players with long tactics & tons of arguements about decisions I had to make up on the spot. The credits make up for the human side of it-> though not completely. Quoted for truth. That's why I've switched to pitlording miniquests only for now --> I get to pick the map myself (no forests), and there's only one player coming up with long tactics and arguments.
Erithmu 03-09-07, 03:09 PM	Odd question that hasn't come up yet, but since I just finished two Missions that had multiple characters I think I should ask. If in a multiple character mission one of the characters die, how does that affect the rest of the mission? Unconsciousness (-9 to -1) If in week 1 or 2 of the mission: - Does the character get revived? (remember this is mission not quest) - Does the character get removed from the mission? --- If so does the ECL of the mission change (if possible) Dead (-10 or more) If in week 1 or 2 of the mission: - Does the character get revived? - Does the character get removed from the mission? --- If so does the ECL of the mission change (if possible) My assumptions: Unconsciousness: - Revived and returned to the mission Dead: - Removed from mission and ECL is adjusted to the remaining members (if possible)
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 03:19 PM	@Mitza: Well, i just blew about 50 to 60 credits (out of 90'ish) upon my return (because my 4 currently undefeated gladiators would not level enough for IT). Do you know how many fights i had to pitlord to get those? Lots. Time? Lots. I am not criticizing anyone for having lots of credits. I give kudos to anyone that pitlords even one fight. I don't particularly pitlord for the credits. I am pointing out that giving yet more non-Core or elitist rewards is not good for the board in the long run. The fact that I won't ever qualify for it is fairly non-significant to me. The more you create a society of haves and have nots, the greater the potential for societal stagnation or outright revolution (impossible here beyond voting with your feet and walking away). I think what Cat is proposing very fair, but could use some tweaking. Which is what i'm currently pondering. So before jumping all over us about having lots of credits, just keep in mind that we've actually put in the time and effort. Time invested? I know the time it takes. You will note that I have an ECL 10 character, I have paid for quests, and late fights due to real world issues have cost me around 30-40 credits since I have been here. I still have 50 sitting there waiting for me to decide whether or not to buy in another character. I am not the new kid onthe block that is jealous of the kid next door's toys. I can buy those same toys should I ever feel inclined to do so. I don't think that there need to be greater or more rewards to pitlord. I don't think that pitlords need to be enticed with shinies or carrots to keep them moving forward. Want to give a nice reward for pitlords that stay the course and run many many many fights? Give them a forum title of Pitlord or Guru or Super Spiffy Helper Person. Heck let us pay credits for a forum title. I would go for it...fun use of credits that I may never use otherwise and doesn't give me any edge whatsoever in the arena. You may note that many if not most of my arguments on most topics guilds, wands, etc. are based on not allowing too great an imbalance or advantage over the average walk in play one character a week player. I am also a frequent advocate of not devaluing the credits we do earn (ie when we went from 4 to 5 credits per ECL over 3) and not making it harder for people to earn credits (ie. mapping credits being removed when maps do take time even with the tool and make fights far more readily understandable). This may seem like a paradox, but I recognize that credits do entice some people to start pitlording. Once you've got someone hooked, the natural draw of the board keeps them coming back for more. I often use myself as an example because I know my own situations. If I am in a given situation dollars to doughnuts so is someone else or they will be. It is not an attempt to gain anything particular for myself. owever you willnote that the first thing Telin asked for was numbers (examples) to back up my statement of a majority. One thing that gets overlooked is that while Caterane has the final say and Elders have greater sway where rules are concerned, this is a community. If every voice in the community is not valued and heard and allowed to speak freely (trust me I am hesitant sometimes to speak up after the flaming thrashings I have taken more than once...which is only fair because I have certainly been guilty of providing a few tongue lashings myself), we end up with a game that is only fun for a few to play.
MindWandererB 03-09-07, 03:22 PM	I'm pretty sure that if the fight is won, the PCs go on, even if one of them died. Allies are not so lucky. The main reason is that altering the mission EL on the fly is a no-no--especially for guild stuff, where the EL is very important (and lowering it might defeat the entire purpose).
TelinArtho 03-09-07, 03:25 PM	@Rith - that issue may bear more looking into. I would propose adding in loser rewards to the players that still move on, but where one of them died (and died completely - not just dying). At the moment though, (as in - until a rule like that is considered), I would have to defer to MWB's statement above.
Erithmu 03-09-07, 03:35 PM	RE: pitlording rewards beyond credits I think rewards could be interesting but maybe more along the lines of a 'bonus.' I agree w/ Mitza in that adding more stuff does create a separation of power between the regulars and those who are new. I would rather see something like a credit bonus that is a percentage of 'non-late' fights at the milestone. For example 20% with rewards at every 50 fights Late 10/50 = +8 credits Late 25/100 = +15 credits This gives motivation to not be late but does not cripple those of us who have real lives. The other option would be to give rewards when a person reaches a number 'non-late' fights. Life still can come up, but there is always progress towards a reward. The rewards could also be flat rewards rather than variable rewards. I was thinking of something like a free allowance to make a 25 credit character (for free, use on higher level, UA material, NOT items) or 10 credits to the bank. As for a reset on fights I think it could be done, or the benefits could be given out 'retroactively.' I don't think that the CoCo should branch out too much more as that is what makes the CoCo and interesting place, where the optimization has to take place within a very limited set. Asking for more material to work with defeats the purpose of optimization within the limited set. In the end it does come down to ToK's motto: tactics, tactics, tactics. I have seen some of Tok's tactics and they are well designed just as his characters are.
SauroGrenom 03-09-07, 03:59 PM	A long time ago, I suggested the idea that you must pay credits to level your characters above a particular level. That means that you get a free ride to say ECL6, but if you want to see ECL7 or higher, you've got to run a few fights. That makes credits absolutely necessary to run high level characters. Also any newb can log in and create a character and enjoy at lease 12 fights before they have enough xp to join ECL7. So you get plenty of exposure to CoCo and what it's like and all that. After a while the free ride is over, and you have to do something that supports the boards to keep leveling your character.
SauroGrenom 03-09-07, 04:21 PM	As far as Pitlording & credits rewards go-> I would gladly pitlord without a credit cost if it wasn't for the forest map & stupid players with long tactics & tons of arguements about decisions I had to make up on the spot. The credits make up for the human side of it-> though not completely. (stupid end users!)Dito that. And I'd like to add in all those characters who hide. Sneaking and evasive strategies are a total pain in my neck. Every attack involves a listen check (or two), every move involves a hide check. All these checks have opposing checks and modifiers based on distance that I must recalculate every time someone moves. Then some listen checks are enough to hear location but not pinpoint, so I must roll a random perceived pinpoint (because they might get lucky). Ugh. On days like that I just want to quit pitlording.
McJarvis 03-09-07, 04:24 PM	Dito that. And I'd like to add in all those characters who hide. Sneaking and evasive strategies are a total pain in my neck. Every attack involves a listen check (or two), every move involves a hide check. All these checks have opposing checks and modifiers based on distance that I must recalculate every time someone moves. Then some listen checks are enough to hear location but not pinpoint, so I must roll a random perceived pinpoint (because they might get lucky). Ugh. On days like that I just want to quit pitlording. Indeed. People who face my stealth characters should just concede due to my sheer awesomeness out of respect for the pitlord! not that any of them are active anymore anyway...
False_Keraptis 03-09-07, 04:33 PM	Indeed. People who face my stealth characters should just concede due to my sheer awesomeness out of respect for the pitlord! not that any of them are active anymore anyway... Now, now, my Fnorri had little run-in with Mort that ran just like that.
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 05:06 PM	Dito that. And I'd like to add in all those characters who hide. Sneaking and evasive strategies are a total pain in my neck. Every attack involves a listen check (or two), every move involves a hide check. All these checks have opposing checks and modifiers based on distance that I must recalculate every time someone moves. Then some listen checks are enough to hear location but not pinpoint, so I must roll a random perceived pinpoint (because they might get lucky). Ugh. On days like that I just want to quit pitlording. I have no issue if the fights are long because of character abilities and tactics. When the map automatically hits the delay penalty for both characters, the map needs a tweak.
Zevox 03-09-07, 05:11 PM	I have no issue if the fights are long because of character abilities and tactics. When the map automatically hits the delay penalty for both characters, the map needs a tweak. Um, none of the maps can do that. Just the characters if they choose to sit and wait rather than seek each other. If the characters are looking for each other, they don't hit the delay penalty. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 05:27 PM	Um, none of the maps can do that. Just the characters if they choose to sit and wait rather than seek each other. If the characters are looking for each other, they don't hit the delay penalty. Zevox If they have no meaningful interaction some folks rule that they do...the forest map is built in such a way that even two characters actively seeking each other can take well more than 10 rounds ot come anywhere near each other and in fact could conceivably never find each other.
Zevox 03-09-07, 05:32 PM	If they have no meaningful interaction some folks rule that they do...the forest map is built in such a way that even two characters actively seeking each other can take well more than 10 rounds ot come anywhere near each other and in fact could conceivably never find each other. Uh, and why wouldn't seeking for each other count as meaningful interaction? I know in the strictest literal sense it isn't interaction, since they haven't found each other yet, but they are advancing the battle meaningfully (by looking for each other to get it truly going), which is what the delay rule is there to force people to do. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 05:37 PM	Uh, and why wouldn't seeking for each other count as meaningful interaction? I know in the strictest literal sense it isn't interaction, since they haven't found each other yet, but they are advancing the battle meaningfully (by looking for each other to get it truly going), which is what the delay rule is there to force people to do. Zevox Don't ask me. The last delay penalty I assessed on the forest map came in the form of pixies with cold drinks and finger sandwiches fluttering out to point the gladiators, who were heading the wrong way, toward their opponents general quadrant. I know that debates, which I largely ignored, have raged about delay penalties and the forest map and what constitutes delay...actually the delay penalty seems to cause debates every time it is used unless the person hit with it happens to win. I am not a big fan of the delay rule at all, but since we have it, we have to work with it. I can't think of any time that anyone has objected to how I applied or refused to apply it :)
Erithmu 03-10-07, 05:51 PM	Mission question: can a character level up mid mission if they get their 3FC break?
Zevox 03-10-07, 05:55 PM	Mission question: can a character level up mid mission if they get their 3FC break? Two of my characters who have gone on missions have had this happen. Istima Telarc when he first contacted/created the Order of the Open Handed Way, and Featylec Elendi this week while he is contacting them for WAR. Seems like it should be so, since they're awarded their gold for shopping when it happens, and Sauro seems to think it works that way too (since he MLed both those missions). Zevox
Erithmu 03-10-07, 06:05 PM	fair enough
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 06:07 PM	Mission question: can a character level up mid mission if they get their 3FC break? The first time I saw this done was with Pitbull's character Hagrid from CEF questing with Raskos. Stormwind ran that quest, and we had permission from Cat to let Hagrid reset his character in the middle of the quest. He was frozen at the time. I've taken that as permission to cycle the 3FC in the middle of a mission and I've used it a time or two.
Erithmu 03-10-07, 06:08 PM	Heres the fun twist ... Do I reroll the ECL 9 encounter that I had and switch it for an ECL 10 (This is Solan's mission)
MitzaVolchenko 03-10-07, 06:09 PM	Heres the fun twist ... Do I reroll the ECL 9 encounter that I had and switch it for an ECL 10 (This is Solan's mission) Changing EL's mid mission is a no no according to the answer of what to do when one person dies and the other has to continue.
Erithmu 03-10-07, 06:15 PM	Where here is a question: ... What happens if he doesn't finish the mission is he still awarded the XP from the first two fights? I thought a character was allowed to go shopping, but that they couldn't cash in XP or GP. (And knowing the monster that is a decent chance of happening)
TheMagister 03-10-07, 06:16 PM	As the WAR Guildmaster, I'd hate for Featylec to fail in his last week just because Sauro decides to pump the ECL from 9 to 10... TM
Zevox 03-10-07, 06:18 PM	As the WAR Guildmaster, I'd hate for Featylec to fail in his last week just because Sauro decides to pump the ECL from 9 to 10... TM Considering hes now ECL 10 himself, I don't see how it'd be a problem if he did. Its not like hes rolling random monsters or anything (if he were, Featylec would not likely have made it even this far). Zevox
Erithmu 03-10-07, 06:19 PM	Considering hes now ECL 10 himself, I don't see how it'd be a problem if he did. Its not like hes rolling random monsters or anything (if he were, Featylec would not likely have made it even this far). ZevoxIf it is a mission Sauro is required to roll on the monster charts.
Zevox 03-10-07, 06:20 PM	If it is a mission Sauro is required to roll on the monster charts. Incorrect - thats operations. Missions do not require random monsters. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 03-10-07, 06:22 PM	If it is a mission Sauro is required to roll on the monster charts. There are no 1d100 rolls in that mission log. If they don't have to randomly roll them, can I go ahead and let Rauul re-roll that piece of cheese I got stuck with? Edit: That is not the only mission missing its random rolls.
Erithmu 03-10-07, 06:27 PM	Incorrect - thats operations. Missions do not require random monsters. ZevoxSo they aren't ... (Just looked) Personal Note: I think they should as it keeps the mission lord honest, as each mission does have an effect on the guild system, and I would HIGHLY recommend that there be a change made. This is after taking much heat from other individuals. Ok Theoretical situation: I allow Solan to level up giving out XP/GP ... Then he does not succeed in his final encounter. Am I required to take that away? Or am I just missing something here.
TheMagister 03-10-07, 06:29 PM	Ooh...good point 'Rith.
Zevox 03-10-07, 06:32 PM	Personal Note: I think they should as it keeps the mission lord honest, as each mission does have an effect on the guild system, and I would HIGHLY recommend that there be a change made. This is after taking much heat from other individuals. Blech, please no. Personally, I hate that we require them for operations as is. Its way too easy to get an auto-loss with random monsters (*points to Asran's failed mission vs 3 Half-Dragon Giant Snakes and his current one vs 3 Young Red Dragons*), and with missions that'd be 3 chances for that to happen. Very, very bad idea IMO. Ok Theoretical situation: I allow Solan to level up giving out XP/GP ... Then he does not succeed in his final encounter. Am I required to take that away? Or am I just missing something here. Huh - not sure. The mission rules don't seem to say anything about it specifically, so I'd presume standard quest rules apply (no rewards for failed quest), but that would be a bit harsh. Still, since the questlord copied their sheet at the front of the quest, they have a backup even if they don't keep one themselves, so all a player has to do is quote that and remove used items and hes good. So yeah, I'm guessing he loses his rewards if he fails there and regresses to level 9. Zevox
Erithmu 03-10-07, 06:37 PM	Blech, please no. Personally, I hate that we require them for operations as is. Its way too easy to get an auto-loss with random monsters (*points to Asran's failed mission vs 3 Half-Dragon Giant Snakes and his current one vs 3 Young Red Dragons*), and with missions that'd be 3 chances for that to happen. Very, very bad idea IMO. This I think is a better reason to have them as random. Taking the exaggerated example here ... what is to prevent a missionlord from creating an encounter with commoner levels, and it being high enough CR that it actually counts. Granted it would be hailed as cheese and something would be done, but I think that it should be done now before someone does pull out the cheese.
Zevox 03-10-07, 06:42 PM	This I think is a better reason to have them as random. Taking the exaggerated example here ... what is to prevent a missionlord from creating an encounter with commoner levels, and it being high enough CR that it actually counts. Granted it would be hailed as cheese and something would be done, but I think that it should be done now before someone does pull out the cheese. I'll believe someone around here would stoop to that when I see it, thanks. I can't honestly say theres anyone I've seen run a mission around here I'd suspect of being willing to do something like that. Yes, even with the grappling horses and such stuff we've had around here. Of course, if we were to remove the "no auto-wins for the player" clause our monster fights have or add a "no auto-wins for the monster" clause, I'd be less resistant to this (still wouldn't like it), but at this point I've all but lost hope of that happening. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 03-10-07, 06:43 PM	This I think is a better reason to have them as random. Taking the exaggerated example here ... what is to prevent a missionlord from creating an encounter with commoner levels, and it being high enough CR that it actually counts. Granted it would be hailed as cheese and something would be done, but I think that it should be done now before someone does pull out the cheese. This is a tough one...it comes back to the question of trust all potential missionlords to be fair or go random and get more of those lovely autoloss situations. I'll grant that Sybil's current fight is not technically an autoloss...just 8HD/10-magic DR/13SR and overwhelming number of attacks to face. However, Rauul asked me if he could choose to delete the roll and select something that actually made sense. I told him that it was a required random roll. I *thought* that it was.
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 07:07 PM	Incorrect - thats operations. Missions do not require random monsters. Zevox True. And I like it that way. It's so much easier for me to have something that makes sense if I get to choose the encounters. I'm fare. I've never pitted a character up against something they have no chance against. I could put archers against guys with deflect arrows. Or I could put casters against phrenic monsters with SR and lots of HD. But I don't do that because I want to be able to tell at least some semblance of a story. Nor do I get a kick out of seeing characters die against monsters that I've constructed to defeat them.
Rauul 03-10-07, 08:29 PM	So let me get this right... On a Mission.. i can choose to randomly roll or Not.. can acually pick a Theme for the Mission thats acually a 3 week Ordeal... and not roll 3 random rolls and end up with a ranger drow fighter fighting a nymph and a Bard fighting Gnolls, Giant ants and a Fiendish temporal Flitcher... I mean i read the rules i saw nothing and no one could point me to a page.. We definately need an Organized rules page for Missions, Quests, Miniquests, ect.. But thank you all for defining this for me..
Zevox 03-10-07, 08:38 PM	We definately need an Organized rules page for Missions, Quests, Miniquests, ect.. We do. Quests/Miniquests can be found in the rules thread, Missions can be found in the Guildhall thread (as they're Guild-only events). Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 03-10-07, 10:24 PM	We do. Quests/Miniquests can be found in the rules thread, Missions can be found in the Guildhall thread (as they're Guild-only events). Zevox I would point out that we have one pitlord (Macbrea) who refuses to do guild fights/missions/operations. I personally just run them and then wait for someone to scream at me to fix them. Why? because finding anything in the guildhall thread is a fate worse than playing a psionic character for me :)
Macbrea 03-12-07, 10:07 PM	Oh, I am willing to run them at this point. I just wouldn't want to actually have me as mission or quest lord. I don't pull punches on monsters.
Abyssal Stalker 03-13-07, 08:43 AM	I have some questions that need to be answered, conserning the rules to create NPCs and monsters. Rules of Gladius aren't clear about these, AFAIK. (There are some things that are answered, but I am listing those to get the big picture) Monster fights, Quests, Miniquests, Operations, Missions: -How much wealth monsters have to start with? -How much wealth creatures with PC classes start with? -What abilities should I use to create said monsters or monsters with PC classes? -Do different forms of battles use the same formulae? Is this balanced? We might have a NPC dwarf fighter 7 with 25pt buy abilities and 7k equipment against a PC dwarf fighter 7 with 36pt buy and 21k equipment. On the other hand, we don't want quests where a PC character needs to face 3 encounters in a row without refreshing resources, where the opponents are created using the same abilities and equipment as the PC. That's like 3 against 1, because NPCs can use all their resources in a single fight.
Caterane 03-13-07, 01:56 PM	To make the forest map IMT viable, the following changes have been made (changes in red) The Forest Map http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Karten/Map-Forest.jpg Starting Boxes: Characters start randomly in one of the four starting boxes. The hedges surrounding the boxes provide cover. Forest Noise: The background noise of the forest makes listen checks more difficult. The distance penalty is 2 per 10 feet, not 1. Impeeded Flight: Since the forest is so dense, all flight on this map is impeeded, which is to say, any square of movement counts as two squares of movement while flying. This does not hinder other forms of movement, except where noted. The Pathway: The brown path is composed of dirt and natural soil with neither concealment nor hampered movement. Green Grass: The green squares around the trees are natural grass and they make out the main part of the forest. They do not hinder movement in any way. Light Undergrowth: The dark green squares around the trees are Light Undergrowth. It costs 2 squares of movement per square to move into such ground, and it provides concealment with a 30% miss chance. Tumble and Move Silently DCs are increased by 2. The Trees: There are two types of trees: Massive and Giant (occupying 5x5ft and 15x15ft respectively). Both types are 30ft high and are connected by a thick canopy (see below). Characters can climb any tree with a Dc15 climb check. Failure means that you make no progress while failure by 5 or more means that you drop to the ground from the height achieved. The Canopy: The canopy is horizontaly impenetrable and at 30ft height. Medium and smaller creatures can walk through the thick canopy just like other creatures walk on the ground (Large creatures are too massive to make use of the branches) and they can even stand or sit so that they have their hands free. The canopy basically covers any square that is not swamp on the ground. You have to pass a balance check Dc15 in order to walk the canopy that way at half movement (Dc25 for full movement). Failure means that you make no progress while failure by 5 or more means that you drop 30ft to the ground. Only one check is necessary per round of movement. Anyone within the canopy gains cover and concealment against those outside the canopy. The Stream: The water stream is 5ft deep. There are several ways to cross it. You can jump or fly over it, you can use the slippery stones with a Dc15 Balance check, or the fallen log with a Dc10 Balance check. Anyone failing by 5 or more falls into the water and ends up prone. The Swamp: The swamp (light green squares in the center) is 5ft deep and counts as Deep Bog (medium and larger PCs need 4 squares of movement per square; small PCs must swim; Move silently Dc+2; provides cover; see DMG p88; huge and larger creatures treat it as difficult terrain only). The Chasm: The chasms are 15x5 ft and 10ft deep. Climbing out of the chasm requires a Dc15 Climb check. Terrain Type: The Forest Map counts as Outdoor, Forest and Swamp. The ground is natural soil. Still, I'd like to see a difference between the pathway and the green grass. Any ideas?
SauroGrenom 03-13-07, 03:20 PM	I suggest that you cannot be "entangled" with the spell entanglement while on the path. The green grass is fair game though.
McJarvis 03-13-07, 03:22 PM	I suggest that you cannot be "entangled" with the spell entanglement while on the path. The green grass is fair game though. I would advise against specifying special rules for specific spells on a map of this complexity.
MitzaVolchenko 03-13-07, 03:25 PM	I suggest that you cannot be "entangled" with the spell entanglement while on the path. The green grass is fair game though. That seems odd, since you can be entangled on the bare surface of every other arena. Make the grass slippery. No impeded movement, but does not allow charging.
SauroGrenom 03-13-07, 03:28 PM	That seems odd, since you can be entangled on the bare surface of every other arena.This much isn't true. The standard arena is OK for entangle, but the cave and temple and sewer and most of the city is not OK for entangle.
TheMagister 03-13-07, 03:30 PM	You'd think that with a "horizontally impenetrable" canopy that there would be shadowy light everywhere. Makes (all kinds of pitlord-frustrating) sense. I'm also curious about something that was never defined: How high up are you if you're walking in the canopy? You can't be 30' up because that's the "impenetrable" boundary of the canopy. So are you 20'? 25'? What?
MitzaVolchenko 03-13-07, 03:37 PM	This much isn't true. The standard arena is OK for entangle, but the cave and temple and sewer and most of the city is not OK for entangle. Good point. Now that you mention it, I don't recall ever seeing it clarified. The spell itself is rather vague saying merely that nearby plant life works for you. The city map has plenty of vegetation, and I would say the sewer and possibly cavern would have enough mossy type growths and possibly tree roots that have penetrated the ceiling, though it really depends on how often they get cleaned up by the arena staff. I can't argue on the Temple, though I feel like I have seen entangle used in there, too. That may have been ages and ages ago, though.
MindWandererB 03-13-07, 05:20 PM	Good point. Now that you mention it, I don't recall ever seeing it clarified. The spell itself is rather vague saying merely that nearby plant life works for you. The city map has plenty of vegetation, and I would say the sewer and possibly cavern would have enough mossy type growths and possibly tree roots that have penetrated the ceiling, though it really depends on how often they get cleaned up by the arena staff. I can't argue on the Temple, though I feel like I have seen entangle used in there, too. That may have been ages and ages ago, though. The "old" temple and cavern had the divinely morphic properties of the arena (terrain was "most beneficial"), but that changed with the new maps. As far as I can tell, folks have been consistent with the city map (entangle works on the grass), so I foresee no problem with the forest working the same way. And I don't agree that the brown and green tiles have to be functionally different other than that. I still hate the giant trees, but whatever. I think a character in the canopy is at an elevation of 30 feet. You can't get any higher than (30 - height) without going into the canopy.
SauroGrenom 03-13-07, 05:37 PM	I think a character in the canopy is at an elevation of 30 feet. You can't get any higher than (30 - height) without going into the canopy.Note that we measure altitude by the hight of a person's feet. So is the creature's top limited to 30' altitude or is the creature's bottom limited to 30' altitude. It could be important for large or huge fliers.
MindWandererB 03-13-07, 05:39 PM	Note that we measure altitude by the hight of a person's feet. So is the creature's top limited to 30' altitude or is the creature's bottom limited to 30' altitude. It could be important for large or huge fliers. That's what I meant. A character not in the canopy cannot have their top pass 30' (so, max altitude is 30-height, or 25' for a medium creature). A character in the canopy is at an altitude of 30' (head at 35').
SauroGrenom 03-13-07, 06:23 PM	Whatever happened to our 5th elder? I haven't seen Pittbull in ages. Shouldn't we be replacing him with someone who's active and can participate in our discussions?
Zevox 03-13-07, 06:25 PM	Given hes been so out-of-contact Cat couldn't even get ahold of him to find out if he'd return to participate in the Campaign, I've been wondering that too. Having an even number of Elders active presents a few problems when the opinion is divided, after all. Maybe Cat's still holding out for his return or something. Zevox
MindWandererB 03-15-07, 06:23 PM	I just happened to look over the EL 3 and 4 monster lists, and they are uttery screwed up. Half the EL 4 list is actually EL 5 (3 CR 2 monsters). This needs to be fixed ASAP, or else monster fights at those levels need to be suspended until they can be fixed.
McJarvis 03-15-07, 06:27 PM	Problem with guild-missions. This was brought to my attention through doing the numbers on TIM, so I'll use him as an example. This story starts at the end of his 4th level. I was an innocent lad, just wanting to fight with my character & get some RP action in. So I set him to ready & told my guildmaster that I was ready to do a mission. I was told in return that it would be a few weeks, so I went ahead and fought in the arena. I won, I leveled. ECL 5. But now I was one fight into my 3FC. The mission time had begun! So I started it, thinking "well, if the mission goes over my 3FC I'm safe, because I can buy stuff mid-mission!" Here's the problem. TIM had enough gp to be within ECL 4 gp-wise. When he finishes this mission, he will level to ECL 6...but because of how missions work with the 3FC, he'll be in the middle of his 3FC. This leaves him at a huge disadvantage(in my eyes) since he went an entire level without being able to buy equipment. True, he could buy stuff mid-mission, but since he doesn't get rewards from the said-mission until the end of it, he doesn't have money to spend mid-mission. Life sucks, you know? Here's what I want to happen: The end of a successful mission is always the end of the gladiators 3FC. Rewards are then applied 1 fight at a time, always using the xp:gp ratio appropriate for the level the gladiator is at. Otherwise, the "no rewards for losing" thing can stay the same. Thoughts?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-15-07, 07:44 PM	Whatever happened to our 5th elder? I haven't seen Pittbull in ages. Shouldn't we be replacing him with someone who's active and can participate in our discussions? I'm your new 5th Elder. :D ToK
Rauul 03-15-07, 07:54 PM	I'm your new 5th Elder. :D ToK umm they said active.. not recently revived from the boneyard
MitzaVolchenko 03-15-07, 08:05 PM	Is "Oldtimer" really the same thing as "Elder"? Also, while reinstating ToK for his duration is fine, he's out of contact again in a few months. That still leaves us needing another elder, soon if not now.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-15-07, 10:11 PM	umm they said active.. not recently revived from the boneyard Hey, i resemble that remark.....sonny! ToK
Rauul 03-15-07, 10:39 PM	Hey, i resemble that remark.....sonny! ToK yes yes you Do... from one old war horse to another... you sure do.. now get back in those there fox holes and stir that latrine pot with diesel fuel...
Zevox 03-15-07, 11:20 PM	Is "Oldtimer" really the same thing as "Elder"? No, "Oldtimer" is a title given to ex-Elders. If you look up the profiles on King Uther, Huan, LLMC, and other ex-Elders, you'll note they have the same. @ Tellish - As such, I do have to ask - were you serious there? Are you being reinstated as an Elder for the time being, or did you just mistake the Oldtimer tag for meaning that? Zevox
Tellish_of_Ket 03-16-07, 12:21 AM	No, "Oldtimer" is a title given to ex-Elders. If you look up the profiles on King Uther, Huan, LLMC, and other ex-Elders, you'll note they have the same. @ Tellish - As such, I do have to ask - were you serious there? Are you being reinstated as an Elder for the time being, or did you just mistake the Oldtimer tag for meaning that? Zevox I am serious. I talked with Cat this morning and he asked me if i wanted to be an elder while i'm here or until Pittbull returns. My official title is "oldtimer", but i have the voice and such as an elder. In case Pitbull comes back, it saves changing titles again. ToK
hogarth 03-16-07, 09:00 AM	Here's what I want to happen: The end of a successful mission is always the end of the gladiators 3FC. Rewards are then applied 1 fight at a time, always using the xp:gp ratio appropriate for the level the gladiator is at. Otherwise, the "no rewards for losing" thing can stay the same. Thoughts? The simplest solution (of course) would be to require guild missions to be done out-of-cycle like every other 3 week quest. But that would basically mean that you couldn't fight in the arena if you wanted to be useful to your guild. How about giving provisional rewards at the end of the 3 week cycle if it falls in the middle of the mission; then if the mission ultimately fails, the purchased items can be clawed back. That would be the closest to what you might see in the arena.
McJarvis 03-16-07, 09:16 AM	The simplest solution (of course) would be to require guild missions to be done out-of-cycle like every other 3 week quest. But that would basically mean that you couldn't fight in the arena if you wanted to be useful to your guild. How about giving provisional rewards at the end of the 3 week cycle if it falls in the middle of the mission; then if the mission ultimately fails, the purchased items can be clawed back. That would be the closest to what you might see in the arena. This would be acceptable to me as well. The gladiators should be required to tag the temporary items. And I'd like this to be implimented right away, so TIM doesn't get hosed(he's still going up against his second encounter-> so he could benefit!(ie-> not be hosed) )
MitzaVolchenko 03-16-07, 01:57 PM	This would be acceptable to me as well. The gladiators should be required to tag the temporary items. And I'd like this to be implimented right away, so TIM doesn't get hosed(he's still going up against his second encounter-> so he could benefit!(ie-> not be hosed) ) In the case of campaigns you only get to shop when the CL allows it. This is similar, and incidentally, one of my objections to the allowing of 'double booking' and Missions not starting on 3FC. In this case, TIM will be allowed to shop, but not use until Mission is complete. His mission will win or fail based on whathe took into it with him, and he will get his shopping as if it were done mid mission. His mission rewards will not be available for use in this shopping. For RP purposes, he cannot just stop saving Kelartus and go shopping (well actually judging by his personality,he could...he made a girl cry!!!), but he should be allowed to shop before getting back to the arena lest he be hosed for not replacing his normal equipment.
McJarvis 03-16-07, 02:41 PM	His mission rewards will not be available for use in this shopping. This is the biggest part of my objections, though. Currently TIM only has resources per an ECL 4 character. At the end of the mission he'll be mid-cycle & ECL 6. This is clearly not right-> I will just throw the mission before I allow this to happen to him. For RP purposes, he cannot just stop saving Kelartus and go shopping (well actually judging by his personality,he could...he made a girl cry!!!), Unfortunately, since missions are integrated into the 3FC, RP can not be the #1 goal of them. but he should be allowed to shop before getting back to the arena lest he be hosed for not replacing his normal equipment. As mentioned before, he will be hosed unless he has access to his mission rewards when he restocks. It's not just expendables I'm worried about-> since he doesn't have craft feats(and thus his magical equipment is waning in general....), I worry greatly about his access to better magic items/wands/etc.
MitzaVolchenko 03-16-07, 03:08 PM	Sorry hon, but since he will be mid-cycle, and if he fails he gets no rewards, I can't give him access to something he doesn't have yet. Now, if someone with authority wants to rule that I can allow him to shop at Mission completion using two thirds of the mission rewards as if he ahd shopped mid-mission, that is fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. He can shop mid-mission with whatever cash he has on hand now, but the mission rewards don't existuntilmission completes. Actually since I have to heal himup here in a minute, he will ahve a perfect opportunity to do so.
SauroGrenom 03-16-07, 03:21 PM	In the recent mission with Featylec, I allowed him to level and shop mid mission. He even used gold from the 1st two encounters of the mission to pay for his new stuff. His next encounter was at the higher CR although the mission EL was the same. We've done similar things with mid cycle missions for frozen guild characters in the past. For unfrozen guild people, I only know of the one I ran with Featylec. There may be others, I don't know.
MitzaVolchenko 03-16-07, 03:22 PM	In the recent mission with Featylec, I allowed him to level and shop mid mission. He even used gold from the 1st two encounters of the mission to pay for his new stuff. His next encounter was at the higher CR although the mission EL was the same. We've done similar things with mid cycle missions for frozen guild characters in the past. For unfrozen guild people, I only know of the one I ran with Featylec. There may be others, I don't know. Shop with cash on hand or as if the mission were a success?
Zevox 03-16-07, 03:25 PM	In the recent mission with Featylec, I allowed him to level and shop mid mission. He even used gold from the 1st two encounters of the mission to pay for his new stuff. His next encounter was at the higher CR although the mission EL was the same. We've done similar things with mid cycle missions for frozen guild characters in the past. For unfrozen guild people, I only know of the one I ran with Featylec. There may be others, I don't know. Actually, there was also the one you ran for Istima. Of course, his purchase at the time was a Pegasus he wasn't high enough level to bring yet, but it still happened. Shop with cash on hand or as if the mission were a success? With the money from the completed mission fights so far, as if it were a success. Basic idea being much what McJarvis has said before - if the missions succeeds, its not a problem; if not, he would lose the items purchased and any extra money not used (the backup sheet from the first post of the mission works nicely for just reseting the character there). Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 03-16-07, 03:29 PM	So pretty much what I offered only done mid-mission post. I see no reason to have it done any time prior to the completion of the mission. Why do extra paperwork? He can, however, shop with cash on hand only during the mission and use any item bought at that point for his 3rd fight of the mission.
McJarvis 03-16-07, 03:33 PM	So pretty much what I offered only done mid-mission post. I see no reason to have it done any time prior to the completion of the mission. Why do extra paperwork? He can, however, shop with cash on hand only during the mission and use any item bought at that point for his 3rd fight of the mission. The only addition being that I can spend the gp earned from the first two fights in my mission. [[which you previously said I wouldn't have access to] I'm not worried about restocking for the rest of the mission-> I'm worried about spending gp before I go into my next 3FC.
Sindorin 03-19-07, 01:51 AM	No, "Oldtimer" is a title given to ex-Elders. If you look up the profiles on King Uther, Huan, LLMC, and other ex-Elders, you'll note they have the same. @ Tellish - As such, I do have to ask - were you serious there? Are you being reinstated as an Elder for the time being, or did you just mistake the Oldtimer tag for meaning that? Zevox Then how come I am not an Oldtimer? I was once an Elder too...
MindWandererB 03-19-07, 01:55 AM	Then how come I am not an Oldtimer? I was once an Elder too... If "Elder" was never your official boards title (like it is for the current elders), then you'd have to ask Cat to have that put through. I'm sure he would, though.
Sindorin 03-19-07, 01:58 AM	It was never my profile title because I was an Elder before we bothered trying to get that stuff changed... i never actually cared or thought about it until i just looked at this thread and saw it being discussed. Wow... Has it really been three years since I started playing here?! Sorry, got lost in memories for a second there...
Caterane 03-19-07, 07:38 AM	Core Coliseum Oldtimer is not just a flavor title for ex-elders but has some powers associated with it. Oldtimers can answer in the Courtroom like Elders can with the same effect, for example. It is reserved for people who were here for a very long time, have held an Elder title for a very long time, or for guys like Tellish who pops up once in a while and explodes from the beginning on in that he is present everywhere. Ray is back for just 2 weeks and is already an important part again. Besides, he was not only Elder but also Game Master in the past which weighed in on my decision to make him an oldtimer. There are only 2 so far, Tellish and LLMadCow, both legends of this board.
NiQil 03-19-07, 07:57 AM	Core Coliseum Oldtimer is not just a flavor title for ex-elders but has some powers associated with it. Oldtimers can answer in the Courtroom like Elders can with the same effect, for example. It is reserved for people who were here for a very long time, have held an Elder title for a very long time, or for guys like Tellish who pops up once in a while and explodes from the beginning on in that he is present everywhere. Ray is back for just 2 weeks and is already an important part again. Besides, he was not only Elder but also Game Master in the past which weighed in on my decision to make him an oldtimer. There are only 2 so far, Tellish and LLMadCow, both legends of this board. Ummm...didn't both KU and Huan gain that title as well? I could have sworn they did... Edit: Yep...when you pull up their characters in the graveyard, both of them also have the title.
Abyssal Stalker 03-20-07, 02:52 AM	I have some questions that need to be answered, conserning the rules to create NPCs and monsters. Rules of Gladius aren't clear about these, AFAIK. (There are some things that are answered, but I am listing those to get the big picture) Monster fights, Quests, Miniquests, Operations, Missions: -How much wealth monsters have to start with? -How much wealth creatures with PC classes start with? -What abilities should I use to create said monsters or monsters with PC classes? -Do different forms of battles use the same formulae? Is this balanced? We might have a NPC dwarf fighter 7 with 25pt buy abilities and 7k equipment against a PC dwarf fighter 7 with 36pt buy and 21k equipment. On the other hand, we don't want quests where a PC character needs to face 3 encounters in a row without refreshing resources, where the opponents are created using the same abilities and equipment as the PC. That's like 3 against 1, because NPCs can use all their resources in a single fight. :bump: Anyone care to deal with this little issue here? (And don't say there isn't one, because there clearly is!)
MindWandererB 03-20-07, 03:03 AM	I have some questions that need to be answered, conserning the rules to create NPCs and monsters. Rules of Gladius aren't clear about these, AFAIK. (There are some things that are answered, but I am listing those to get the big picture) Monster fights, Quests, Miniquests, Operations, Missions: -How much wealth monsters have to start with? -How much wealth creatures with PC classes start with? -What abilities should I use to create said monsters or monsters with PC classes? -Do different forms of battles use the same formulae? Is this balanced? We might have a NPC dwarf fighter 7 with 25pt buy abilities and 7k equipment against a PC dwarf fighter 7 with 36pt buy and 21k equipment. On the other hand, we don't want quests where a PC character needs to face 3 encounters in a row without refreshing resources, where the opponents are created using the same abilities and equipment as the PC. That's like 3 against 1, because NPCs can use all their resources in a single fight.Monsters have wealth equal to an NPC of an ECL equal to their CR, regardless of whether they have class levels, as long as their Treasure line says "standard." If it says anything else, you modify appropriately (e.g. "triple standard" = triple the wealth). All forms of battle are treated the same. The rules seem pretty clear about this. As for what abilities to customize with... it's up in the air. As it is, you have free reign as pitlord/questlord to choose anything legal. I'm not sure how badly we need further guidelines. NPCs with class levels can be among the easier "monster" opponents, although spellcasters aren't restricted to the 1/3 rule, so they can be pretty nasty. But for every level 1 derro sorcerer, there's a phrenic shadow, so it averages out.
Abyssal Stalker 03-20-07, 03:31 AM	I can live with that. Still, we need clear guidelines for NPCs. Not long ago there was confusion on how much equipment a monster PC should have. The Rules -thread seems to give two options; the same as a PC of equal level or the same as a monster with the same CR. This should be clearly written somewhere, because now it isn't. As well as what abilites should be used. BTW, this makes the PMG attacks a joke. They are single-class creatures with none or only little LA with 1/3 equipment than the PC sent against them. Not all of them are casters.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-20-07, 04:09 AM	I can live with that. Still, we need clear guidelines for NPCs. Not long ago there was confusion on how much equipment a monster PC should have. The Rules -thread seems to give two options; the same as a PC of equal level or the same as a monster with the same CR. This should be clearly written somewhere, because now it isn't. As well as what abilites should be used. BTW, this makes the PMG attacks a joke. They are single-class creatures with none or only little LA with 1/3 equipment than the PC sent against them. Not all of them are casters. This is not entirely true. Ix and Lief fought a Rakshasa wilder 2 as a PMG. If it weren't for the fact that it took place in the sewers and they were eventually able to grapple it and pin it in the acid...they would have lost. ALSO, if it weren't done at a frozen level, even the victory would have been fairly hollow at all the resources they used....A TON! U just gotta be creative when making the "single classed" opponent. ToK
Abyssal Stalker 03-20-07, 04:54 AM	This is not entirely true. Ix and Lief fought a Rakshasa wilder 2 as a PMG. If it weren't for the fact that it took place in the sewers and they were eventually able to grapple it and pin it in the acid...they would have lost. ALSO, if it weren't done at a frozen level, even the victory would have been fairly hollow at all the resources they used....A TON! U just gotta be creative when making the "single classed" opponent. ToK Ah, sorry. I didn't mean operations against PMGs (which are rolled from the monster tables), but the random attacks that PMGs make against guilds. You can find what the opponents are from here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7221227&postcount=3) They are listed under the PMG in question. There are attackers like half-giant monks, tiefling rogues and elf druids. They are created with 25pt buy or using the abilities 15,14,13,12,10,8 (don't know which) and they get their wealth based on their CR. I would say that PCs with 36pt buy and triple wealth have a significant advantage against them.
hogarth 03-20-07, 10:23 AM	Can Leadership followers (or Thrallherd believers) be brought into the arena? If so, what point buy do they use? I know this has been discussed before, but I can't find any rules for them.
Zevox 03-20-07, 10:39 AM	Can Leadership followers (or Thrallherd believers) be brought into the arena? If so, what point buy do they use? I know this has been discussed before, but I can't find any rules for them. Yes, and 25. Zevox
waywreth 03-20-07, 01:03 PM	Can Leadership followers (or Thrallherd believers) be brought into the arena? If so, what point buy do they use? I know this has been discussed before, but I can't find any rules for them. I had a fairly unsuccessful Thrallherd who used the old forgery rules to bring in quite a few followers and believers. It can be a decent strategy if you don't lose them all to AoE on the first round.
hogarth 03-20-07, 01:14 PM	I had a fairly unsuccessful Thrallherd who used the old forgery rules to bring in quite a few followers and believers. It can be a decent strategy if you don't lose them all to AoE on the first round. Actually, I was thinking about having a shadow as a Diplomacy ally. CR 3 Shadow + 2 ECL 1 followers = 3 CR 3 shadows + some minor buffs You're right about the AoE attack, though.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-21-07, 02:08 PM	DEBATE Something has been bugging me lately about the way Symbol of Sleep was used in the Uhme fight. I really don't want to stir up even more problems for Cat, but I do like seeing the rules applied properly. Symbol of Sleep is based off of Symbol of Death. In Symbol of Death's description there is this line (about half way in the description): You can’t use a symbol of death offensively; for instance, a touch-triggered symbol of death remains untriggered if an item bearing the symbol of death is used to touch a creature. Likewise, a symbol of death cannot be placed on a weapon and set to activate when the weapon strikes a foe. When I start going through the different trigger methods (since that touch list is obviously not meant to be exhaustive) I come up with the following: A pass over symbol of death remains untriggered if the surface bearing the symbol of death is moved under a creature. A look at symbol of death remains untriggered if the symbol is moved into the line of sight (and 60') of a creature. A pass through portal symbol of death remains untriggered if the portal bearing the symbol is moved around a creature. The difference being the symbol is being actively moved to cause the trigger condition to come to be versus the affected character taking an action which triggers it. As it has been ruled, it apparently can be triggered by people just standing there, not actively doing anything. Which just doesn't feel defensive, it feels offensive to me. I would like this interpretation be debated upon and implemented in the upcoming fights. I know i've used MULTIPLE symbols of raining death upon gladiators in the past myself, and after Uhme's fight and some of the questions that arose, i just wanna be a little more clear. ToK
MindWandererB 03-21-07, 03:36 PM	I knew there was something wrong with that. Yes, that makes perfect sense to me--although I would permit the initial exposure when the character first reveals the symbol. And no, you can't cover and uncover it multiple times in a round to get the same effect.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-21-07, 03:39 PM	Personally, i will still continue to use them when i can gather up some spare change, because i just don't like ppl melee'ing me. So at least that will make ppl think before they rush me. Right MWB!!! lol. ToK
Hirumajoe 03-21-07, 04:55 PM	I knew there was something wrong with that. Yes, that makes perfect sense to me--although I would permit the initial exposure when the character first reveals the symbol. And no, you can't cover and uncover it multiple times in a round to get the same effect. I personally would think it would depend on who's taking the actions to satisfy the trigger condition. And thus I think it would depend on who is the one doing the moving. If the user moved within 60' of the target while its hidden, I don't think it should trigger. If on the other hand, the target moved within 60' of the user while its hidden, I think it should trigger if the user reveals it. Does that make sense? Basically, as long as the target is the one taking the action, it works fine. (Even if they don't realize they're taking the action to satisfy the trigger condition). But as soon as the symbol user is the one is taking the action, it becomes offensive. I mean, imagine somone tied to a chair being interogatted. Would you allow a look triggered Symbol of Persuasion to work when the caster takes it out of a bag and shoves it in his target's face while prying his eyes open? Is that a non-offensive use of the symbol? Is that in the spirit of the spell? I think it should work great as a deterant as ToK suggests. If someone is charging the symbol user, then yes, it definitely should go off. Or if they're moving within 60' while looking at the user. Or heck, even if they strike the user if its touch activated. And if the user moves away and the target again moves within 60', then yes they definitely should be affected again, but if its the other way around (the target moves beyond 60' and the user moves within again) it shouldn't. Anyways, those are my non-elder two cents.
SauroGrenom 03-21-07, 05:05 PM	A look at symbol of death remains untriggered if the symbol is moved into the line of sight (and 60') of a creature. I would buy that. To be specific, I'd say that a symbol of death wouldn't be triggered unless the target was the one who performs the action that satisfies the trigger. So if you have a covered symbol of death on your shield and an opponent moves into melee and you suddenly uncover it, then that doesn't trigger the spell because it wasn't the target's action that triggered the spell. But you could uncover the symbol and back up 5'. If the target takes a step closer on his turn, that triggers the symbol. Does that make sense?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-21-07, 05:28 PM	A look at symbol of death remains untriggered if the symbol is moved into the line of sight (and 60') of a creature. I would buy that. To be specific, I'd say that a symbol of death wouldn't be triggered unless the target was the one who performs the action that satisfies the trigger. So if you have a covered symbol of death on your shield and an opponent moves into melee and you suddenly uncover it, then that doesn't trigger the spell because it wasn't the target's action that triggered the spell. But you could uncover the symbol and back up 5'. If the target takes a step closer on his turn, that triggers the symbol. Does that make sense? Yeah, i'm down with that. ToK
MindWandererB 03-21-07, 05:32 PM	A look at symbol of death remains untriggered if the symbol is moved into the line of sight (and 60') of a creature. I would buy that. To be specific, I'd say that a symbol of death wouldn't be triggered unless the target was the one who performs the action that satisfies the trigger. So if you have a covered symbol of death on your shield and an opponent moves into melee and you suddenly uncover it, then that doesn't trigger the spell because it wasn't the target's action that triggered the spell. But you could uncover the symbol and back up 5'. If the target takes a step closer on his turn, that triggers the symbol. Does that make sense? More strict than I would have gone with, but I can back it as well.
Vathelokai 03-22-07, 01:05 AM	Sorry to interupt: have some questions specificly about a build I'm working on... Skin of Proteus This psychoactive skin continually affects the wearer as the metamorphosis (read: polymorph) power. While in a form other than his natural form, the wearer does not appear to be wearing the skin. The skin of proteus is a general use magic item of continual polymorph. As such, is it restricted by the coco house rule on magic items only allowing 1 form? Scrolls/Stones: Just like resist energy and other spells, expendables with polymorph (including Alter Self, Metamorphosis, Polymorph any Object, Shapechange) must be specified beforehand. Example: Scroll of Alter Self (Troglodyte). This only applies to expendables; not to memorized spells. The house rule as written only mentions expendables. Should we follow the rule as written, or as intended (and if we go 'as intended' then was the intention to limit access or to nerf)? Additonally, what of x/day items of polymorph. For example a ring of alterself 3/day: should it be restricted to one form? Additionally, the spell shapeshift (and the power greater metamorphosis), allow multiple shapeshifts per casting of the spell. If this spell were put into a magic item, would it be covered (and potentially made useless) by the polymorph houserule?
MindWandererB 03-22-07, 01:34 AM	Sorry to interupt: have some questions specificly about a build I'm working on... The skin of proteus is a general use magic item of continual polymorph. As such, is it restricted by the coco house rule on magic items only allowing 1 form? The house rule as written only mentions expendables. Should we follow the rule as written, or as intended (and if we go 'as intended' then was the intention to limit access or to nerf)? Additonally, what of x/day items of polymorph. For example a ring of alterself 3/day: should it be restricted to one form? Additionally, the spell shapeshift (and the power greater metamorphosis), allow multiple shapeshifts per casting of the spell. If this spell were put into a magic item, would it be covered (and potentially made useless) by the polymorph houserule?As written, only expendables are mentioned, so the skin of proteus should be fine (although you may still need the appropriate Knowledge). However, shapechange is on the list of limited spells, so yes, you'd only get one form. It's not totally useless, because shapechange grants fewer limitations and more abilities, but you're right in that it's a big nerf.
Rauul 04-08-07, 08:33 PM	Looks like i need to start a Debate... Since Gladius don't have rules for Improved Familiars not on a chart... My Charater Corrupter has a Earth mephit, (mephit is on the list of Improved Familiars under Ice mephit) I need to know the proper way to go about making his Familiar legal here in Gladius.. I am more than happy to pay 5 credits So my charater don't have to have the Standard Improved familiar of a Quasit or Imp that 90% of evil casters have.. it's fitting for his theme and for the way I play the charater. But here is what i propose Add all the Monster Manual mephits to Improved familiar lists at a cost if 5 credits..
Zevox 04-08-07, 08:49 PM	the Standard Improved familiar of a Quasit or Imp that 90% of evil casters have.. Actually, theres only one character in the arena with one of those at the moment, and shes not even a PC but a cohort - Senorda, the cohort of my Archdevil Asran. But in any event, with the Mephit thing, my vote would be that we allow any Mephit at no credit cost. They're all of about the same strength as the Ice Mephit, so I see no reason why not. Actually, someone was compiling a list of other potential Improved Familiar options we might consider a while back which I'm pretty sure included all Mephit types... wonder if we might get that discussion rolling again. Zevox
TelinArtho 04-08-07, 10:08 PM	Looks like i need to start a Debate... Since Gladius don't have rules for Improved Familiars not on a chart... My Charater Corrupter has a Earth mephit, (mephit is on the list of Improved Familiars under Ice mephit) I need to know the proper way to go about making his Familiar legal here in Gladius.. I am more than happy to pay 5 credits So my charater don't have to have the Standard Improved familiar of a Quasit or Imp that 90% of evil casters have.. it's fitting for his theme and for the way I play the charater. But here is what i propose Add all the Monster Manual mephits to Improved familiar lists at a cost if 5 credits.. As I have said elsewhere - I have no problem expanding the list, but getting a quick aproval does nothing to normalize it. Obviously, mephits are one of those "simple" additions - but what about more "gray area" additions that are on Abyssal's list (wasn't he the one writing up the additions?)? I haven't seen the expanded list. Anyway - I do think that any familiar not on that list specifically should cost a few credits (5 is good), because it is easier to limit them this way and it means that this special priviledge is given some thought. For your character, I would suggest changing the mephit to an ice mephit or anything else on the list for the time being and adjust it once the discussion is completed. Since it is a rules change that would happen - it wouldn't even cost you the 100gp to summon a 2nd familiar.
Abyssal Stalker 04-09-07, 03:02 AM	OK, here's something new for conversation. This has been under work for a long time now, but I finally managed to put something together. The subject is the feat Improved Familiar. The bolded part clearly says that other creatures are also available. I created a list containing the potential creatures. I have used the guidelines of the list in the SRD. The following is a list of all creatures with less than 4HD and a CR below 4. I have limited the size into small, because that's the biggest creature on the original list. Humanoids and monstrous humanoids have been left out. It doesn't make sense to have a goblin familiar. For comparision, I've also listed the creatures mentioned in the SRD. Normal: Bat 1/4HD CR1/10, Blindsense Cat 1/2HD CR1/4 Hawk 1HD CR1/3 Lizard 1/2HD CR1/6 Owl 1HD CR1/4 Rat 1/4HD CR1/8 Raven 1/4HD CR1/6 Snake, tiny viper 1/4HD CR1/3, Poison Toad 1/4HD CR1/10 Weasel 1/2HD CR1/4, Attach Improved Familiar list: Shocker Lizard 2HD CR2, Stunning Shock Stirge 1HD CR1/2, Attach, Blood Drain Formian Worker 1HD CR1/2, Lawful Natural Attack Imp 3HD CR2, Evil and Lawful Natural Attack, Poison, Spell-like Abilities, Alternate Form Pseudodragon 2HD CR1, Poison, Blindsense, Telepathy Quasit 3HD CR2, Chaotic and Evil Natural Attack, Poison, Spell-like Abilities, Alternate Form Fiendish Familiar HD? CR?, Smite Good, Magical Natural Attack Celestial Familiar HD? CR?, Smite Evil, Magical Natural Attack Homunculus 2HD CR1, Poison Mephit, Any 3HD CR3, Breath Weapon, Spell-like Abilities, Summon Mephit, Magical Natural Attack Elemental, Any Small 2HD CR1, Elemental Mastery, Special Attacks Suggestions: Animated Object, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1, Special Attacks Archon, Lantern 1HD CR2, Aura of Menace, Light Ray, Spell-like Abilities Arrowhawk, Juvenile 3HD CR3, Electricity Ray Choker 3HD CR2, Constrict, Improved Grab, Quickness Darkmantle 1HD, CR1, Darkness, Improved Grab, Constrict, Blindsight Dretch 2HD CR2, Chaotic and Evil Natural Attack, Spell-like Abilities, Summon, Telepathy Dire Rat 1HD CR1/3, Disease Magmin 2HD CR3, Combustion, Fiery Aura, Melt Weapons, Magical Natural Attack Sprite, Grig 1/2HD CR1, Spell-like Abilities, Fiddle Sprite, Nixie 1HD CR1, Charm Person Tojanida, Juvenile 3HD CR3, Improved Grab, Ink Cloud Vargouille 1HD CR2, Shriek, Kiss, Poison Xorn, Minor 3HD CR3 Badger 1HD CR1/2, Rage Dog 1HD CR1/3 Eagle 1HD CR1/2 Monkey 1HD CR1/6 Octopus 2HD CR1, Improved Grab, Ink Cloud Snake, Small Viper 1HD CR1/2, Poison Giant Fire Beetle 1HD CR1/3 Monstrous Centipede, Tiny/Small 1/2HD CR1/4, Poison Monstrous Scorpion, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1/2, Constrict, Improved Grab, Poison Monstorus Spider, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1/2, Poison, Web Astral Constuct, Small 1HDCR1/2, Special Attack Brain Mole 1HD CR1/2, Cascade Flu, Psi-like Abilities Puppeteer 1/4HD CR1, Blindsight, Telepathy, Enthrall, Psi-like Abilities Puppeteer, Flesh Harrower 3HD CR2, Blindsight, Telepathy, Enthrall, Psi-like Abilities OK, this is the easy part. There might be something missing, but this is just a draft. The hard thing is to decide the CL needed for the familiar. A guideline seems to be CL3 for 1HD creatures, CL5 for 2HD creatures and CL7 for 3HD creatures. Allthough this isn't waterproof, because the Homunculus has a CL requirement of 7 and only 2HD - but on the other hand it's summoning requires special procedures. So, any ideas? :bump: Here's the original post, where I suggested expanding the list. It got quickly buried by "more important things". The list of course needs some fixing, but it's a start. Edit: You can find most of the short discussion on the first page of this thread.
TelinArtho 04-09-07, 01:54 PM	Hmm - looking over that list there's a fair number of them that I would want to not include. Perhaps - just to get the ball rolling - we can officially approve the addition of the other mephits than just the ice mephit. This way the Corruptor is satisfied, and it should open up the dice for pretty much more elemental/environmental type casters. For the most part - I would remove most potentials from that list who are at average (10) or higher INT. I also wouldn't bother with the animated objects - as they are either vastly inferior to the homunculus (let's see a paper animated object...), or vastly superior (hmmm... adamantine something-or-other...). I'm not too keen on psionic familiars for arcane spellcasters either... Anyway - let's get the discussion going on this so the issue can be put down.
hogarth 04-09-07, 02:06 PM	For the most part - I would remove most potentials from that list who are at average (10) or higher INT. Don't improved familiars use the familiar table for Int, making this a non-issue? In the feat description, it says "use the rules for regular familiars with two exceptions" (neither of which has to do with an Int score). I'm conservative on the issue of adding new familiars. I'd prefer not to see familiars with unlimited use ranged attacks like the Lantern Archon or the Arrowhawk, or ones with save-or-"die" abilities like the Vargouille or the Grig.
SauroGrenom 04-09-07, 02:25 PM	Don't improved familiars use the familiar table for Int, making this a non-issue? In the feat description, it says "use the rules for regular familiars with two exceptions" (neither of which has to do with an Int score).I was under the impression that if a familiar has a higher natural stat then the ones provided by being a familiar, then they get to keep those abilities. Generally the mephits are clearly better than the others on the list. They are humanoid in shape, can talk and use equipment and activate magic items, they are small size(thus larger than the rest and have reach5'), they have fast healing and a breath weapon, and they can summon another mephit to the fight. Mephits are the only CR3 choices. Allowing all the mephits is not much of a stretch, but some of the other CR3 creatures are a bit extreme. Also any creature that is a playable race (pixies and dretch) shouldn't be allowed as a familiar either (pseudodragon being the notable exception we cannot change). Nor should creatures with no intelligence at all (animated object) or creatures who exist with very limited duration (astral construct). That's the way I'd adjudicate it as a DM.
TelinArtho 04-09-07, 02:30 PM	Note that Mephits are playable races as well Sauro...
hogarth 04-09-07, 02:31 PM	I was under the impression that if a familiar has a higher natural stat then the ones provided by being a familiar, then they get to keep those abilities. That's what my first impression would be, but it doesn't say that anywhere (as far as I can tell).
SauroGrenom 04-09-07, 02:32 PM	Note that Mephits are playable races as well Sauro... Only as a cohort. They have a LA for cohorts, not a normal LA. So it would have to be a special circumstance were we to allow a player to play one.
MindWandererB 04-09-07, 02:45 PM	One thing we might consider is devling into other, non-core books for core creatures that they permit. For instance, BoED allows lantern archons (albeit via the Celestial Familiar feat rather than Improved Familiar), and Complete Warrior adds krenshar, worg, blink dog, hell hound, hippogriff (!), howler, and winter wolf (all with a minimum master BAB). The CW list is clearly pushing the limits of acceptibility, though. Things I'd like to avoid: Animated objects (for Telin's reason) Additional animals (the intent of Improved Familiar doesn't seem to support this) Psionic creatures (flavor) Grigs with fiddles (fiddle-less ones are at least possible) Things I'm on the fence about: Lantern archons, and by extension, arrowhawks (for hogarth's reason) Vargouille (also for hogarth's reason, but the fact that the master isn't immune helps) "PC-like" creatures (I'm on the fence because we already have mephits, which are pretty darn PC-like already).
McJarvis 04-09-07, 02:58 PM	If you allow the Complete Warrior options it is imperitive that you keep those BAB & caster level prereqs on them. They're there to keep those choices cumbersome to any character but a Hexblade, I believe...
Zevox 04-09-07, 03:36 PM	For the most part - I would remove most potentials from that list who are at average (10) or higher INT. Imps and Quasits, two of the basic Improved Familiar options, already have all of their mental ability scores at least at 10 (both have 10 int and 12 wis, Imps have 14 cha while Quasits have 10 cha). Personally, my take would be mostly along the lines of what MWB said. Taking Abyssal's list, heres my thoughts: Allow Lantern Archon (Celestial counterpart to Imp/Quasit, level 7 minimum.) Choker (Seems about an appropriate power and thematic for the job, level 7 minimum due to CR 2 [equates to Imp/Quasit in that].) Darkmante (As Choker, level 5 minimum due to CR 1 [equates to elementals in that].) Dretch (Comparable to Imp/Quasit in power, though summoning should be removed. Level 7 minimum.) Dire Rat (Level 3 minimum - these are very weak.) Grig (Allow without the fiddle [unlimited uses Irresistible Dance = too much], level 5 minimum due to SLAs.) Nixie (Pretty weak, level 3 minimum.) Don't Allow Animated Object (Mindless object, thematically inappropriate.) Lantern Archon (See below.) Juvenile Arrowhawk (2d6 electricity rays are too much power for a familiar - even Mephits, Imps, and Quasits don't come close to that.) Magmin (Similarly, its combustion and firey aura are more power than other familiar options command.) Juvenile Tojanida (Though I can't see anyone taking it anyway, 2d6 bites is again too much power for a familiar.) Vargouille (Unlimited use paralysis effect? No.) Minor Xorn (2d8 with a single attack, again too much physical power for a familiar.) Astral Constuct (Only exist via the psionic power that creates them temporarily anyway.) Brain Mole (Psionic creature, as MWB said, flavor doesn't mesh.) Puppeteer (Psionic creature, as MWB said, flavor doesn't mesh.) Puppeteer (Psionic creature, as MWB said, flavor doesn't mesh.) Not Sure (All of these are animals or vermin, which seems to be against the theme of Improved Familiar, and a little weak for the feat anyway.) Badger Dog Eagle Monkey Octopus Snake, Small Viper Giant Fire Beetle Monstrous Centipede, Tiny/Small Monstrous Scorpion, Tiny/Small Monstorus Spider, Tiny/Small Zevox
McJarvis 04-09-07, 03:40 PM	The Choker seems to be a bit much to me. Specifically: my current plans with the Artificer would fit nicely into that. After taking levels of Loremaster(and thus getting ranks in UMD), take improved familiar & use a choker. Then craft wands for it to use(2 standard actions!)
hogarth 04-09-07, 03:40 PM	Zevox -- I find it interesting that you said: Juvenile Arrowhawk (2d6 electricity rays are too much power for a familiar - even Mephits, Imps, and Quasits don't come close to that.) even though you seemed to think a Lantern Archon (which can fire 2 1d6 typeless damage rays, has Aid at will, Greater Teleport at will [!], a permanent Magic Circle against Evil, and powerful damage reduction) is O.K. (Personally, I'm against both of them.)
Zevox 04-09-07, 03:48 PM	Zevox -- I find it interesting that you said: even though you seemed to think a Lantern Archon (which can fire 2 1d6 typeless damage rays, has Aid at will, Greater Teleport at will [!], a permanent Magic Circle against Evil, and powerful damage reduction) is O.K. (Personally, I'm against both of them.) Missed the magic circle against evil and greater teleport (holy cow thats a potent ability on a CR 2 creature!). Those're very good reasons to not include it. Also didn't notice the DR was higher than the Imp/Quasits'. I guess I'll change that one then. The rays I didn't mind for two reasons - 30 ft range (very short, easily avoided), and they can only get get off two if their foe is within that range when the round starts. The aid at will seems about comparable to the SLAs of the Imp and Quasit (at will invis). Zevox
TheMagister 04-09-07, 03:55 PM	I built a theurge who focused on the rapid summoning + quickened summoning + empowered summoning + maximized summoning of Lantern Archons. It used a lot of the "complete" books. When you're pumping out 7-15 archons a turn, things get both complicated and hella deadly for the opposition, especially with the neat "Mass" spells in the Spell Compendium and elsewhere. Heck, even just Haste is a 150% increase in damage potential across the board. He was neat. Lantern Archons are too powerful, IMO. All the other stuff is true, but a Lantern Archon also has that Aura of Menace. An attack debuff (even a Will DC 11) is too much for a familiar. TM
MindWandererB 04-09-07, 03:57 PM	The aid at will seems about comparable to the SLAs of the Imp and Quasit (at will invis). Aid at will might be a little more potent, especially as a familiar. Imagine an invisible lantern archon using Aid every round....
Vathelokai 04-09-07, 04:07 PM	But I wanted the lantern! :pbbbtt: :D I remember seeing a list of alternate improved familiars at one point. I went looking, but I cannot find it in any of the books I have access to. I remember it because the lantern was on it (at a fairly high level). Anyone seen that around? It would probably be a useful guideline for this kind of list.
SauroGrenom 04-09-07, 04:20 PM	My thoughts on the Improved Familiar feat are as follows. You are paying a feat for access to an improved version of a class feature. This is akin to Greater Turning, Natural Spell or Deadly Precision. As such, it should be good, but not to good. Clearly every Druid who can wild shape will take Natural Spell at some point, but not every rogue will take Deadly Precision. For me the major limitations on the "regular" familiars are that they are animals with tiny size (no reach) and two or three of the following "benefits". They either have a special movement type (climb, fly, swim), or a natural attack, or a "special" ability. The toad is the only exception. I don't know why the toad is so rotten. Generally I'd like to see a feat like Improved Familiar make the familiars better, but not tremendously so. The new familiar options should be far from Cohorts. As I review the list in the SRD, I'm seeing a trend that has a few exceptions but we should probably try to preserve. Mephits are the exception to the guidelines below. Size: All the creatures are tiny if they are bipeds with ability to hold equipment. All small creatures are quadrupeds w/o the ability to wield weapons. CR: All the creatures are CR3 or less. Special Abilities: All the creatures have a few distinctive special abilities that make them more interesting than the normal familiars. The list includes some immunities, poisonous attack, low level SLA, perfect flight, DR or Energy Resistance, fast healing, blindsense, elemental attack and a few other eclectic abilities. Generally there are no ranged attacks, and no serious melee attacks that can cause an average of 8hp damage or more. Here's me list: Archon, Lantern 1HD CR2, Aura of Menace, Light Ray, Spell-like Abilities Choker 3HD CR2, Constrict, Improved Grab, Quickness Darkmantle 1HD, CR1, Darkness, Improved Grab, Constrict, Blindsight Vargouille 1HD CR2, Shriek, Kiss, Poison Dire Rat 1HD CR1/3, Disease Badger 1HD CR1/2, Rage Dog 1HD CR1/3 Eagle 1HD CR1/2 Monkey 1HD CR1/6 Snake, Small Viper 1HD CR1/2, Poison Giant Fire Beetle 1HD CR1/3 Monstrous Centipede, Tiny/Small 1/2HD CR1/4, Poison Monstrous Scorpion, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1/2, Constrict, Improved Grab, Poison Monstrous Spider, Tiny/Small 1HD CR1/2, Poison, Web Brain Mole 1HD CR1/2, Cascade Flu, Psi-like Abilities (I left the psionic creatures in for psionic themed casters like Cerebremancer's or those with significant multiclassing who want a psionic theme familiar and are willing to pay a feat for it. I took out the puppeteers because their dominating flavor doesn't work well in my mind with a familiar roll. Also the animals listed are all clearly superior to the standard familiar animals. But when compared to those others on the list, they are not distinctive in being overpowered. So they should probably be allowed, but not in combination with the fiendish or celestial templates till after CL5 if at all. I took Abyssal's list and cut out playable races, CR3 creatures, aquatic creatures (not appropriate for CoCo), astral constructs, puppeteers and animated objects)
SauroGrenom 04-09-07, 04:22 PM	Deleted... Didn't read your post well enough to figure out the idea in the 1st place.
McJarvis 04-09-07, 04:23 PM	The toad is the only exception. I don't know why the toad is so rotten. Toads used(in 3.0) to give +2 Con, but then got nerfed.
McJarvis 04-09-07, 04:23 PM	-- nevermind
McJarvis 04-09-07, 04:31 PM	I'll reiterate-> I think the Choker is too powerful. Lantern Archon as well. Choker because of quickness(too easy to get the thing UMD ranks & thus let it dual-weild wands), Archon because the Archon's prime downside in the first place is hp.(otherwise it has a good attack, high DR, & really good manuverability with that greater teleport) Being a familiar effectively nullifies that weakness.
hogarth 04-09-07, 04:46 PM	I'll reiterate-> I think the Choker is too powerful [..] because of quickness(too easy to get the thing UMD ranks & thus let it dual-weild wands). I think the UMD thing is a bit of a red herring (with a -2 Cha modifier, it'd take a whole heap of cross-class ranks to be able to activate a wand consistently), but the ability to activate any kind of magic item twice a round (e.g. pipes of pain, necklace of fireballs, or a custom command-word item) is probably too good for a familiar.
SauroGrenom 04-09-07, 04:46 PM	Well, if you take out the Choaker and Lantern Archon, doesn't leave much left does it? All that's left is a few new animals, some vermin, and the Darkmantle and Vargouille. Not much really. If we are going that far, then why are we even considering this at all?
McJarvis 04-09-07, 04:52 PM	I think the UMD thing is a bit of a red herring (with a -2 Cha modifier, it'd take a whole heap of cross-class ranks to be able to activate a wand consistently), but the ability to activate any kind of magic item twice a round (e.g. pipes of pain, necklace of fireballs, or a custom command-word item) is probably too good for a familiar. It's a class skill for loremasters(no casting progression lost). Starting at what, 9th level(for the feat impr familiar)? 9+3=12 ranks, -2 for cha, then you just need a decent (+5 or so?) item & the thing has got those 20's in the bag. But you'll hear no further complaints with me. I'll gladly pay the credits for Artificer to change over to Evil & reap the rewards later on...
McJarvis 04-09-07, 04:53 PM	Well, if you take out the Choaker and Lantern Archon, doesn't leave much left does it? All that's left is a few new animals, some vermin, and the Darkmantle and Vargouille. Not much really. If we are going that far, then why are we even considering this at all? Because somebody complained about not being able to choose an Earth Mephit. Adding in the stuff from Complete Warrior might be worth it for a battle sorc who didn't take the animal-companion way out, though...
MindWandererB 04-09-07, 04:55 PM	Bear in mind that the ability to have a familiar use wands at all is a big boon. It wouldn't take very much for a choker to have a 25% chance of success a a UMD check; hand it two high-CL Magic Missile wands and it'll succeed on at least one half the time. Handy to say the least.
hogarth 04-09-07, 05:11 PM	It's a class skill for loremasters(no casting progression lost). Starting at what, 9th level(for the feat impr familiar)? 9+3=12 ranks, -2 for cha, then you just need a decent (+5 or so?) item & the thing has got those 20's in the bag. I didn't consider a custom skill item. That would make it a bit better.
Vathelokai 04-09-07, 05:40 PM	Just a reminder: Many of these familiars have level requirements before you can summon them. A choker at lv 5 is too good, but at lv 12... against freedom of movement and spell resistance 24, not so much. Since this is houserule, we can always say that they cannot get the familiar until x lv.
Zevox 04-09-07, 05:56 PM	Lantern Archons are too powerful, IMO. All the other stuff is true, but a Lantern Archon also has that Aura of Menace. An attack debuff (even a Will DC 11) is too much for a familiar. TM Aura of Menace is what gets your goat about that? Really? Its no better than a minimum DC Doom spell. Presuming the thing wasn't allowed until at least level 7 (possibly after - level 9 or higher even), I don't think thats a big deal at all. The teleportation and magic circle against evil bother me far more than that. Zevox
SauroGrenom 04-09-07, 05:59 PM	So what is there that could possibly be added to the list, but not have any potential abuse that doesn't already exist with those on the list of core improved familiars? The Vermin and a few extra Animals are rather blah. If I had the choice, I'd take mephits off the list as well. They are clearly better than all the rest by leaps and bounds. Their humanoid shape allows them to use all kinds of equipment, flight, the Summon ability, breath weapons, fast healing, elemental damage on claw attacks, DR, spell like abilities and elemental immunities. Compare that to the Lantern Archon's inability to use equipment, greater teleport, 1d6 ray attack, aura of menace DC12, electricity immunity and DR. Seams rather even to me. I understand your point. We are all powergamers and we can come up with broken combinations to use with many of the suggested creatures. But also we cannot forget that there are plenty of broken combinations that can be made with the core creatures on the list. How about an Imp with invisibility and a bow and a bunch of poison arrows? Or give the same imp the wands you were talking about. Give him a bunch of wands or dorje's for things w/o a save. Like Telekinetic thrust and a huge siaghnam. Or just go for a wand of scorching ray or crystal shard. Shoot, the little guy flies with wings, perhaps you can just give him the Harvester's AMF staff and have him fly around blocking your opponent's magic items and spells but not you own. No matter what you choose, core or not, there's going to be options that are seriously powerful if you build for it. The lantern archon doesn't strike me as being obviously better than all the rest in every situation. Nor does the choker. Honestly the Magmin or Arrowhawk don't look all that scary either depending on the ECL you are at. I like Vath's idea of putting some of these options at higher levels.
TheMagister 04-09-07, 06:02 PM	It's the cumulative effect, Z. MCaE = +2 AC and Saves. AoM = -2 opponents attacks, saves, skills, ability checks, etc. Aid = +1 to hit, temp hp. ----------------------- +1 to hit, +4 (effective) AC increase vs. that opponent, +4 (effective) saves vs. that opponent (their spells are "abilites", and a +5 vs. fear), extra HP. THEN you think about the 2d6/round that negates bypasses all DR and the rapid scouting (teleport). That's what I'm talking about. And what you're talking about. We're all talking about the same thing. :) I'll stop agreeing with you now. :D
McJarvis 04-09-07, 06:13 PM	During my drive home I remembered the "archons can't really use equipment" and decided that they should be allowed. [though perhaps at a restricted level?] Chokers, however, shouldn't be. They're already almost #1 on the list of critters to polymorph into(with metamorphic transfer), which in my book makes them an obvious choice for being overpowered. As mentioned by many posters, familiars using wands//items is powerful as is, I fail to see how that's an argument that one of them being able to use wands/items twice a round is balanced. [IMO-> the choker would essentially be a "two in one" familiar then.]]
Rauul 04-09-07, 06:44 PM	If I had the choice, I'd take mephits off the list as well. They are clearly better than all the rest by leaps and bounds. Their humanoid shape allows them to use all kinds of equipment, flight, the Summon ability, breath weapons, fast healing, elemental damage on claw attacks, DR, spell like abilities and elemental immunities. problem with taking mephit off the list is that in Core the ice mephit is already on the list.. I thought it was ruled a while back that Familiars can't summon.. (thats why i crossed the ability off on gravedigger) They can use any weapon (tiny, small sized, Earth can use med sized with there ability to go med sized) They can not use any armor.. thier fast healing is very restricted.. other than Air and maybe Ice they can't fast heal without special help means (magma could heal in the temple).. thier breathe weapon is different the standard on is just 1d8 with a reflex save.. the non standard ones like Ice, magma, ooze, breathe weapons are IMHO to powerful, Living creatures that fail their saves are tormented by itching skin and burning eyes. This effect imposes a -4 penalty to AC and a -2 penalty on attack rolls for 3 rounds. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +1 racial bonus. but then thats the one they allow in core rules..
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 03:50 PM	OK, So I propose we add the following which all cost 5 credits to gain access to: CL9 - Archon, Lantern CL9 - Vargouille CL7 - Darkmantle CL7 - All Mephits CL5 - Brain Mole CL5 - Celestial or Fiendish Template on one of the creatures listed below. CL3 - Dire Rat CL3 - Badger CL3 - Dog CL3 - Eagle CL3 - Monkey CL3 - Snake, Small Viper CL3 - Giant Fire Beetle CL3 - Small Monstrous Centipede CL3 - Small Monstrous Scorpion CL3 - Small Monstrous Spider Can we gets some votes yea or nay?
TelinArtho 04-10-07, 03:53 PM	I could say yea on all of those as long as 5 credits were required to attain any of the new selections (so Ice mephit is free, earth mephit requires approval, etc).
Zevox 04-10-07, 03:56 PM	I'm no Elder, but I'd personally say we should still disallow the Vargouille. Unlimited use paralysis effects are a very, very bad idea to allow IMHO. Otherwise, I'd tentatively be willing to accept it, though I'm still hesitant about the Archon. Zevox
hogarth 04-10-07, 03:59 PM	Can we gets some votes yea or nay? Nay: Lantern Archon, Vargouille Yea: Everything else except for Brain Mole Proposed Amendments: Change Brain Mole to level 7, maybe add Lemure (level 5) and Dretch (level 7)
McJarvis 04-10-07, 03:59 PM	I think it would be fair to add a requirement of being psionic to the psionic ones, but it wouldn't be necessary(just would make alot of sense RP wise) I'll put my vote in for yes on the whole list, though. [Telins idea of requiring credits is good as well]
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 04:10 PM	I'm no Elder, but I'd personally say we should still disallow the Vargouille. Unlimited use paralysis effects are a very, very bad idea to allow IMHO. Otherwise, I'd tentatively be willing to accept it, though I'm still hesitant about the Archon. Zevox I'm not worried about it. By the time you get to ECL9 where you could possibly see this, you should be able to handle a sonic mind effecting fear effect with a fort save DC 12. If you make the save, you're immune for the rest of the battle. So basicialy the ability can be used 1/battle. If you are failing a DC12 check, then you've got some bad luck or more serious problems when the caster hits you with a fort save blindness spell or polymorph or phantasmal killer. Coupled with the fact that this creature's body shape basically prevents most magic item use, and it looks similar to the Lantern Archon.
Zevox 04-10-07, 04:15 PM	Nay: Lantern Archon, Vargouille Yea: Everything else except for Brain Mole Proposed Amendments: Change Brain Mole to level 7, maybe add Lemure (level 5) and Dretch (level 7) Oh, I didn't notice it didn't have the Dretch. I'd add that at level 7 too. Not a Lemure though - they're mindless. Zevox
hogarth 04-10-07, 04:23 PM	Not a Lemure though - they're mindless. A spider/scorpion/centipede is mindless too, and you didn't mind those...
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 04:23 PM	Nay: Lantern Archon, Vargouille Yea: Everything else except for Brain Mole Proposed Amendments: Change Brain Mole to level 7, maybe add Lemure (level 5) and Dretch (level 7) I don't have a problem with the archon or the vargoille. The Lemure is a medium size creature, and I don't think it's mindlessness or size fits the flavor of a familiar very well. The Dretch is a playable race, and I definitely don't think a playable race fits the flavor of a familiar.
hogarth 04-10-07, 04:27 PM	I don't have a problem with the archon or the vargoille. I know you don't, but I do. :D The Lemure is a medium size creature, and I don't think it's mindlessness or size fits the flavor of a familiar very well. The Dretch is a playable race, and I definitely don't think a playable race fits the flavor of a familiar. The lemure is so lousy that I doubt anyone would take it. Note that spiders/centipedes/scorpions are mindless too, and you don't have a problem with those. Presumably the familiar version would have an intelligence score, however. The dretch is so outclassed by the imp or quasit (not to mention mephits) that it's not even funny! I'm not sure why you don't like it.
Zevox 04-10-07, 04:31 PM	A spider/scorpion/centipede is mindless too, and you didn't mind those... Forgot those were such; aye, I'd say take them out too then. The Dretch is a playable race, and I definitely don't think a playable race fits the flavor of a familiar. So are Mephits - we allow races that have cohort LAs as PC races here. LLMC had an Air Mephit character a while back I recall, and Macbrea currently has a Worg character (Razorfang). Zevox
Macbrea 04-10-07, 04:37 PM	The line in the Allies II thread related to Cohort races states: "While these races are cohort-only, if you really have your heart set on playing one as a character, it will usually be allowed. Note, though, that these races were labeled cohort-only for a reason; playing them as PCs usually involves unusual challenges. Playing one of these races as a PC is only recommended if you're experienced in the workings of the Core Coliseum." ~~ Allies II Which says if your really want to play one and are an experience player we don't really have a problem with you playing them. Just know that they are not very powerful. :P
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 04:39 PM	With the exception of the mephit, all familiars are small quadrupeds or smaller, and are not playable races. If we make familiars larger creatures, and able to wield equipment, they are very very similar to cohorts. Also the ability to equip them makes them vastly more capable of being dangerous. A special ability with a fixed save DC isn't scary, especially not when the creature is 7 or more CR below your current ECL. A vargoille or lantern archon will never be able to wield a wand or use an expendable or even wear equipment. To preserve the flavor of a familiar, yet provide for some more diversity of potential familiars, I think we should exclude all playable races and medium bipeds but not discriminate against racial abilities with limited uses per day and/or very low save DC.
hogarth 04-10-07, 04:41 PM	With the exception of the mephit, all familiars are small quadrupeds or smaller, and are not playable races. If we make familiars larger creatures, and able to wield equipment, they are very very similar to cohorts. Since when are imps, homunculi, and quasits quadrupeds? And unable to wield equipment?
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 04:43 PM	Since when are imps, homunculi, and quasits quadrupeds and unable to wield equipment? I didn't say that. A medium creature who's able to wield weapons is a more serious melee presence. I don't think the flavor of familiar's should go their.
McJarvis 04-10-07, 04:44 PM	With the exception of the mephit, all familiars are small quadrupeds or smaller, and are not playable races. I don't have my books with me at work, but in the Complete Warrior there are many examples of imp. familiars that are medium sized to large sized. I'll post the chart when I get home.
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 04:45 PM	I was trying to say that if the familiar is a biped, then it's smaller than small size. Imps, Quasits and Homunculi are all tiny creatures. That makes them almost useless as melee creatures since they have no reach even if they wield a weapon.
Macbrea 04-10-07, 04:45 PM	Since, we are changing items in the allies section of the Rules. Is it possible to change the following write-up to not include summoned during the match monsters? Spells, Powers, and Abilities: Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc) or Abilities (Rebuke undead, etc) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. These allies will always require a share of your XP and gold, and on top of that the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, Because, currently how the rules to summons spells are written by the Allies I post. You should be limited to MaxCA and be charged for casting monster summons I spells.
Zevox 04-10-07, 04:46 PM	With the exception of the mephit, all familiars are small quadrupeds or smaller, and are not playable races. If we make familiars larger creatures, and able to wield equipment, they are very very similar to cohorts. As hogarth said, Imps and Quasits aren't quadrupeds and can wield equipment. Some elementals (definitely earth, arguably air and water) can as well. And remember, these are Improved familiars we're talking about. You're paying a feat to get access to them and have to be a specific level to get them, which is close to the requirements for Leadership already (just lacks the "score" mechanic), and they don't provide the effective skill focus benefit that normal familiar give. I'd say allowing a Dretch is a perfectly reasonable option. Its outclassed by Imps, Quasits, and Lantern Archons (and arguably other options depending on your ideas) anyway. Zevox
hogarth 04-10-07, 04:48 PM	I didn't say that. :confused: Did you mean to say: "With the exception of the mephit, all tool-using familiars are size Tiny" or something like that?
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 05:33 PM	:confused: Did you mean to say: "With the exception of the mephit, all tool-using familiars are size Tiny" or something like that? Yea that's the jist. It has to do with reach and tool use. If you're tiny, then you have no reach, and you have to deal with having almost no damage output. Also it makes it more difficult for you to be able to deliver touch attacks (a major function of familiars). Those on the improved familiars list which are tiny and tool users instead have some other offensive abilities that make them "improved". If you're small, then you have reach. With the exception of the mephit, all the small sized familiars are not tool users. Being small with a natural attack allows you to be better at delivering touch attacks. This is a major part of how these creatures are "improved" over a normal familiar. Most of those on the improved familiars list also have a handful of various immunities or resistances thrown in as well. When I read over the options available I see that familiars are servants. They are not servant boys, or physical equals, or cohorts. They are servant animals or servant creatures. That's why I want to avoid playable races and anything that's a tool user of small size or greater. Those are my reasons. You may or may not agree with them, but they form a guideline that was used to create the list above. Now let's see if MWB or NiQil can get behind this, so we can move on to other things.